I move:
That the House expresses its deep regret at the death on 24 May 2006, of the Honourable John Murray Wheeldon, former Federal Minister and Senator for Western Australia and places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
John Wheeldon was born on 9 August 1929 in Subiaco, Western Australia. He attended the esteemed Perth Modern School and later the University of Western Australia. After graduating in arts and law, he went on to practise as a solicitor and around this time John Wheeldon’s political life began in his role as President of the Western Australian Young Liberals. John Wheeldon was elected senator for Western Australia in 1965, representing the Australian Labor Party, and he remained in the Senate as a Labor Party senator until 1981. John Wheeldon had a deep and abiding interest in, and extensive knowledge of, international affairs. He was a very fierce opponent of the Vietnam War from very early on. He visited North Vietnam in the mid-1960s when the war was at its height and in 1967 he visited the United States, campaigning against the war in Vietnam. In parliament he served as a member and chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee and the joint committees on foreign affairs and defence matters. John Wheeldon was a minister in the Whitlam government as Minister for Repatriation and Compensation from 1974 to 1975 and later, in 1975, he also took over the ministry of Social Security. Later, as a member of the opposition shadow ministry, in 1976 he was spokesman on repatriation, compensation, media and films.
John Wheeldon believed his greatest achievement in parliament was his involvement in a report on human rights in the Soviet Union which gave exposure to a range of significant humanitarian issues. In his last year in parliament he was made Parliamentary Adviser to the United Nations General Assembly in New York. After he left the Senate, John Wheeldon was approached by Rupert Murdoch and offered a position on the Australian newspaper. As a senior writer with the Australian, he specialised in foreign affairs and politics and he will be remembered there for his vast knowledge of world politics, his dry and incisive wit and his remarkable writing capacity.
After he left parliament, I got to know John Wheeldon rather better than I had known him when we both served in parliament between 1974 and 1981. He was a very interesting person in a political sense. He commenced membership of a political party as a member of the Liberal Party in Western Australia, he then left the Liberal Party—no doubt in part because of the Vietnam War—and became an active member of the Australian Labor Party. My recollection of him as a member of the Australian Labor Party is that he progressively adhered to some of the more left wing causes in the Australian Labor Party and he found himself in company with the late Dr Jim Cairns and a number of others—the late ‘Diamond Jim’ McClelland and many others—in the Labor Party who held strong views which might broadly be typified, certainly on international relations, as being on the left of the Australian Labor Party.
After he left parliament, I think it is fair to say—and I do not think I do any injustice or reflect inaccurately on his memory—that his views then began to return not all the way but some of the way back to the views that he had held as a younger person. One of the interesting things about John Wheeldon was it was impossible to typecast him. He was a very fierce opponent of the war in Vietnam, he was a prodigious critic of the Soviet Union and the totalitarianism involved, and he was a very fierce opponent of the acquiescence of the Whitlam government, the Fraser government and the Hawke government in the incorporation of East Timor into the Republic of Indonesia. I remember that on one occasion, when I interviewed him for a radio program in the early 1980s, he gave me a memorable blast, collectively speaking, in relation to the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia. So he was not somebody whom you could put in a pigeonhole and say, ‘This is how John Wheeldon would react.’ He was a person who absolutely scorned pomposity and he was—and this is something that endeared him to me very greatly—a fierce and unrelenting critic of political correctness. Some of the more memorable diatribes that I have heard against political correctness were delivered in conversations that I had with John Wheeldon.
His journalistic career brought him into contact with many people who had not previously known him, and he displayed a remarkable intellect. He was somebody whom I grew to like very much when we saw each other in different circumstances after he left parliament. I recall those occasions with great warmth. He was a likeable character. Although I have no first-hand knowledge and nobody in this parliament has first-hand knowledge of 1975, he is reputed to have argued in the federal parliamentary Labor caucus that, when the Senate failed to pass the budget, the then Prime Minister should have immediately advised the holding of an election. That is what the record suggests. As I say, I was not present at that meeting and there is nobody opposite who was present at that meeting, so we will have to accept that as an accurate version of events. If indeed that is true, then he, along with the late Ken Wriedt, displayed remarkable prescience in relation to the events that unfolded in 1975.
He was in every sense of the word an independent intellect. You could not predict him. Although I naturally did not share all of his positions on the issues on which he spoke, he took what can fairly be described as a very intellectually honest position. His great passion was foreign affairs. I remember him as a warm, witty and engaging personality. To his wife, Judith, and his sons, Andrew and James, and his daughter, Miriam, on behalf of the government I extend my deep sympathy and condolences.
I rise to support the condolence motion of the Prime Minister. I knew John Wheeldon extremely well in his time in politics, but knew him less well later. It is one of the profound regrets in my life that it is in the nature of the job we have that we tend to fall out of touch with our friends. I have not been able to see much of him over the last five or six years, and I am the poorer for that.
I cannot begin to describe in this parliament what John Wheeldon was like and who he was, because there is no member of this parliament, in the House or in the Senate, who remotely resembles John Wheeldon. He was a politician of a completely different era, with a completely different standard of intellectual honesty and an absolute determination to be his own man and to speak his own mind. If you had put him in a focus group, you would have seen them completely destroyed within five minutes flat and banging on the doors to get out of the place. If you had told him that he had to confine his remarks to a seven-second grab, he would have boxed your ears. But he was capable of a seven-second grab. I remember him being interviewed by Syd Donovan after our defeat in the 1977 election. Syd, who was then being quite portentous about it all, said, ‘Senator, could you tell us why it is that the Labor Party lost this election?’ to which John Wheeldon replied in a similar tone of voice, ‘I suppose, Syd, that the primary reason was due to an absence of votes.’ He was a great balloon pricker in his time. He was never completely comfortable in parliament, and managed to talk himself out of it thoroughly by the end of it. He said of parliament:
When I first came into the Parliament, like most of us I suppose, being human, I used to achieve a certain small measure of ecstasy at seeing my photograph in a newspaper, even if the story which appeared alongside it consisted of a garbled account of something I had said or an allegation that I had been at a secret meeting plotting the overthrow of the leadership of the Labor Party when I had been in a different city from that in which the meeting took place. In fact, one often achieved a certain thrill at seeing one’s face on a television screen while one was being asked silly questions by a disc jockey with ideas above his station. But as the years pass the charm of that tends to wear off. I remember that at the height of one great controversy, when I think I was being accused of being an agent of the Chinese Communist Party—which some suggest I still am—a near neighbour, a prominent businessman, asked me whether I could take up some matter with Sir Charles Court because he knew that I was a Liberal member of the Legislative Assembly and would undoubtedly have great influence on him.
That quote epitomises the way in which John Wheeldon used to speak. As I said, there was a time in my life when if I saw John each month I would see him each week. I saw a great deal of him. When I started in politics one of my jobs on the state executive of the Labor Party was to make sure there were at least half-a-dozen speakers after John Wheeldon had spoken on every subject, because it would take you that long to wear down the destruction of your arguments by him and have some chance of winning a majority on the state executive.
One of the last things that he did in political life, I suppose, for which I am very grateful, was to vote for me in a preselection. John went through many metamorphoses as a politician. The Prime Minister has referred to his conversion from the Liberal Party to the Labor Party, and that was on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. He believed that the attempt to ban the Communist Party was a direct attack on democratic liberties, which he strongly upheld. He then became a thorough-going and convinced intellectual socialist. He worked in a Fabian Society bookshop in London for a couple of years, and replacing him to work in that Fabian bookshop was Jomo Kenyatta.
John had an extraordinary array of friends internationally. He spoke and read French and German fluently, and if you went into his office there would be French and German magazines all over his desk. There would be English-language papers, but none of them Australian. He had an extraordinarily encyclopaedic comprehension of where the world stood, even if he had a particularly idiosyncratic analysis of it, and many conversions on the road to Damascus. Fierce anticolonialism, picked up in the 1950s, led him to be a strong opponent of the Vietnam War. Then his analysis of human oppression and colonialism led him to be a forthright opponent of the Soviet Union in his later years in politics.
As he went through these various metamorphoses, he did so to the great dissatisfaction of most members of the Labor Party, one way or another, in Western Australia and not a few in the federal parliamentary Labor Party. His career looks quite conventional when you see it on paper, as the Prime Minister read out. He had 16 years in the Senate and a couple of years as a minister. He was a very good minister in his time. I have a note from Graham Edwards, which I should read out. It says:
… though a staunch opponent of the Vietnam War, he had an immense compassion for individual veterans. He helped me and other veterans.
Of course, as Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, he was in a position to do that. He served on many parliamentary committees. He was probably most proud of two of them—though he would have wanted to forget the time when he put in a minority report arguing for the legalisation of the use of marijuana. His last report in parliament was on human rights. It was one of the seminal reports produced by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and I do not think we have bettered it. Unlike these days, he wrote most of the report himself. I will put his conversion in politics in his own words, as I think the words bear a bit of thought:
I have had to make what John Foster Dulles would have called an agonising reappraisal. In my early days, I believed that there were a lot of things wrong with Western society as a result of capitalism. I still think that, but I also believe that those things are just as bad, or worse, in Eastern Bloc countries. I was never enamoured of the Soviet Union and I was one of the most vocal critics in the Senate of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. And my stand against the Vietnam War was not taken out of sympathy for the Soviet Union. But it has become clear to me over the past several years that the Soviet Union is an imperialist power and that the danger it poses is greater than any other dangers. I do not think that the two superpowers are equally culpable for the threat to world peace. For a start, the US is subject to the internal pressure of its society.
Speaking about US bases, he said:
I have changed on that. I believe that the Soviet Union has designs on the rest of us and that the US is the principal obstacle to Soviet expansion. If other countries do not cooperate with the US, the chances of the Soviet Union being successful are increased.
One thing I can say about all the speeches is that absolutely none of them were read. Perhaps his second reading speeches on legislation were read, because it is necessary to do so, but they would have been the only speeches he read in this place. I also strongly suspect that he spoke without notes. I did see a set of notes prepared by John Wheeldon once. There were five words bound in a line—and they were his notes for a half-hour speech. He was an extraordinary performer in that regard. As Jim McClelland, one of his friends, said of him:
Wheeldon was one of the verbal pyrotechnists of the Whitlam era. In full flight in the Senate, speaking entirely without notes in flawless syntax on a subject such as the Vietnam War, his was a hard act to beat.
He was an extraordinary speaker. The Prime Minister had something to say about his attitude on the blocking of supply. I was not a member of the caucus then, so I do not know exactly what John’s position was. But he did say this of the Governor-General of the day, whom he had got to know well:
In my experience, I found him to be less than forthright.
That is about as mild as John ever got. I remember him describing one of my colleagues as ‘having the appearance of a soccer ball with scuffs’. He was not a fellow who, when he concluded speaking, operated on the basis that those about whom he was speaking ought to nevertheless leave the room feeling good about themselves. They invariably left the room feeling extremely bad about themselves and often feeling extremely bad about John. He was a one-off. He was an unusual character. Parliament was richer for having him and poorer when he left it. He did not leave politics. He became an active leader writer for the Australian newspaper. He wrote a great deal and put his encyclopaedic comprehension of foreign policy and politics to very good use. He had enormous affection for his family and for his wife, Judith, who will be grieving terribly today. He said this on his retirement:
I suppose it is pretty young to be voluntarily retiring from parliament, but one isn’t immortal. I am certainly not tired of politics, and it remains my main interest, but for some time I have not been enjoying it. In fact, I am not sure that I have ever enjoyed it really, spending 14 hours a week travelling between Perth and Canberra. I do not like being away from my family for long periods. I do not believe there is any great cause being argued in the federal parliament in which I am sufficiently interested to warrant spending the sort of life I am living.
He fought very hard to get that family. When he sought to bring Judith into this country, the entry was vetoed by ASIO and he was obliged to sit down with John Gorton and persuade him to allow his wife in. His wife’s parents had a background in the Communist Party in the United States. His wife subsequently became the principal of Abbotsleigh. I am not sure whether she is now.
She is retired.
She was a brilliant teacher. When I knew her in Western Australia she was the vice principal of John Curtin High School. When she went to Sydney she shifted to the private sector. I think she was principal of a prominent Jewish school in Sydney for some time before she took up the appointment at Abbotsleigh. She is a marvellous woman. She and John were a wonderful, witty and enormously capable couple together. I extend on behalf of the Australian Labor Party our deepest condolences to Judith; their son, James; and the son and daughter from John’s first marriage, Andrew and Miriam. I will conclude with something which was said in one of his obituaries, which I think puts it far better than I could conceivably do here:
Wheeldon was a man of almost limitless erudition … original … witty … fluent, sagacious … Although originally a man of the Left, and never one for modern economic reform, he wouldn’t sentimentalise the Left or any of its causes … Wheeldon’s brilliance and wit and moral courage will be missed by all who knew him.
I came to know John Wheeldon in the late 1980s, by which time he was a writer and commentator, but he was all the better at that thanks to his experience of parliamentary and ministerial life. He would sometimes lament that, as a member of parliament and minister, he had read millions of newspaper articles but not a single book. It was not true of John Wheeldon, of course, but it was certainly an illustration of his awareness of the danger of drawing down too much on your intellectual capital. He also used to say that, in government, people who had studied issues for years never made decisions and the people who did make decisions tended to have studied them for about five minutes—again, a caricature, nevertheless a revealing one, and a warning against the danger of decision making on the run.
As both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have pointed out, John Wheeldon was something of a political pilgrim. He was a former president of the Western Australian Young Liberals. He was not the only lefty to be a Young Liberal president, but I am told it is not as common these days! By the late 1980s, he certainly was a partisan for good people and for defensible principles and not for any particular party. In my experience his passion was to see people treated humanely—that was his great passion and he was quite pragmatic about how that might best be done. He happened to believe, for instance, that Australia’s role in the independence of East Timor righted a great historical wrong and he thought it was one of the proudest moments in our history.
In 1998, along with Peter Coleman, another distinguished former member of this House, he was prepared to lend his name to a campaign to expose the undemocratic nature of the then One Nation Party. I was particularly touched by the faith he was prepared to place in me in this regard, and I hope it was not misplaced.
In my experience, John Wheeldon was loyal without being blind to people’s faults; he was committed without believing that any particular side had a monopoly on wisdom and virtue; he was ferociously opposed to political correctness in all its forms because he believed it defied commonsense. He was a man of high intelligence, of broad culture and of rare moral courage. There are too few such men in our public life, but certainly he served his country to the best of his ability in parliament and in public advocacy. We rightly honour his life and mourn his passing.
In conclusion, I should point out that he was very sick for several years before his death. He was devotedly nursed throughout that long illness by his wife, Judith, who, as the Leader of the Opposition said, is an absolutely brilliant woman in her own right—a former headmistress of Queenwood School in my electorate and of Abbotsleigh College in Wahroonga. We certainly should honour her as we honour him.
Hear, hear!
It is true, as the previous speakers have said, that John Wheeldon was a politician who defied categorisation—a thinker, a wit, a brilliant speaker and a fierce proponent of human rights whom Bob Carr described as ‘federal parliament’s one true internationalist’. As the Prime Minister and others have said, he was at one time a small ‘l’ liberal. He was a member of the Young Liberals until 1950, when he quit over the Menzies government’s attempt to ban the Communist Party because he felt it offended principles of justice. One example of his cutting sense of humour was when, in his response to the Menzies’ Communist Party Dissolution Bill, he said: ‘It seemed rather fatuous to call itself the Liberal Party and then introduce a bill like that.’
We know that he mixed with people from very diverse backgrounds—whether it was Rupert Murdoch, Bob Santamaria, Jim Cairns or Barry Cohen, and the list goes on. Even though it is a very diverse list, respect for his intellect was extensive. It is certainly the case that he knew what he was talking about on international affairs, politics, literature and history, and, of course, he had the capacity to turn that knowledge into words that shone.
He was a very lucid, aggressive and, as I understand it, memorable speaker in the parliament. I gather he was impatient with imprecise questioning and intellects less capable than his own—which I suggest might include all of us! As the Leader of the Opposition said, he was a fluent speaker of French and German, studied philosophy at Oxford, practised law and brought all of that into the parliament.
As the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, he was responsible for trying to establish a national rehabilitation and compensation scheme. Here is another example of his wit. Apparently, when in opposition, John Wheeldon was known to have joked with his then left-wing colleagues: ‘Whitlam will make us all the minister for repatriation.’ It has been suggested that Gough was being ironic in giving this portfolio to a man who once said: ‘I was too young for World War II, too old for Vietnam and too scared for Korea.’
As others have said, he was a passionate opponent of totalitarianism, whether it was of the Left or the Right. He fought apartheid in South Africa, campaigned against the persecution of Lebanese Christians and fiercely criticised the White Australia policy. As others have mentioned, the very important report of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, which he chaired, made a very significant contribution to exposing human rights abuses in the Soviet Union. We should be very proud of that work.
In short, John Wheeldon cared about the world and Australia’s place in it. He told the Bulletin:
A commitment to democracy and human rights should imbue our view of the world, both because it is morally right and is in our interests.
I must say, working with John must have been, at times, a bewildering experience. His staff told the Age back in 1975:
He can wake in the morning and act like an English social realist philosopher, move into the realms of absurdist humour and finish the day deep in existential thought.
It must have been a task and a half to be one of his staff, but I am sure they learnt an enormous amount as well. To his wife, Judith; his children, Andrew, Miriam and James: our condolences on your loss.
I briefly wish to be associated with the remarks of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the minister for health and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This has been a remarkable condolence motion in the context of the sincerity of views on both sides of the chamber. I had the privilege of serving with John in the parliament from 1973 to 1981. I share the same respect that my colleagues have expressed today. My daughter Caitlin was at Abbotsleigh when Judith was the principal. I was at a function organised by the school upon her retirement to look after John. John was present on that occasion. I have enormous admiration for him and a great deal of admiration for his wife. I think she served in the great tradition of Betty Archdale in influencing many young women who will play leadership roles in the future. I am privileged to be able to be associated with the motion.
Might I add a couple of remarks. I only met John Wheeldon on a couple of occasions, but one will live in my mind forever. It occurred at a time when I was standing for the Labor Party in 1977, a failed venture into politics as a very young man. I attended a meeting at which Wheeldon was a speaker. He was a small man, who sat curled up with a cigarette smoking between his fingers, in the days when that was possible in public halls. He looked quite insignificant until he rose. He spoke without notes, and he spoke in such a manner that it captivated everybody in that room. And although we only saw him for a short phase in public life as a minister, he also had carriage of one of those great issues of public policy that the Whitlam government put forward and sadly was not implemented—a national compensation scheme, which Whitlam, in his later book recounting his political triumphs and failures, says was his greatest sadness that he was not able to see come into effect. It remains unfinished business for us, when we contemplate the fact that we still have circumstances where persons injured in various different walks of life find themselves without adequate recourse or compensation.
A life like John Wheeldon’s is one that touches many people in many different ways, which has been evidenced by the tributes that have been paid from both sides of this House. As someone who had a tangential relationship with John, difficult though he is said to have been, I remember the speech that he gave on that occasion as probably the most vivid explanation of the agenda of the Whitlam government that I was ever privileged to have heard. Those who were fortunate enough—and, sadly, now as I reflect, old enough—to have been part of that generation and to have seen any aspect of it will never forget his like.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
The Manager of Opposition Business requested that I check the circumstances in which a number of members may have entered the chamber after I ordered the doors to be locked but before the doors were actually closed last Thursday.
Inquiries have been made about the circumstances in which some members entered the chamber in the division in question. While the staff act in accordance with my directions, they do not attempt to physically obstruct members in the process of closing the doors. If a member is in the course of entering the chamber when the direction to lock the doors is given, the staff will not take any action that will risk injury to a member. The options available to staff are limited even more when there are a number of members lining up at the restricted entry points to the chamber.
If members enter before the doors are closed, they are entitled to proceed to a point in the chamber where their vote will be counted, provided they reach that point before tellers are appointed. Members are not entitled to reopen closed doors. Based on the advice I have received, I do not propose to approach any members about withdrawing their votes. In recognition of the need to protect the integrity of the voting process, I ask all members to maintain their awareness of proceedings and, in particular, of division requirements. I have also asked the Serjeant-at-Arms to monitor the entry of members for divisions and to report back to me if there are any persistent problems that need to be addressed.
The Manager of Opposition Business also asked whether a motion of closure of a member was valid in light of the terms in which it was moved. Given the withdrawals by the Leader of the House, the motion was a valid motion. I also note that the House endorsed the ruling by the Deputy Speaker to this effect, by negativing the motion of dissent from that ruling.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that, in March this year, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Peter McGauran, endorsed work by industry group Single Vision, which was investigating alternatives to the single desk for export wheat? Did this work include modelling by the Centre for International Economics, a known opponent of the single desk? Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that he only became aware of this work weeks after it commenced and just days before it was revealed in the media? Isn’t it the case that, while the Deputy Prime Minister was out in regional Australia defending the single desk, his National Party colleague was undermining him and the single desk? Deputy Prime Minister, don’t your colleagues tell you anything?
The answer to the Leader of the Opposition’s question, at the end of it, is no. I am aware of the work that the Leader of the Opposition has been referring to. I am not aware that it was instigated or endorsed by the minister for agriculture. I understand that it had been instigated by the GRDC—the Grains Research and Development Corporation—which is an independent body. The Leader of the Opposition would be well aware of the background to that. At the moment a number of elements of research are being done into the grains industry and the future of the grains industry that we are well aware of.
As far as undermining my position, the government’s position and the single desk today is concerned, the answer to that question is no. It is not undermining the position that I have taken when speaking at public meetings and the government’s position today with regard to support of the single desk and looking after the interests of Australia’s wheat growers.
My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House of the status of negotiations to secure the supply of wheat to Iraq?
I thank the honourable member for Riverina for her question. The member for Riverina will be pleased to be able to inform the wheat growers in Junee, Illabo, Temora and Cootamundra in her electorate that today Wheat Australia have announced that they have concluded a commercially acceptable deal to sell 350,000 tonnes of wheat to the IGB in Iraq. This is good news for Australian wheat growers and good news for the trade relationship between Australia and Iraq.
I think all members of the House would be aware of the history of this deal. It has had a bit of rough time at times over the last few weeks in its development and negotiation. Even early last week it looked as though it was not going to go ahead. I acknowledge the tenacity of Wheat Australia in sticking with the negotiations and achieving this very important outcome for Australia’s wheat growers.
Earlier this year, the Iraqi government indicated that they were going to set aside their commercial relationship with the AWB during the Cole inquiry—and that was a reasonable course of action for them to take. Following that, I took a trip to Iraq, and in Baghdad I met with the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Ahmad Chalabi, to seek access to that market and for Australian entities to negotiate in the tendering process for wheat. He indicated to me that he would agree that Australian entities could participate in the tender that was opened at the time and that we could tender for 350,000 tonnes of wheat. Wheat Australia has been participating since then in these negotiations to this very successful conclusion with the agreement today. Wheat Australia has announced today that it will be moving ahead with that.
It was interesting, as an aside, that last week, while I was overseas representing Australia in WTO negotiations and discussions, the member for Griffith was criticising me here in Australia for being over there negotiating multilateral agreements that the Australian Labor Party wholeheartedly support. He said: ‘Oh, he shouldn’t be over there. He should be flying to Baghdad to fix this up.’ What the member for Griffith does not realise is that the telephones still work in Baghdad. Three days beforehand, I was talking to Dr Chalabi about these issues. So we were sorting them out. When the member for Griffith was criticising me here in Australia, we were sorting the problems out with this deal.
Today in their announcement of the 350,000 tonnes sale of wheat, Wheat Australia congratulated the federal government and thanked it for its support. They said:
With commercial terms now agreed, it is also appropriate that Wheat Australia acknowledge the federal government for their efforts in securing this opportunity for Australian growers to tender for the supply of wheat into Iraq.
The market is open. They will have the opportunity to compete in further tenders. And we fully expect that they will.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Bruce Cowan, a former member for Lyne. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the government is currently reviewing import risk analysis arrangements for mushroom imports? Will the fact that his National Party colleagues and, in particular, the member for Maranoa, keep him in the dark and feed him fertiliser influence the outcome of this review?
I will call the Deputy Prime Minister to answer the first part of that question. I believe the second part contained ironical expressions, so it is not necessary for him to answer it.
The honourable member’s question was about Australia’s import risk analysis process. My understanding is that there are about 118 import risk analysis processes under way today. Our government and our party are committed to ensuring that the environment of Australia stays free of exotic pests and diseases to keep safe our agriculture and the food products we export to the world.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what is the government doing to protect the Australian character of the Snowy?
I thank the honourable member for Gilmore who, along with the honourable member for Eden-Monaro and the Special Minister of State and a number of other members on this side of the House, including the member for Riverina and one or two on the other side of the House—or on the cross benches at least—have expressed some concerns about this issue. If we are interested in analysing what it is all about, we should recall that the decision of the New South Wales government to sell its 58 per cent ownership of the Snowy really decided what was going to happen. The Commonwealth holds 13 per cent, the New South Wales government 58 per cent and the remainder is held by the Victorian government. I note also that, when the resolution to approve the sale of the federal government’s 13 per cent was presented to the parliament, the Labor Party in opposition supported that resolution. I note also that as recently as last Friday the Leader of the Opposition reaffirmed the support of the federal parliamentary Labor Party for the sale of the Snowy.
As I indicated to parliament last week, we support the sale of the Commonwealth’s 13 per cent share in the Snowy Hydro for three reasons. Firstly, with New South Wales as the majority shareholder, with 58 per cent of the company, having announced that they were going to sell, there was little point in the Commonwealth holding on to our minority 13 per cent, unless we were going to use budget funds to buy out the New South Wales government share, and we took the decision that that would not have been a good use of those budget funds. Secondly, the water needs of downstream users and the environment are fully protected by the current water licensing regime. There is a common belief, which is mistaken, that the water is owned by the company—it is not. It is owned by the public via the New South Wales government and is made available by a 75-year licence. Thirdly, we believe that the private sector is better at running private businesses than the government.
I am aware that the member for Gilmore, the member for Eden-Monaro in particular, and a number of other members of this House are concerned about the potential for foreign ownership of the Snowy Hydro. As a result, as I foreshadowed last week, the government has considered and decided to introduce into legislation measures to implement foreign ownership caps and other Australian protections in relation to Snowy Hydro Ltd. This is fully consistent with the approach we have taken in relation to entities such as Telstra and Qantas. The government will introduce legislation in June that imposes the following permanent restrictions on Snowy Hydro Ltd. Firstly, no foreign individual or company will be permitted to own greater than 15 per cent of Snowy Hydro. Secondly, foreign ownership in total will not be permitted to exceed 35 per cent of the company. Thirdly, the head office of the company must remain in Australia and be located in Cooma. Fourthly, Snowy Hydro Ltd must maintain a substantial business and operational presence in Australia. Fifthly, at least two-thirds of the directors of the board of Snowy Hydro and the chairman of any meeting of the board and shareholders must also be Australian citizens. Finally, Snowy Hydro Ltd must remain incorporated in Australia.
The New South Wales and Victorian governments have indicated that they will support this Commonwealth legislation. We will seek to have the legislation debated and passed by the end of June 2006. This would allow the sale to proceed about the middle of this year. In addition, the selling governments have already proposed to the ASX that a 10 per cent limit on any individual, domestic or foreign shareholding be placed in Snowy Hydro’s constitution for at least four years to ensure an appropriate spread of ownership. The three selling governments will continue to seek approval for this proposal from the ASX.
I know there will be those who will continue to oppose any sale of Snowy Hydro, but with the protection for water users and the protections on foreign ownership I believe that we can proceed with the sale confident that the Australian community can only benefit from the sale. Again, I record my thanks to the member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Gilmore and the member for Riverina in particular for the very effective and thoughtful campaign they have brought to bear on this difficult but important issue. The outcome reflects great credit on their advocacy.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Spotlight 2c an hour AWA which would see Mrs Annette Harris lose $90 a week in take-home pay. Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement on ABC radio on Saturday by Mrs Harris:
“I thought John Howard was just Prince Charming ...
“But ... after what’s happened and his arrogant attitude in Parliament—it’s just left me cold ...
“I’d like him to come and walk in my shoes for a day and see what I actually do as a mother and as a worker and then coming home every night.
“I don’t have people serving me for $14.28 an hour, I’ve got to do all that myself.”
When will the Prime Minister go to Coffs Harbour and personally explain to Mrs Harris how her losing $90 a week is fair?
The answer to the first part of the question is no, I was not. Obviously, like any other person in public life, if somebody thinks poorly of decisions with which I am associated, that is a matter for personal regret. My attention having been drawn to what the lady has had to say, I can only make the observation, as I did last week, that the interesting piece of information, which may be of passing interest to the Leader of the Opposition and to other members of this parliament, is that Spotlight has, as many people in the House know, recently opened a new outlet in Mount Druitt. Mount Druitt, unlike many other parts of Sydney, still suffers from an unacceptably high level of unemployment.
Opposition members interjecting—
It is very interesting: the crescendo rises whenever you talk about unemployment and workplace relations. There are 40 people, I am told, who have been engaged—
Ms Macklin interjecting
I can hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—‘90 dollars’ she is saying. Spotlight has, I am told, opened a new store at Mount Druitt in Western Sydney. The unemployment rate in Mount Druitt is over 10 per cent. I am further informed that 38 of the 40 new staff employed on AWAs in Spotlight at Mount Druitt in Western Sydney were previously unemployed. In other words, there are 38 people who are better off. The piercing voice of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition keeps saying ‘90 dollars’—
Ms Macklin interjecting
Ms King interjecting
The member for Ballarat is warned!
It is not actually $90; it is $338.10, because that is the difference between the amount a job seeker on the unemployment benefit of $205.30 a week receives and the amount that they will receive under a Spotlight AWA of $543.40 a week. Like my friend Tony Blair, I believe fairness in the workplace starts with the chance of a job. As a result of our policy, 38 people in Mount Druitt have been given the chance of a job and they are $338 a week better off.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister advise the House of further developments in East Timor?
I thank the honourable member for Solomon for his interest in this issue. I think all of us would agree that we welcome the advice from the Australian Defence Force that they are making significant progress in restoring peace to Dili, in particular, in East Timor. The situation there is obviously getting better. There is still a high level of tension and there are still reports today of confrontation—this time between gangs. So there is work to be done, but I think the Australian Defence Force are showing their characteristic professionalism in doing the job and doing it in the way they know best.
I also note the arrival yesterday of 46 Australian Federal Police officers. Amongst the tasks I hope they will be able to undertake is to assist with the investigation into the atrocious killing of nine unarmed members of the East Timor police force last week. This was an appalling and brutal act. I think if Australia can make a good contribution to the investigation that will be something that all Australians will warmly welcome.
We are also pleased that the Council of State chaired by President Xanana Gusmao has been meeting and dialogue is under way to try to resolve what are clearly political differences between a number of the leaders in East Timor. I am also pleased to note that Ian Martin, who will be well known to quite a few people in this House as the special envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has arrived in Dili and is having discussions with President Gusmao and others. Also, he will be meeting Brigadier Slater, the Australian commander in East Timor, this afternoon.
The restoration of stability is certainly helping to ease the humanitarian situation. The staff of our embassy have visited all the major centres in Dili where internally displaced people are currently located. They have assessed that the people who are internally displaced have access to clean drinking water and food, the conditions are not cramped and medical issues are not a major problem. I want to emphasise that. I think organisations like the Red Cross are doing very well to help those people.
The Australian military has contributed greatly to easing the humanitarian situation in East Timor. Because of the contribution to the restoration of stability by the Australian Defence Force, there is now delivery of food and water to displaced Timorese. Brigadier Slater is doing an outstanding job in East Timor and I think the House should be proud of the work he and his soldiers are doing there. As he said this morning, ‘The sooner we get the guns off the street, the easier it will be for the aid agencies. The humanitarian situation is not that bad. It will get bad if we do not get security sorted out first.’
That sentiment has been pretty much replicated by the Secretary-General’s special representative, Mr Hasegawa, who was reported today as saying, ‘We have been able to step up our efforts to meet the most pressing food and water needs of the people displaced from their homes in Dili. The improved security situation and direct support of the Australian military forces where possible have greatly assisted this process.’ I just want to emphasise that. The humanitarian situation is being addressed. A lot of the problems are not as great as they have been portrayed from time to time. I think the Australian Defence Force is doing a simply outstanding job. I call on all commentators to let our experienced military and hardworking professionals just get on with their jobs.
My question is again to the Prime Minister and is about the Spotlight 2c an hour AWA which would see Mrs Annette Harris lose $90 a week in take-home pay. I ask whether the Prime Minister has seen the statement by Mrs Harris in this week’s Coffs Coast Advocate:
How dare he—
that is the Prime Minister—
make comments like that sitting in his ivory tower ... Without us, the workers, you haven’t got a job, without us you haven’t got an economy.
When will the Prime Minister go to Coffs Harbour and explain to Mrs Harris how cutting the take-home pay of hardworking employees like Mrs Harris helps our economy?
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. All members will put those posters down immediately. The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I asked the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat before he had completed his question. I will give him the opportunity to finish his question, but he will not display that poster again. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
When will the Prime Minister go to Coffs Harbour and explain to Mrs Harris how cutting the take-home pay of hardworking employees like Mrs Harris helps our economy?
Opposition members interjecting—
If those posters are displayed again, I will take action.
I have repeatedly said that the strength of the Australian economy is due to the efforts of the working men and women of this country. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that the working men and women of Australia have been more adequately rewarded for their efforts under this government than they were under the former Labor government. The last person in this parliament who can speak with pride about rewarding the ordinary working men and women of this country is the former Deputy Prime Minister in the Keating government because, as those who follow these matters will know, real wages under this government have increased by 16.8 per cent over the last 10 years compared to a paltry increase of only 1.3 per cent under Labor. In relation to Mrs Annette Harris, I am informed that she exercised her right to reject the AWA and remains employed as a part-time employee on the relevant award after refusing to accept the AWA.
My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the latest data on the Australian economy? What does it indicate about its strengths and how does it compare with other developed countries around the world?
I thank the honourable member for Hasluck for his question and acknowledge his interest in national economic matters. Retail trade figures released today for April 2006 showed that retail trade rose 1.4 per cent for the month and is 7.4 per cent higher through the year. They were unexpectedly high figures, which show robust consumer growth in retail trade. Conversely, building approvals released for the month of April fell 3.4 per cent and are down 7.5 per cent for the year. That shows us that housing most probably will continue to detract from growth through the course of 2006-07.
An OECD outlook was recently released which forecast Australia’s calendar growth for 2007 at 3.7 per cent compared to the rest of the OECD at 2.9 per cent. That shows that Australia again will be picking up in 2007, outpacing most of the developed world—indeed, as we have outpaced most of the developed world over the last 10 years. Growth in Australia over the last 10 years has averaged 3.6 per cent compared to the OECD average of 2.7 per cent. We have an Australian economy which has outpaced the developed world and which is forecast in 2007 to do the same again. Importantly, the OECD says that only 10 of 28 countries in the OECD are expected to balance their budgets in 2007. Of course, one of those is Australia, which will be running the ninth surplus budget in the 11 budgets since this government was elected.
As we know, the Commonwealth is forecasting a surplus budget of one per cent of GDP in 2006-07. Unfortunately, the states are not forecasting budget surpluses either in 2005-06 or in 2006-07. Cumulatively, state and local governments are running deficits of 0.5 per cent and 0.6 per cent of GDP in those successive years.
If it were not for the Commonwealth government running a budget surplus which outweighs the combined position of the state and local government sectors, government would not be adding to saving in this country. As we know, with strong business investment, business is running down savings. As we also know, the household sector is not saving either. This is the importance of good strong economic management. We are now in the longest period of continuous growth in Australia’s history after 10 years of this government, and keeping the fiscal position in the strong position that it is is a very big part of that. We fought to get the budget back into surplus against the opposition of the Labor Party and we need to fight for good economic management in the future.
My question is also to the Prime Minister. I refer to Senate estimates hearings last night where the spotlight was on AWAs and the Office of the Employment Advocate. Isn’t it the case that, of the sample 6,263 AWAs lodged with the Office of the Employment Advocate since the commencement of the government’s industrial relations legislation, 100 per cent—all of them—excluded at least one protected award condition, 64 per cent removed leave loadings, 63 per cent removed penalty rates, 52 per cent removed shift work loadings and 16 per cent excluded all award conditions? Isn’t this just what the government’s legislation causes and wants—a 2c an hour race to the bottom?
No, and what the member for Perth did not acknowledge is that the same information that was provided in the Senate last night indicated that 78 per cent of the sample agreements provided for a wage increase during the life of the agreement and, in 84 per cent of the agreements sampled, the wages were greater than the comparable standard rate, which is the hourly rate of the award.
That’s what Spotlight did to Mrs Harris.
Order! The member for Perth is warned!
My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister update the House on the progress of Australian Defence Force operations in East Timor?
I thank the member for Herbert—a very strong advocate for 3rd Brigade in Townsville—for his question. I join with the member for Herbert, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the parliament and the Australian people in congratulating its commanding officer, Brigadier Mick Slater, for the outstanding job that he and his men are doing in East Timor. It is extremely important that Brigadier Slater have full responsibility for making all of the decisions that need to be made in prioritising the activities and functions of our Defence Force in East Timor.
This morning Brigadier Slater said that Dili is a different place from what it was three days ago, that there is no gunfire in the city or in the foothills and that there are many people in Dili who are going about their business. That is not to say that Dili or East Timor are safe places, but they are safer. It is worth remembering that 2½ weeks ago the Australian government prepositioned the Defence Force in anticipation that a request may come from the East Timorese government to provide military assistance to bring peace and order to the country. That request arrived late last Wednesday and by Thursday afternoon the first element of Australian Defence Force troops arrived at Dili airport to secure it. All of the 1,300 Defence Force personnel were fully deployed yesterday in East Timor.
It is worth also remembering that the day that the request arrived there were raging gun battles in the streets of Dili with the heinous murder of innocent unarmed police officers. There were also armed civilians. From that period we have now gone to an environment where we still see relatively stable, if not declining, evidence of rogue criminal gang related activity in the streets of Dili. It remains a dangerous place, but it is safer than it was and it is safer because of the actions of the Australian Defence Force.
In the last two days 450 weapons have been removed from thugs and gangs on the streets of Dili. Those weapons include high-powered rifles, handguns, shotguns, grenades, machetes and a whole variety of implements that have been used by these gangs. In the last 24 hours, 160 East Timorese police have voluntarily returned to their headquarters and their academy and 260 weapons have been handed in by them. The East Timorese army has now gone back to its barracks quite cooperatively, and at the moment the detention arrangements have been settled for the Australian Defence Force. Those who are suspected of having committed a serious crime or who are detected in the process of committing it are being detained. A well-developed framework to monitor every stage of that process has been agreed. A detention management team, including military police and Australian Defence Force lawyers, has worked with the East Timorese authorities. Again, on behalf of the House and the Australian people, I thank and I congratulate the Australian Defence Force. The task ahead remains far from complete, but human life in East Timor is much safer today than it was a week ago.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that 260 Australian workers at the Teys Bros meatworks in Naracoorte, South Australia, have had their employment reduced to four days a week, with a reduction in pay, because of a shortage of stock?
Government members interjecting—
Order! Members on my right! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call and will be heard.
Is the Prime Minister also aware that overseas workers brought in on temporary 457 visas are being given enough slaughter work, and extra work such as night cleaning, to get them a full working week in order to meet their visa requirements? Can the Prime Minister explain to Naracoorte’s local workers why the Howard government’s temporary visa scheme provides an incentive for employers to stand down or lay off Australian workers first while providing greater job security to temporary workers from overseas?
Dr Southcott interjecting
Order! The member for Boothby is warned!
In reply to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, no, I am not personally aware of this.
Is it fair?
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects, ‘Is it fair?’ From long experience, I like to check the facts. I will do that and, when I have done so, I will have something further to say about the matter.
My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House the extent of the tax cuts announced in the budget? How will these help families and keep the country competitive?
I thank the honourable member for Bonner for his question, and I congratulate him on what a great job he is doing as the member for Bonner. This government introduced the largest income tax cuts in Australia’s history in 2000. Since introducing the largest income tax cuts in Australian history in 2000, this government has cut tax in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. As a consequence of those tax cuts, you will now be on a 15c rate between $6,000 and $25,000, you will be on a 30c rate between $25,000 and $70,000, you will be on a 40c rate between $75,000 and $150,000, and you will be on the top rate of 45 per cent only on each dollar over $150,000. Under the Labor Party, between $20,000 and $50,000, you faced rates of 33c, 43c and 47c compared with 30c under this government. Indeed, many of us remember that the last tax cut that the Labor Party promised did not even survive—did I say ‘promise’; no, it was L-A-W—the 1993 election.
As a consequence of this, since 1995-96 reductions in tax and growth in real wages have increased the real disposable income of the average individual earner by 17.8 per cent. That is 17.8 per cent as a consequence of tax cuts and increases in real disposable income. The consequence of that is that average wage earners in Australia are far better off under a coalition government than they ever were under the Labor Party. Not only have real wages gone up but taxes have come down. When you put that together with the increase in family allowances, families are doing even better.
I am very pleased that the member for Grayndler is showing the government his best side—an old tactic but a good one, to stand up and pretend you are not interested when you are getting a barb because your government did not do anything for real wage earners, did not do anything for income tax and stands condemned by the Australian people as a consequence. The moral of this is as follows: the coalition stands for average workers in Australia. It is under a coalition government that their wages have gone up. The coalition government stands for average wage earners when it comes to tax, and average wage earners will always be better off under a coalition government than under a Labor government.
My question is to the Prime Minister and leader of the ‘Old Liberals’.
Order! The member for New England will get straight to his question.
Opposition members interjecting—
Given that the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian governments have announced that they now plan to introduce legislation that imposes so-called permanent restrictions on Snowy Hydro Ltd relating to foreign ownership and the structure of the board, could the Prime Minister explain what capacity this parliament has to bind future parliaments on these guarantees? Is it not a fact that the so-called permanent restrictions on the future of Snowy Hydro can be amended or repealed at any time by any future parliament?
It will be no surprise to the member for New England, as a member of both the New South Wales and federal parliaments, to be reminded of the doctrine that no one parliament can bind the actions of a future parliament. Self-evidently, anything passed by this parliament can be repealed by a future parliament. Indeed, I even recall examples in the past: so certain was one government that tax reductions it might implement in one parliament were going to be repealed by another parliament it decided not to introduce the promised tax cuts in the first place.
Can I say to the member for New England: he has given a description of the so-called permanent restrictions. That is a description that the member for New England has employed. We are going to legislate and I would not expect a future parliament to repeal that legislation, particularly as the only party that is ever likely to form a government in this parliament other than the coalition is the Labor Party and the Labor Party is committed on this issue to the same policy as the government. I think the likelihood of it being repealed in the future is very remote, and the member for New England knows it.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the government’s response to the recent earthquake that struck Indonesia?
I thank the member for Pearce for her question and her interest. The latest official estimate of the death toll from the earthquake near Yogyakarta is 5,136. Injuries are estimated at 20,000 and up to 200,000 people are now in need of shelter as a result of 60,000 homes being destroyed. This is a major disaster. The Australian government will now provide $7½ million for critical humanitarian assistance to the survivors of the earthquake, and as part of this we will send supplies and over 80 experts to Yogyakarta urgently to assist with the relief and recovery effort.
An Australian medical team of 27 medical and surgical personnel, all coming from New South Wales, is going to depart for Indonesia today to join with the AusAID team which is already on the ground in Yogyakarta. That team coming from New South Wales will include surgeons and operating staff, disaster medicine specialists and logisticians. Also, they will take with them 12 tonnes of medical equipment. Food and water will also accompany the team. AusAID staff who have been on the ground since Saturday are assisting with the assessment of the needs of the people of the Yogyakarta area. They have recommended sending urgent orthopaedic instruments as a result of the massive injuries suffered by people, and those orthopaedic instruments are now on their way.
There have been reports of heavy rain falling in the area, and that is of course compounding the challenges of the relief effort, so AusAID are purchasing tarpaulins for the local people to help address that problem. There have been also, importantly, a large number of aftershocks. There have been 750 reported, and that means that people have been very reluctant to return to their own buildings. So at this time of crisis Indonesians are calling on their friends and their neighbours to help them out and, because this is a genuine humanitarian catastrophe, I think we have a humanitarian obligation to assist, so assisting is what we are doing.
My question is to the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education. Does the minister stand by his attempt today to shift blame for the nation’s skills shortage onto the mining industry with his statement that he cannot ‘accept that mining can get away with this claim that they had no idea the minerals boom was going to come on so quick’ and that, instead, the mining industry has just gone and, according to the minister, ‘pilfered everyone from the sugar industry’? When will the minister take responsibility for our nation’s skills crisis instead of just finding someone else to blame? If the minister is so concerned about skills shortages in the Pilbara, why hasn’t he opened the Pilbara technical college promised to the region almost two years ago?
I actually thank the member for Jagajaga for this question, because this government now has in training near record levels of people in this country—close to 400,000. When Labor were last in office they had a mere 122,000 people in training. So I think 10 years of achievement speaks for itself. In fact, I can quote the South Australian Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Paul Caica. He said in today’s Adelaide Advertiser that ‘businesses need to play their part in creating opportunities for young people’—
Why are they pilfering from the sugar industry?
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked her question.
and the first step was of course to identify their needs. It is certainly not government’s fault alone that there are not enough people where businesses themselves want them. But at the end of it this government is working hard on that, with record amounts of money—far more money than Labor ever imagined they would put towards the training system. We are also very much dedicated to the task of saying to business, ‘If you plan for the sort of workforce you want, we will give a training system in a way that will make sure that your needs are met when you need them.’ We are in partnership with the eight state and territory governments, who themselves have a variety of responses that conflict with that general approach.
The mining industry certainly does train people—there is no doubt about that—but it is absolutely fundamental that major industries such as mining continue to understand that these days, unlike when Labor was in office when there was a large pool of unemployed for them to draw upon, there are far fewer unemployed in this country and so the commitment to training has to be redoubled and has to start in the boardrooms and work its way out. As Paul Caica, the South Australian minister, said, governments alone cannot do this. It is important that business plays its part.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister advise the House of steps the government is taking to protect Australians from a flu pandemic?
I do appreciate the member for Stirling’s interest in this issue and I can inform him and the House that the World Health Organisation continues to believe that Australia is as well prepared as any other country on earth for a possible flu pandemic. I stress that a pandemic outbreak is possible. It is not probable, although the recent deaths of up to seven family members in Indonesia show that the danger remains real. So far the government has committed almost $600 million to pandemic preparedness. This money has, amongst other things, given us an antiviral stockpile that is building up to almost nine million courses, 50 million syringes and 40 million surgical masks. We will purchase up to five million doses of bird flu vaccine, should this pass appropriate tests. We are researching a range of bird flu issues including quick testing facilities, we are providing extra equipment to public hospitals and we have upgraded our laboratory and surveillance capacity.
Today the government has released a revised Australian health management plan for pandemic influenza. One of the features of the new plan is the stress on issues such as personal hygiene, social distancing and home quarantine as a means of preventing the spread of any pandemic outbreak. Today the government also announced details of Exercise Cumpston 06, which will be held over four days in October, to test our readiness to deal with infected travellers arriving at a major international airport. I have to say that any pandemic outbreak would certainly be an unprecedented test of our national character, but I am confident that the sorts of preparations that we have in place will help us to cope.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister’s sworn evidence to the Cole inquiry dated 5 April 2006 in which he stated on 43 occasions that he had no recollection of having received any of the 21 warning cables dealing with the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal. I also refer to confirmation in DFAT Senate estimates yesterday that since the year 2000 DFAT has been able to formally audit the opening, printing, exporting—that is, moving the contents of one cable to another document—and closing of cables by an electronic cable log. Minister, did you personally check this electronic cable access log before submitting your sworn evidence to the Cole inquiry on 5 April?
Did you personally check your plagiarised document before you put it on the web?
Order! The member for Flinders!
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The member for Flinders is warned.
In response to the member’s question, I did not personally check that log. The answers that I gave to the Cole inquiry were the truth and were accurate.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I have a question relating to the ruling that you gave at the start of question time today on the motion moved by the Leader of the House last Thursday, the motion being ‘That that snivelling grub over there be not further heard’. As I understand your ruling, Mr Speaker, you believe that by the time the House voted, that motion had become ‘That the member be no longer heard’ as a result of the Leader of the House withdrawing the offensive words. Mr Speaker, the only withdrawal offered by the Leader of the House prior to the vote being taken was in the following terms:
If I have offended grubs, I withdraw unconditionally.
Mr Speaker, I take it as implicit in your ruling that in future in this House a withdrawal in that form will be seen to be an effective withdrawal. If you saw it to be effective on this occasion when offered by the Leader of the House, then you must necessarily be ruling that it will be effective on all occasions when offered by other members of the House. Can you confirm that the practice in this chamber is now that a withdrawal in that form is effective?
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for her question. I would make a couple of points here. First of all, as she would be aware, in my statement I used the word ‘withdrawals’—plural. Secondly, I suggest that, if she would like to discuss this further, we could talk about it afterwards, but I have made a clear ruling on the matter.
Mr Speaker, I will discuss the matter with you further but could I note, for the purposes of the record, that the only unconditional withdrawal offered by the Leader of the House was after the putting of the relevant motion. It is on page 39 of Hansard, some six pages after the motion was moved. So it is impossible that that withdrawal was effective to correct the motion, because it was offered after the motion was voted on.
The Manager of Opposition Business has made her point. She will not debate it.
Mr Speaker, I have a question for you relating to the ruling that you gave at the start of question time today on the issue of the doors being locked. Can I refer you to page 273 of House of Representatives Practice, where it says:
House staff acting on the Chair’s instruction to lock the doors will allow Members in the process of passing through the doors to pass before locking them but do not continue to hold the door open for approaching Members.
Mr Speaker, can I indicate to you that in the division that was the subject of your ruling today people who were only approaching the doors at the time that you ordered that the doors be locked did continue to come through the doors. Mr Speaker, I am exercising my rights under standing order 135(b) to complain about the record of this division. I would specifically ask you to inquire whether or not the votes of the Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the member for Dawson are properly recorded in that division because they were on the other side of the door, not in the door, at the time that you ordered that the doors be locked.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. I again draw her attention to the statement I made earlier in response to her question from last week. It was quite a detailed response to the very points that she has just raised. I have asked, as I said in the response, the Serjeant-at-Arms to monitor the matter in the future for where there are any persistent problems.
Mr Speaker, I understand that that is the case for future divisions, but I am exercising my right to dispute the recording of that division.
The Manager of Opposition Business does have forms of the House if she wishes to dispute that, but I think the dispute has been noted.
Mr Speaker, I have a question to you, and it follows from the first question asked by the Manager of Opposition Business. Can you confirm that it is not possible for a motion to be in order if it contains unparliamentary language?
I thank the member for Fraser. I think I have given a fairly detailed response to that very point, and I refer him to the statement I made earlier.
It may be a failure in my understanding, Mr Speaker, but nothing in what I heard of those things which you said contained an answer to that question which I just asked.
I made the point, if the member would like to refer back to what I said about the dissent motion, which also was included in my response.
I am sorry; I just do not understand. Are you saying that, because the House carried a dissent motion on a slightly unrelated subject, it is now in order for motions to have unparliamentary language provided a majority of the House agrees with it?
With the greatest of respect to the member for Fraser, I believe the question has been answered. It is not for me to be responsible for his understanding, but I am happy to discuss it further with him afterwards if he wishes.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
During question time, in a question from the Leader of the Opposition to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, the Leader of the Opposition made two false assertions. The first was that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry endorsed work by industry group Single Vision. Mr Speaker, Single Vision has not approached the government seeking endorsement for its research, nor has the government given formal endorsement of the conduct of its project. The second falsehood was when the Leader of the Opposition asserted that, whilst the Deputy Prime Minister was out in regional Australia defending the single desk, his National Party colleague was undermining him on the single desk. That is simply wrong. As I reiterated at that time, and have since on any number of occasions, the government has given a firm commitment to wheat growers that the single desk will remain as long as there is a benefit to them and to the nation’s export performance.
A document is tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the document will be recorded in the
That the House take note of the following document:Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Act—Quarterly report on the operation of the Act—1 January to 31 March 2006.
Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
I would like to correct the record. In question time today the Prime Minister, in answer to a question relating to the sale of Snowy Hydro, said words to the effect that the use of the term ‘permanent restrictions’ on Snowy Hydro Ltd was my construction and not the government’s. Minister Minchin, in the announcement on behalf of the government in a press release today, said:
The Australian Government will introduce legislation in June that imposes the following permanent restrictions on Snowy Hydro Limited.
I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Calare from moving that this House:
This is the sale of stolen goods.
Order! Is the member for Calare seeking leave to speak to the motion?
I am seeking leave.
Leave granted.
I am grateful for the fact that the government, contrary to my advice, has determined not to gag this debate. The Snowy Mountains scheme is the Vegemite of national infrastructure. The only important difference is that we own the Snowy. This sale is all about setting up the private sector to exploit the peak power market. It is Enronesque in its potential. It is about derivatives. It is about selling insurance. It is about building gas fired ministations to manipulate the power market and conserving water that should go to irrigators and the environment in order to maximise power returns at manipulated peak prices. It does not need a foreign gorilla to do this.
This is part of a process to set up a casino of power supply and manipulation of the supply market. The 10 per cent cap on shareholdings is a nonsense, as is the cap on foreign ownership. The 10 per cent cap will guarantee that shareholders with a lazy $300 million to spend can buy up to a 10th of the Snowy scheme under this offer—hardly mums and dads. I am sorry to disagree with the member for Riverina on this point—and I acknowledge her firm endeavours and passion around this issue—but there is no way in the world that her private member’s bill can enshrine in legislation a permanent cap on any sort of shareholding, as the Prime Minister admitted during question time.
This is a sly sale that has no mandate. It is the selling of stolen goods. There is no referendum, no inquiry and no agreement with the electorate at a state or national level. The parliamentary motions on the Senate and House Notice Papers six weeks ago clearly appeared on the day they were introduced. They were to be rushed through with minimal debate—thus was the hope of the coalition—with Labor approval to satisfy the revenue problems of the Iemma government in particular. It has been well documented that the debate was not semaphored—except to those who had a special interest in ensuring that the matter went through the parliament with the greatest of haste. The states had no motion on this and, like the federal parliament, they had no legislation. They made sure of that when their corporatisation legislation ensured that a sell-off did not have to go through parliament.
Why did the federal parliament not adopt the same strategy? Of course, the government, at that stage, did not control both houses, and, as I understand it, the Senate forced an amendment that ensured that any sale be referred to the parliament. There was never to be a full and proper inquiry, there was never to be a parliamentary inquiry and there was never to be a proper debate—as was shown on 29 and 30 March in a shameful process that tried to give the impression that this matter had the imprimatur of the parliament when there was absolutely no mandate and the matter had taken the public by shock. How arrogant, how devious, how appalling! How angry the people are who have come to see me in recent times. They have emailed, they have written and they have rung. They have been in parliament today. These are people who have had a long association with the Snowy Mountains scheme. They know that Snowy Hydro can look after its own infrastructure and its own upgrades well into the future and does not need any injection of taxpayers’ money to do so.
The only reason there was any motion in the parliament was, as I said, that the coalition did not have the numbers. The key to all this is the commercial-in-confidence elements of the so-called agreements—the 75-year water licences and the compensation deed that will see taxpayers forking out to compensate a privatised Snowy Hydro for shortfalls in any guarantees locked into the sale. That is where the taxpayer will be caught out in the future—having been asked whether they wish to buy back their own asset. Forty-six of these so-called agreements will not be open to public gaze.
Snowy Hydro delivers a $150 million dividend to the three governments and $50 million in taxes. It is capable of funding its own capital upgrades, estimated at $40 million a year—nothing like the $1.5 billion that Della Bosca and others allege is required and use to justify the sale. Snowy Hydro does not get, and does not need, state or federal government money to prop it up in any way. The $1.5 billion needed for capital upgrades, which Mr Della Bosca, Mr Iemma, Mr Brumby and this government bang on about, is the spending plan of a fully privatised Snowy Hydro expanding well beyond its current role to manipulate electricity markets in this country, at the expense of Australian consumers, irrigators and the environment, for the benefit, surely as night follows day, of major shareholders. In spite of any attempts to cap foreign ownership, that cannot be guaranteed into the future. Inevitably, down the track, overseas—or, indeed, Australian—mega power operators and market manipulators will have control of those processes and we will leave the way open to manipulation of that market to a degree that could be Enronesque in its outcomes.
Today’s joint announcement is simply the sticking of a collective federal and state digit in the dyke—or, at least, the dam of public opinion. Caps cannot be guaranteed beyond this parliament—and the government knows it. So, too, do the Labor Party and the state governments. Think again, Prime Minister. Think again, Labor. There at 13 million reasons why you should—and they all have a vote.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and I do so with pleasure. Australians are opposed to the sale of Snowy Hydro, and most members, if they are paying any attention to the public debate, would recognise that. There are a number of issues that need to be aired, and they were not aired when the motion first came through the parliament. People were very confused about what the issue was. Many members of the government did not even know that a motion was going to be introduced and that the government did not need to introduce legislation.
Today there is still a degree of confusion. We are told that there were something like 46 agreements within the original corporatisation of Snowy Hydro, which took place in 1997 and came into effect in 2001. We are told that those 46 agreements are part of the contractual arrangements that will be a condition of the sale. But no-one that I am aware of has actually seen those documents. There is no mandate for the sale of Snowy Hydro. I am as critical of the New South Wales government as anybody in this parliament—and no government has been to the people on this issue, including the Commonwealth government. There has been very little debate on this very important issue. There is confusion over the facts around the constitutionality and the legalities involved, the operation of the scheme and the various compensatory mechanisms that will or will not come into play if, in fact, the New South Wales government intervenes on the control of water and what that will mean to the generation of power or to any private business that will be deprived of the possibility of generating income from that source.
We do not know what the contract says. Anybody who has made application for a prospectus has not been provided with any great information on the sale documentation at all. Even though there is a 75-year water licence, which I think now has 72 years to run, we do not know what the compensation mechanisms may or may not be. How can we sell an asset which is essentially owned by the people of Australia without these questions being answered? It is time that the Commonwealth government took some leadership in this debate.
I am distressed to see this announcement today coming from the Hon. Nick Minchin and the Victorian and New South Wales ministers responsible for the sale. Nick Minchin says: ‘The Australian government will introduce legislation in June that imposes the following permanent restrictions on Snowy Hydro Ltd.’ There are a number of restrictions, which I will not go through—people can read them in the press release—but the fact is that this government and this parliament cannot make those restrictions permanent. Our Constitution provides that one government cannot bind a future parliament through legislation. That is the legality of the situation.
Where are the Labor Party on this motion? We have seen where they are in New South Wales. We have heard the argument that the New South Wales government has cash flow problems and needs the money. The New South Wales government has no debt. It has a cash flow problem that, hopefully, is temporary. By doing this the New South Wales government is selling the house to pay the grocery bill. There is no need for the New South Wales government to enter this arrangement. There is no need for the Victorian government to enter this arrangement. Least of all does the Commonwealth government need to take this step. In my view, the Commonwealth government has displayed some leadership in recent years through the National Water Initiative and other initiatives. We have started to look at the water debate across state boundaries.
Senator Minchin has been grinding away at the states, particularly Victoria, over many months now to make the sale possible. For the Commonwealth government to give up that leadership role with many things still unknown is quite disgraceful. I believe today’s announcement by the minister about the caps, the board structure, foreign ownership restrictions et cetera is nothing but a Clayton’s announcement on the sale document. Hopefully, the people of Australia will rise up against the bill that the government is going to introduce to the parliament.
What are the reasons for the sale? We hear the corporate mantra that governments should not be involved in the delivery of business services. These services are fairly significant. They involve water going into the Murray and Murrumbidgee systems and renewable power generated into the electricity grid linked to four states. This is very important for our future energy needs, particularly at a time when the Prime Minister and others are, quite rightly, talking about the need for a debate on future energy needs and the possibility of nuclear energy. So why aren’t we debating the Snowy Hydro issue in greater detail? This is our major construction achievement of 50 years ago—the crown jewel of looking forward, multiculturalism and a whole range of other issues.
The New South Wales and Commonwealth governments agree. They say that there is a need for growth in Snowy Hydro and that, for Snowy Hydro to go forward, there will be capital requirements. Investigation shows that turbine maintenance for Snowy Hydro should not be any greater than about $25 million per annum. The operational and general maintenance costs are probably about $15 million per annum. So there is a $40 million requirement annually, not the $200 million or the $1.5 billion over five years that many people are talking about.
Snowy Hydro generates a return of about $150 million each year and pays about $50 million in tax, so it does have the capacity to self-fund within those restrictions. The issue may well be that Snowy Hydro Ltd has greater ambitions than the supply of hydroelectricity—such as gas turbines and accessing the water market. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is putting in place rules which could see Snowy Hydro becoming a major player or a water baron when it comes to the access to water licences and in doing what it does in the derivatives market in insurance at the moment—selling at the peaks when it has a captive market to sell into and multiplying profits in that way. That is something in which some public administration really should be involved.
I do not know whether there are restrictions on that within the sale contract or not—but I do not think anybody else in this chamber knows either. Those are the sorts of things that people need to know before they can make proper decisions as to the sale, the long-term impacts on the downstream water users and the long-term impacts on power users on the eastern seaboard.
In conclusion, there will be a rally held in Canberra a fortnight from today at approximately 12 o’clock. We are calling on all Australians, if they are serious about the long-term needs of water and power generation in this nation and if they are serious about public ownership of much-needed instrumentalities, to make a stand. It is time that the people started to turn up and generate their power—the power to maintain these instrumentalities that were earned through the deaths and hard work of many Australians over many years. It is time that they turned up, put the heat on and poured water on these irrational governments that are making irrational decisions in some sort of rational economic debate. I challenge all Australians to be at that rally.
The fact is that the Prime Minister, through Nick Minchin—and I pay credit to the member for Riverina and others in this parliament—has come out today with this press release that puts up a bandaid approach in terms of ‘permanent restrictions’ when we all know they cannot be permanent. The Prime Minister admitted at question time that obviously they cannot be permanent. What is the point of introducing them if we are interested in the long-term needs of water and power generation within this country? It is time for people right across Australia to stand up.
I congratulate Alan Jones and the many others who have had the guts, in terms of their positions on radio and in newspapers, to articulate what people right across Australia are saying. It is very obvious in here that, privately, whether they be Labor, Liberal or New Liberals, members do not want it sold. But with the forces of party mechanisms they are being forced to participate in this farce of the sale of Snowy Hydro. I call again on all of the people across Australia who are opposed to this, or opposed to the privatisation of much-needed public utilities, to show up at the rallies in Sydney, in Cooma and the one in Canberra in a fortnight’s time.
I well understand the concerns that people have about the privatisation of Snowy Hydro. But once the New South Wales government’s decision to sell its 48 per cent stake was made, it was inevitable and unavoidable that the Commonwealth would also have to sell its 13 per cent stake. The retention of a 13 per cent share in a commercial company by the Commonwealth is not practical nor fiscally sensible. It is too small to have an impact. I think the Labor Party’s shadow minister for finance put it extremely well here in the chamber on 30 March this year when he said:
In my judgment, the key issue for the Commonwealth in this instance is whether there is any merit in retaining 13 per cent of a major organisation, Snowy Hydro. In my assessment, that fact alone makes it relatively pointless to oppose the sale of the holding, because 13 per cent is simply not enough to allow the Commonwealth to influence the decisions of the organisation in any material way, and I think it is a very unlikely scenario that any government would commit to buying the current shares that are going to be put on sale by the New South Wales and Victorian governments.
Consequently, concerns about the sale have been overridden by the determination of New South Wales to sell its majority stake whatever the position adopted by the Australian government.
The water security issues loom large, rightly. We are confident that security is there for irrigators, regardless of ownership. That security is governed by the Snowy water licence, which was issued by the New South Wales government. It was developed by the Australian, New South Wales and Victorian governments at the time of corporatisation, specifically to protect security. It guarantees the volumes for irrigators. While it is true that it is technically open to New South Wales to seek to vary the conditions of the licence, there is a massive disincentive deliberately built into it for the New South Wales government never to consider doing that. The terms of the Murray-Darling Basin agreement mean that any reductions to Snowy Hydro releases would be deducted from New South Wales water allocations. No government would dare do that, politically or economically—or, if it did, it would suffer the political odium.
The issue of environmental water is also of great importance. Releases of water for the environment—up to a 21 per cent increase in flows has been agreed—are also protected by the terms of the Snowy water licence. There is a qualified commitment by Victoria and New South Wales to return another seven per cent, around another 84 gigalitres, post-2012 to take environmental flows to 28 per cent. The responsibility for recovering and paying for that additional water rests exclusively with the New South Wales and Victorian governments. That is in black and white in the implementation deed, and they have recently committed to setting aside some funds from the sale to do that. Water For Rivers, the body set up by the three governments to undertake that environmental water recovery, is increasingly confident that it can meet the 21 per cent target on time. I think we will be seeing some more announcements on that pretty shortly, which will also deliver some more water to the Murray.
The timing of the release is also of great importance to irrigators. Here the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Snowy Hydro and New South Wales government representatives have met several times to progress outstanding issues relating to water management that have been raised in this House, within the government and by the President of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair. The parties are working towards finalising an agreement that will assist the Murray-Darling Basin Commission in managing the timing of releases from the Snowy. I am confident that we will see a sensible set of protocols to ensure that the timing of the release of the guaranteed volumes is to the satisfaction of irrigators and communities rightly concerned about environmental water flows.
With regard to foreign ownership: this has been touched upon in this House, not least of all by the Prime Minister. He has set a number of conditions over and above the normal foreign investment approval processes that give comfort to those who are concerned that Snowy Hydro would be dominated by foreign interests. Given the shortage of time available to us to pursue this matter, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date so that the debate is not closed today.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lingiari proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The need for the Government to address urgently the underlying issues pf poverty and disadvantage, including the causes and symptoms of substance abuse, violence and dysfunction within indigenous communities.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The events of recent weeks have thrown into stark relief some of the more horrific and sensational circumstances that Indigenous Australians confront every day of their lives. I would like members across the chamber to agree that dealing with these circumstances is our most urgent national priority.
It is important that we do that. I acknowledge that none of us on either side of the House can come into this place with clean hands on this subject. It is clear from our perspective—certainly from my own—that we could have done more when in government to address the underlying causes of poverty in Indigenous communities. It is unfortunate that the social justice package which was being developed by the Keating government was never put into any agreement or funded. What we have seen subsequently is a matter of some concern. I note that, now more than two years ago in an article in the Age, Michael Gordon wrote:
For much of his eight years plus in office, John Howard has concentrated on what he calls practical reconciliation, refusing to say sorry for injustices and placing little store in symbolic gestures. But (outside the COAG trials) he delivered little, partly because so many responsibilities are shared. The explicit promise of yesterday is that money will now be used more effectively and the lives of indigenous Australians improved.
Importantly for all of us, particularly those of us on this side of the chamber, he went on to say:
Turning this promise into reality will require diligence, rigour, vision and more political will than has been on display from either side ...
That is still the challenge that we all in this parliament face, right here, right now, today. It is worth reflecting upon the success that the government may or may not have had in addressing these needs.
It is clear to me that, whilst the Howard government has been in power for 10 years and despite its rhetoric about practical reconciliation, which it has embraced wholeheartedly, little has changed. We now know that the COAG trials that Gordon refers to have been a sham. It has diverted more funds into the bureaucracy, and very little money has hit the ground where it is needed. In the celebrated case of one Tasmanian project, the administrative costs were 10 times that of the project itself.
I note that the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs seated at the table referred to the COAG trials with the Thamarrurr Council at Wadeye recently. In that reference, he has made the assertion that the Commonwealth had put $44 million into the community through the COAG trials—
No, I did not.
The minister will have an opportunity to reply.
Minister Brough, I am happy for you to respond when it is your opportunity. He stated that the joint NT-federal contribution, however, was more like $1.9 million. Wadeye elders said that there would be no need for intervention if only the Northern Territory and federal governments met their obligations. Data unearthed through the Senate estimates process reveals that tens of millions of dollars spent administering trial programs under the umbrella of COAG in many instances outgun the value of the project. I referred to a case in Tasmania where administering a $34,318 program cost the Australian community $327,784 in administrative expenses. If we listen to the rhetoric, we are led to believe that millions, indeed billions, of dollars have been thrown down the chute after Indigenous affairs. What we know, constantly of course, is that a lot of this money never meets its destination, and we need to be very concerned about that.
The government came into power with a hard-edged and very clear-cut agenda to rid itself of the very last vestiges of Labor’s approach to Indigenous affairs. It shrugged away any semblance of a bipartisan approach. From day one, the government has pursued its agenda to reshape the Indigenous affairs policy landscape in its own image, with a single-minded ideological commitment. ATSIC was the first to feel the blowtorch when it was ordered to make across-the-board cuts under the first Costello budget.
These cuts, not coincidentally, had the greatest impact on programs dealing with family violence and the support of young people. Indeed, it is a matter of some concern that, in the 1995-96 ATSIC budget, $30.3 million was spent on community and youth support, including the Family Violence Intervention Program. This program funded 37 women’s centres, four men’s programs, 15 children’s services, 70 services for youth activities and youth bail accommodation, nine family support and violence intervention programs, the night patrol project in Katherine and a women’s crisis centre serving 20 communities in New South Wales. In March 1997, the community and youth component ended as a result of budget cuts to ATSIC in the 1996-97 budget.
We have seen the horrific results of family violence and sexual abuse in Indigenous communities highlighted over recent days. We as a community will not, and should not, tolerate the excesses that have been perpetrated upon Indigenous women and children by some males. But Indigenous Australians deserve a great deal more respect in this conversation we are having about them—not with them—than they are currently receiving. Whilst ATSIC may have had significant flaws, its abolition by the government—and I have not come here to either praise or bury ATSIC—has left Indigenous Australians without a nationally representative structure, and indeed, without a national voice. Its so-called replacement, the National Indigenous Council, comprises a group of people who do not represent anyone, who are not responsible to anyone and who are not accountable to anyone. Yet they purport to give the primary source of advice to the government on Indigenous affairs.
During ATSIC’s lifespan the issue of sexual abuse and family violence was repeatedly raised by commissioners. Indeed, one of those commissioners, Alison Anderson, now a member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly for the seat of Macdonnell, raised the issues with the Prime Minister himself as a member of his task force in 2003. Report after report has made recommendations that have been shelved and all but ignored. The pleas and cries of women in the Indigenous community have not been listened to by this government.
The minister has visited Central Australia and Northern Australia on a number of occasions. In 1979 and 1980 I was working with an Indigenous community in the Pitjantjatjara homelands of South Australia to put forward a proposition to the government to fund a petrol sniffing program—the first petrol sniffing program to be funded by the Commonwealth. Despite repeated requests for recurrent funding by Indigenous families across Central and Northern Australia for diversionary programs to deal with petrol sniffing and alcohol abuse, the programs have not been funded appropriately. Now we are having visited upon us the stark reality of what happens in communities which suffer from excessive substance abuse. Violence against women and families has followed.
I am happy to acknowledge, as someone who has lived and worked in these communities for many years, that we should have a far greater understanding than is currently being exhibited about issues to do with customary law and how they impact upon the community. As a nation we need to better understand and address the issues at the heart of the problem. To do this, we must first look, listen and learn. I say to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, who is at the table: I am pleased that he has taken the interest he has. If I can do anything to assist in his understanding of Indigenous issues across Northern Australia and Australia generally I would be happy to do so. If there is any way I can assist him to sit down with communities so that he might understand what their issues are, rather than have those issues told to him by others, I would be glad to do so.
I know from Indigenous Australians who live in my electorate—around 40 per cent of my constituents are Indigenous Australians—that they hanker for an engagement with the community about the issues which have been publicised so highly lately. They need to be understood. They want you to sit down with them and not talk about them, but talk to them. They want you to understand that they have concerns about the issues which have been raised publicly. They also have solutions to some of these issues. They understand the need for a high school education. It is worth noting in passing that until 2001 no Aboriginal kid living in a bush community in the Northern Territory could get to a high school, pass high school and get his or her year 12 certificate in their home community. That was because of 24 years of indolence and direct policy failure by successive conservative CLP administrations since 1978. It is only since the ALP was elected to the government in the Northern Territory that there has been any effort to provide secondary education for kids in the bush.
There are between 3,000 and 5,000 young Territorians who have had no access to high school education. These are young people who, if they could get a job, would never have the skills for it. These are young people who do not even have the skills to be able to access the training they require to get a job. We cannot blame these people. There is no point accusing them. We have to understand their plight and sit down and work with them. The minister and others have been to Wadeye, and I have talked already about the COAG trial at Wadeye. What the community there have been telling me, and telling governments for many years, is that they require a new form of housing, setting up what are effectively subdivisions for some time. They have already set up one. This would decentralise the community. They have been after this for some years. It has been part of the COAG discussion, but it has not hit the table.
Whilst the government has a predilection for trying to ensure that every Indigenous Australian, wherever they live and whatever their circumstances, is a private home owner, it ain’t going to happen. Welfare housing is extremely important, and the public sector has a significant role. There is already a housing deficit of around $1.2 billion in the Northern Territory alone, and around $2.5 billion across Australia. We need to address these issues, and we need to address them together. I say to the minister: ‘Let’s sit down and talk about targets and goals. Let’s talk about what might be achievable to redress the balance. Let’s talk about the things that can be done to ensure that Indigenous Australians have the same opportunities as the rest of us. Let’s understand that attacking their rights is not the answer. Let’s recognise that they have rights as Australian citizens—the same rights as every other Australian citizen—which need to be funded by government.’
I am aware that the government is proposing significant changes to the CDEP. Some of them are probably worth while, but others are totally misguided. Again, I am happy to enter a dialogue with the government—I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House are too—to see how we can get more effective changes than the ones which have been proposed by the government.
Recently in the Australian of 26 May Patrick Dodson referred to the 1997 report Bringing them home. He said the report:
... highlighted the infringement of UN definition of Genocide and called for a National apology and compensation to those Aboriginal people who had suffered under these valid laws for the destruction of Aboriginal societies and the sanctioning of the biogenetic modification of Aboriginal people.
He said:
... despite the horrors exposed in the report as a nation we proved incapable of confronting our past and dealing with its consequences. That failure alone should have been seen as condemned for a lack of courage and a denial of justice.
… … …
Undoubtedly—
he said—
some of our politicians see these outcomes as a sustaining of the natural order of the dominant society and its institutions. However there are others ... who understand that the unjust assertion of the power of one section of society over a less powerful group will ... diminish us as a nation ...
I say, ‘Hear, hear’ to that. What I say to the minister is: let’s walk together down this path. Let’s walk together in a bipartisan way to improve the lot of Indigenous Australians for the benefit of us all.
Let us make no mistake today that the speech by the member for Lingiari was not about addressing the fundamental issues; it was about revisiting an ideological approach that has failed. It is one that has failed miserably the people whom we should all seek to represent. I would like to address at the outset a few of the issues that the member for Lingiari raised. For starters, he said I should have a dialogue with him and some other people. Let me tell you that the people I have had dialogue with and continue to do so are not just Indigenous leaders and representative bodies—whether it be the NIC or Reconciliation Australia—but people over the fences, people sitting on the river banks, people who have been picked up by the night patrol and people sitting in their homes who do not have a voice. They do not know that this discussion is taking place in here today.
Do you think you are the only one who talks to them?
The member for Hotham asks, ‘Do I think I am the only one who speaks to them?’ The member for Lingiari, your representative on this issue, has said, ‘Come and talk to me.’ The people I am talking to do not even know that this discussion is occurring today. They are the people who have said to me: ‘These are the key issues for us. These are the key issues for the people on the streets.’ These are the people who are saying: ‘You’ve got to understand that we want to be treated the same as the whitefella. We want to be treated the same way under the law.’
If you want children to attend schools, you have to have parents accepting responsibility for ensuring that they go there, and the state or territory government has to police those laws. These people want to ensure that the laws that currently apply—not new laws—apply to them equally, just as they do to the wider community. They tell me—whether it be in Wadeye, Port Keats, Galiwinku or Mornington Island: wherever it happens to be—that they do not believe that occurs today.
I know there is a great propensity on the other side to widen this debate. I have deliberately kept the issue focused on delivering the fundamental principle that underpins any civilised society. There has not been a civilised society ever that has succeeded when the basic rule of law has not existed and when the criminal justice system that applies in that society has not had the confidence of its people. That is what has occurred in these places.
Let us deal with some of the specifics. In Wadeye there has not been one riot of 150 people; there have not been two riots of 150 people. They have been going on and on. When there is a riot—let me explain what happens here—150 people trash a suburb. In fact, the men and boys go through first and behind are the women and children who actually ruin the homes, destroy the toilet bowls and break the windows. We have seen the evidence of that. There is no escaping that there is a fundamental breakdown in law and order. What I am simply saying to people, first and foremost, is that if we do not deal with that issue we can continue to build more homes, which we have done. In Wadeye there have been 28 homes destroyed over the last few months. If we want to continue to replace houses at the same rate as they are being destroyed, we will be here in another 10 years time facing the same issues.
First and foremost we have to face up to the stark reality that there are people who do not know anything other than lawlessness in these communities. It is not just Mal Brough or the Howard government saying that. It is the people who are having the crimes perpetrated upon them who say, ‘I want to stand up in a court of law and give evidence, but I’m afraid of payback.’ The member for Lingiari knows as well as anyone in this place that there is a very real notion of fear for these people, whether they be black or white. When I was in Wadeye I had both black and white Australians saying those words to me. They said: ‘I know exactly what you’re saying. What you’re saying is 100 per cent correct. Don’t expect us to stand up in court because payback will cost us too much.’ There is a fundamental breakdown in our faith in the criminal justice system and our capacity to deliver law and order that we, as Australians, accept and, in fact, demand in every suburb that we live in. Yet it does not occur here.
The member for Lingiari says that there have been reports on domestic violence. His words were, ‘They’ve all been shelved or all but ignored by the Howard government.’ I say to the member for Lingiari: who has the constitutional responsibility to deliver law and order in this country?
Dr Lawrence interjecting
If the former Premier of Western Australia is oohing and aahing about abolishing the states because they cannot deliver Australian fundamental law and order, get up and say it—that is fine. The reason I asked all the states and territories to come together was not to berate them but to do the very thing that the member for Lingiari asked. It was to bring us together not just on the issue of what happens after the event—after a child has been raped, after a young woman has been burnt, after someone has had domestic violence perpetrated upon them year after year or their house has been destroyed or the community centre has been destroyed—but on the issue as to how we are going to prevent those things from happening in the first place.
I am not suggesting for one moment that issues of housing, education, employment and opportunity are not important. But Wadeye is a classic example—and the member for Lingiari is, in fact, incorrect: he invited me to correct the record so I shall—because the federal government and the Northern Territory government, in partnership, signed up to the COAG trial. The COAG trial was to try and ensure that there would be better outcome for the people of Wadeye. It has not occurred; we accept that. Forty million dollars has been spent or committed. Half of that money was for housing, much of which has not been delivered. The reason it has not been delivered—I am sure the member for Lingiari would be keen to hear—is the delay in providing serviced land to enable the housing to be established. There are lengthy delays in providing serviced blocks to these remote communities. In fact, in Wadeye the government provided $1.5 million to the Northern Territory government in June 2004 for servicing of the land and to this date it still has not occurred. I am not blaming the Northern Territory government. It is a statement of fact that, as the member for Lingiari knows, there are huge issues in getting land when no-one, other than the community, can own it.
The fact is that there is a new subdivision out there—and the member for Lingiari referred to it in his comments—which is safer, which is removed and which was supported and dealt with through the federal and Northern Territory governments working together. I ask any member of the Labor Party whether we can seriously say, of 150 people rioting, people being speared in the leg, people being hit over the head with nulla-nullas and people running through town trashing houses and breaking toilet blocks, that there is an excuse that we can give for that. I say no.
In that same trial 24 young apprentices were put into a housing prefabrication factory in Wadeye. We did not need 24 apprentices; it was about opportunities. The last I heard there were five remaining. Why? Because those individuals do not have the basic numeracy and literacy skills to stay there and, probably far more important than that, the education system has failed them of course. Why? Because they do not turn up to school. There is no cause and effect from the parents. That is a reality of life. I was told only this week by a resident of Wadeye, that when some of the young men have been taken to a workplace that very night the elder who has requested that work placement happen and has aided and abetted that person in having a better opportunity has had their house trashed and ruined. If that is a fact, how is a community ever going to dig itself out of the malaise that it is in if we do not first and foremost restore law and order?
I invite the member for Lingiari and those who sit opposite if they missed it to have a look at last night’s Four Corners. It was an excellent program. There were no dramatic overtones to it. It just had statements of fact, and the camera does not lie. Firstly, there was a corner store in a community of about 150 people which has lost over $100,000. How can one store in one community lose that sort of money unless it is mismanagement or corruption? Secondly, the night patrol vehicle, which is supposed to keep the streets quiet and peaceful at night because there are no police there, was in Alice Springs being used as a cab. The fuel is no longer there because of the misuse of a resource that is supposed to be used to keep people safe. Then there was the community hall which 12 months ago or a little longer had a billiard table and other resources to assist people in having something positive to do and to engage the young people. It appeared like there were a lot of bullet holes in it. It was clear that it was trashed. I wonder whether there was a police investigation into that trashing of public property. I wonder if there was a police investigation into the corruption at the store. I wonder if there was a police investigation when they said women could not walk the streets at night because of the violence in the streets in a ‘dry’ community. Are we as Australian taxpayers supposed to continue to pour more money into a community like that until we get the basis that every civilised society both demands and deserves—that is, to have a safe community?
There have been some improvements over the last 10 years. It is worth mentioning them— because there is a lot of doom and gloom. There are communities out there that are doing the right thing, but I am not prepared to gloss over the problems and stand up here and say, ‘The Howard government has spent more than any previous government—$3.3 billion—and we should be proud of it.’ We should be proud when people have the same rights as everybody else, have the same opportunity to live anywhere they choose to in this nation and have an education and the life skills to live in Canberra, Wadeye, Galiwinku or Alice Springs. Today they simply do not have that opportunity.
The death rates from respiratory illness have reduced. These are still appalling figures, so do not let anyone misread what I am saying, but it is important to recognise there has been an improvement. The death rate from respiratory illness from 1992 to 1994 was seven to eight times the non-Indigenous average—today it is four times. Death rates from infectious and parasitic diseases was 15 to 18 times more likely to occur than the non-Indigenous average—today it is five times. The year 3 writing benchmark at school was 73 per cent of all students—today it is 83 per cent. Secondary school attendance has improved. Year 12 retention has improved. Students attending what used to be known as VET has gone up from 2.4 per cent of 32,000 to 33.6 per cent of 57,000—so a dramatic improvement.
Home ownership has improved. I want to deal briefly with this issue of home ownership. The Howard government has made a big ploy that we want to move away from collectivism. If you go to these communities, people say there is no employment. The reality is that the collective, the corporation, owns the land. No individual owns the land. You can never own your own home. Even if you aspire to do that, it is a simple impossibility. You cannot own a business there because the collective owns the businesses. The collective determines who gets the house, the collective decides who works in the community store and the collective makes all the decisions on behalf of the group. I know there was a time when we thought that self-determination and land rights would solve the problems. I believe it was well meant on both sides. It simply has not worked and it will not work.
The people of Nguiu in the Tiwi islands have voted with their feet and said, ‘Let’s change and let’s allow homeownership here. Let’s allow ourselves to able to put in our own sweat and effort and own something for ourselves, make a determination for ourselves like every other Australian and take control of our lives rather than being dependent upon the collective.’ There is nothing wrong with that. That is a direction that the Howard government wants to move in. We recognise that there will be communities that will not be able to participate in that because they are so isolated they simply will not be eligible or able to participate in a market economy, but we can take a lot of people forward.
What underpins this and is the glue that holds it together is that no government, state or federal, has ever dealt with comprehensively the fundamental right to live in a safe community. I could stand here today and read out all of the horrific things that have filled our newspapers, but I will not be doing it because it is there for everyone to see. I understand the horror of those opposite because I feel the same way, but I think that it is important that the Australian public acknowledges and understands the pain these people have put up with for so long. They are demanding that it stop. When people talk about intergenerational rape, it is not something they want their children to have, and we have a role today to stop it, but if you are not prepared to put someone in jail who has raped a child or who has committed domestic violence, not as a one-off but in a systematic approach, then I am afraid we are not going to get to the core of the issue. We can have all the domestic violence units that we like, we can have all the family relationship centres that we like and we can have all of the provisions afterwards, but when someone turns around after a crime has been committed against them and there is no one to talk to, there is no policeman there to act and there is no safety because the person that has perpetrated the crime of serious assault or sexual deviancy against them comes back into the community for up to two years while they are waiting for trial is it any wonder people do not stand up to give evidence?
They are fundamental issues that I am hoping to address in the summit. I want them to be addressed because I believe it is the only way we can go forward. I know that the shadow spokesman and the Chief Minister have been talking about housing. Housing is a key issue, but we have to recognise that throwing good money after bad is a failure and that, over the last four years, the Territory government have failed to spend the money that they have received. That is a statement of fact and they acknowledge that. If they cannot spend the money they had, even if we were of a mind to throw a lot more money at the problem, what would it have achieved? Let us have a bipartisan approach to this and let us put the ideologies behind us. But let us recognise that, if we do not deal with the two fundamentals of law and order and faith in our criminal justice system, we will condemn ourselves and that community to being in the same position in 10, 20 and 30 years time. I think that is unacceptable. It is something that we should all accept as our grave responsibility and deal with it now. (Time expired)
I respond to the comments made in the matter of public importance by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs by saying that we on this side of the House not only come with a strong commitment to find grounds for bipartisan approaches to this issue but also recognise that we do not have the answers. I also strongly say to the minister that, if we do talk about walking together, we do it in a way which acknowledges that some of the differences that we have about ideology and approach should not blind us to the needs that Indigenous communities have, including the ones that he spoke so strongly about in the House.
I remind the minister that many of us here have had a long and abiding concern, interest and connection with these issues, so we are very aware of the level of abuse, suffering and hurt. We are well aware of the level of dysfunctionality that some communities display and we have given some thought to what the best means might be for governments to address this issue. We say to the minister very clearly that it will not be sufficient—notwithstanding the strong fervour that he has for addressing law and order, and I take nothing away by that comment—to confine his approach and the government’s approach to those law and order issues, although they need addressing. It will be equally essential to go to the matters that we have put up for debate and discussed in this matter of public importance.
Here is the test for the government and for the minister. For 10 years a number of ministers have held this portfolio and the Prime Minister himself has committed himself to the cause of true reconciliation with the Aboriginal people of Australia by federation, but within that 10 years, on indicators of health and life expectancy, Indigenous people have continued to go backwards. That is the direction they have headed in. In order to address that particular aspect of what has happened to Indigenous people, we must look at the underlying issues and we must recognise that these issues have a historical component that attaches to them. The problems that the minister spoke about in places like Wadeye and the Alice Springs town camps are the product of generations of governments’ mistreatment and neglect. As long as there is no national strategy to deal with those problems which addresses not only the necessary observance and proper respect for law and due process within the criminal justice system but in addition the causes of violence and abuse, backed up with the resources to do the job including realistic and measurable goals and time lines at the summit that the minister is going to hold, then these problems will continue. That is the minister’s challenge.
Let us recognise that some of these debates can waylay us. A debate about political correctness or customary law and the impact that it has on the criminal justice system is a debate that we can have, but it is not the key debate. The key debate is how a First World country can allow its first people to live in Third World conditions and to suffer the matters that the minister referred to. As the minister knows, there have been some 40 reports since 1990, and I think 21 reports in the last two terms of this government. There are plenty of answers in there for this minister. Many parliamentarians on both sides of the House have used their good intelligence and their commitment to Indigenous people to consider how these issues should be addressed. What has happened to those reports? What has happened to those recommendations? What has happened to those submissions?
I was interested to hear the Co-chair of Reconciliation Australia, Mark Leibler—whom the minister will know—make the point just last night about reconciliation being ‘a journey for all Australians as joint navigators’. He went on to observe:
Governments must acknowledge, privately and publicly, that the necessary immediate law and justice response needs to be supported by properly resourced action to address underlying causes.
We need some proportion in this debate, and I hope that we can bring it in the call that my colleague the member for Lingiari made and in the responses that we have heard from Minister Brough. Not every out-station is a living museum and not every settlement is dysfunctional. Numerous homeland centres around Yirrkala, for example, in north-east Arnhem Land are happy and healthy places. Papunya, often mentioned, is getting on top of its petrol sniffing problems. In my electorate of Kingsford Smith, parents at La Perouse are making solid efforts to get their kids back into school for the long term.
It is true we do need to square up to the violence that the minister refers to. We need to take responsibility as members of political parties, and governments also need to do that. But let us be clear: the rate of Indigenous youth in jail is already alarmingly high. Is the suggestion I hear coming from some quarters that we will simply jail all these kids and that they will now sit in jail for the next five, 10 or 15 years? At what cost to them and at what cost to the community? We need better interventions, more policing and more rehabilitation measures. We need state governments and bureaucrats to step up to the mark and we need the Commonwealth to lead the effort.
I do note and I do say very strongly that the reasons for the high levels of unacceptable violence and sexual abuse against women have already been identified and reported on. The minister spoke of the Australian Institute of Family Studies. It reports that there have been many years of inaction. Surely that is the point here. I hope, Minister Brough, that when the Prime Minister gave you this portfolio you said to him, ‘Don’t take it away from me. I want to keep it for as long as I can so that I can get the job done.’ I think, Minister, we need to ask you whether you will push hard for some of the budget surplus to be invested in making Indigenous people and Indigenous communities healthy. The AMA have done much good work on this and they continue to provide their report cards to government. They say again and again that health care and preventative health care remain consistently underfunded. This is something that the Commonwealth could address, and it could address it now.
You raised good points in the discussion about housing, but are we simply saying that we are not going to provide levels of housing that all other Australians in similar conditions and circumstances would receive until specific instances of criminal violence, damage or destruction are dealt with? Surely that is not what the minister is proposing here. We must commit necessary resources. If we do not, we are just going to be treading water on addressing the underlying causes of violence and abuse.
The Treasurer in question time took a question on comparative economies. I cannot remember exactly what his answer was—I do not want to endorse it—but I think we should ask the same question about comparative countries as they address issues of Indigenous people. Let us look at Canada, a comparative country. Let us look at the efforts they have made. Let us look at the money they have spent. Let us look at the resources—the significant additional resources—that they have committed to health. Let us look at something else that they have done which we need to do—let us look at the fact that they squared up to their past. They did not try and provide their own perspective on the past; they squared up to it. In squaring up to it, they recognised that people had been hurt—people had been terribly abused in the schooling system there—and that those people needed to have that hurt recognised and acknowledged by the national government and policies put in place, resourced and supported to enable them to come to terms with that hurt and to rebuild their lives so that they could make a decent contribution to Canada.
As we look at the statistics in Canada, we see that by taking that decision—in other words, by adopting both reconciliation and practical measures—the Canadians have succeeded in arresting the decline and have improved the conditions for their indigenous people, something which in Australia, to our great shame, we have failed to do. So, Minister, why not use the national summit to come up with a national strategy on violence and abuse which includes realistic targets and time frames and measurable goals? Why not include Indigenous leaders in that summit? I say finally: if we are going to move forward, why not look at ways in which Indigenous people can meaningfully engage not only in your summit but also as part of a national representative body which they support and develop which would enable them to work hand-in-hand with governments as both embark on this important task together?
I say at the outset that I want to make three very brief points. The first is that there is no doubt that the problems are very real and that we need to face the reality of this ugliness in our society. The second thing is that we need to address the underlying issues—the point of this MPI—as a society and we need to do it in consultation with Aboriginal communities and, in particular, to respect their traditional structures and the role of the elders. Thirdly, as I have thought about this—and I do not take it lightly at all—I am absolutely convinced that the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is right to say that we must move first to secure the environment in which Aboriginal people, women and children in particular, have to operate if we are to achieve that very important objective of addressing underlying issues.
I want to outline briefly to the House today two experiences which have really shaken me in recent years in relation to this whole question of violence and abuse and of unsatisfactory outcomes for children in particular in our Indigenous communities. I represent a lot of Indigenous people in my own electorate of Gwydir and, in addition to that, as Deputy PM I had what was really the privilege of overseeing an Indigenous trial in the east Kimberleys. From these experiences there are some things I would like to say today. One of them can be reflected by a truly horrific interview I had in my electorate in the town of Lightning Reach, where two Aboriginal men, leaders in their communities whom I respect greatly, came to see me one day and said, ‘We’re here to talk about the impact of video trash in our communities.’ I thought, ‘This’ll be interesting. Where’s it going?’ One of them, a man I genuinely respect greatly because I have had a lot of dealings with him over some 17 or 18 years, said to me, ‘You have to understand that many of our young people are growing up in an environment where they are not really socialised in any normal way. They do not have a functional home environment in which they can learn either their own traditional values or mainstream Western values.’ I think we sometimes arrogantly assume from our own Western perspective that all Australian kids, regardless of who they are, are growing up in some framework where they can be sensibly socialised, and that is often not the case. That was the point that this leader was making.
He said, ‘You’ve got to understand that a lot of our young men are actually socialised by this highly inappropriate material that sometimes comes into their communities in truckloads.’ I said to him, ‘All right, you’re talking about censorship, and that is a very sensitive issue in Canberra. Where would you start?’ He shocked me with his answer. He said, ‘You can start with every video that contains the term and relates to the concept of’—and it was a filthy word, the first part of which is ‘mother’ and the second part of which relates to sexual activity. I looked at him and said, ‘Why?’ He said, ‘Because some of our kids who have grown up where they have had no socialisation in regard to what is acceptable sexual behaviour think that that is normal, and they learn it from whitey communities. They learn it from your communities!’ I have never felt more ashamed in all my life.
On that front, I was intrigued to note a press release put out by a man I do not know, a fellow by the name of Gondarra, who is the Chairman of the Aboriginal Resource and Development Service Inc. and the political leader of the Golumala clan in the Northern Territory. It makes very interesting reading, because his press release said in part:
No group or people can exist without a system of law to protect its people from abuse. This is especially so for the most vulnerable people, the young and aged, both male and female.
We would all agree with that. We would all uphold that. We would all recognise that no society can survive where its women and children are not safe. It is impossible. Every society worthy of the name society, let alone of the concept of civilisation down through the ages, has ensured the protection of its young and its vulnerable, and Aboriginal communities are no different. That is the point that this man is making. He says:
It is time to get a true understanding of traditional Aboriginal Law.
He goes on to say that their traditional approach is a real law system with parliaments, politicians, constitutions and acts of law. He says that their traditional law is not ‘customary law’ and it obviously seeks to protect the young and the vulnerable. But he goes on:
However, right now there is a sub-culture forming within Aboriginal communities that is violent and abusive. Unfortunately this sub-culture even believes that it is acting within “white fella” law when being abusive. A thinking that began with the systemic undermining of our own law with the colonization of Australia and the atrocities that followed. It is now reinforced by TV, movies, pornography and drugs brought into our community from wider Australia.
So while some incorrectly see our traditional … Law as barbaric and associate it with violence and abuse; the opposite is true, and those who have rejected traditional … Law have now become totally lawless, which they think is the new “white fella” way.
We have to face the fact that we are responsible for a lot of the inappropriate socialisation that is happening in Aboriginal communities today. I believe that very strongly.
We need to recognise that most of us would find abhorrent much of what is portrayed in those communities as being acceptable values in mainstream Western society, yet we need to recognise that it flows into a moral vacuum. I find that very concerning. I draw out of this that we must consult. We have got to draw alongside and spend a long time—or support those who spend the time and make the sacrifices—working alongside Aboriginal people. I do not want to denigrate those who have marched across bridges and what have you. I belong to that camp to some extent myself. I have mouthed a lot of platitudes. I have talked ‘knowingly’ about what ought to be done. But the people who really deserve the support and need our support are those who make the sacrifices to spend the time to build the long-term relationships on the ground with Aboriginal people. It is patronising to pretend that we can do it all somehow from outside.
This is going to be a real challenge. I think all of us who have thought about it will find it very difficult. How do we engage? How do we really draw alongside these people who, in the end, as I have just portrayed, abhor violence and abuse just as much as we do? Richard Trudgen, who wrote the book Why Warriors Lie Down and Die, seems to be saying that the intellectual leaders of Aboriginal society have never really been engaged by our leaders; thus, Aboriginal leaders feel both patronised and marginalised. We have not been able to mediate across that line, and maybe in some communities we can no longer do it because that intellectual and moral leadership has gone. There is no-one to mediate with. Yet we have to try. This is incredibly important, and Trudgen interestingly says that we have to learn to overcome our language difficulties, our communication difficulties. He makes the very powerful point, ‘The capacity to learn equals the educator’s ability to teach.’
I do not have much time, so I want to come to the second thing that gave me a real shock. As I mentioned, as Deputy PM it was my great privilege to be the patron minister for a community in the east Kimberleys. The eight Indigenous COAG trials were in many ways a very interesting set of communities for us to interact with. When I was Minister for Transport and Regional Services I had the Regional Women’s Advisory Council—a great group of women. They used to meet with me regularly. There were a couple of Indigenous women leaders on it, and one day they said, ‘What we’d like to do is to get some money out of your department and pull together a few women from each of those eight Indigenous COAG trial site communities across Australia and get them into Alice Springs,’ and they did that. They got a reasonable number of women there together, and they reckoned over the three or four days that they were there they had spent a couple of days before any of the Aboriginal women were brave enough to really speak out. They had to establish trust. It was a laborious process.
The stories that they did tell, though, were horrendous. I will never forget those women, who were aghast at what they had heard. One of them—an Aboriginal leader herself—said, ‘If we were applying decent standards of child protection, there are hardly any communities across Australia where you wouldn’t remove the children.’ I know how sensitive that is, but it was an Aboriginal woman who said it to me. That is a tragedy. And that is why I conclude—and I would love to talk much longer on this because I feel very passionately about it—by saying I think the minister is right. From what I learnt from those women and from my experiences across my own electorate, we have to do everything we can now to put in place the legal structures and the policing necessary to secure the safety of those men, those women and those children who are vulnerable so that we can start to effectively engage them on those very underlying issues that the mover of this motion, the member for Lingiari, wanted us to look at. We have to start with the policing. I am surprised to hear myself saying that, but I believe earnestly that it is right and that it is the priority and where we must begin.
As the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Task Force on Violence concluded after a very comprehensive inquiry in 1999:
The people who could have made a difference have failed to intervene to stop innocent women and children from being bashed, raped, mutilated and murdered and exposed to forms of violence that have been allowed to escalate to a level that is now a national disgrace.
That was the call to us from the Indigenous community leaders then. Seven years later, I am sorry to say it is still a national disgrace—indeed it is worse—and we all share responsibility for that state of affairs. There is no point trying to duck it, as the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs tried to do to some extent. I think he should spend a bit more time listening to the member for Gwydir, who seems to have a much better understanding of the complexity of these issues.
Despite these cyclical moral panics with numerous reports, summits, tub-thumping editorials and a succession of shocked ministers, sustained action to address violence in Indigenous communities sadly has not yet been forthcoming, and that is what we are debating today. If the past is any guide—and I hope it is not—the moment the current media focus dims, as it inevitably will, the government will be tempted to go into Rip Van Winkle mode again, leaving the already damaged to fend for themselves. In fact, as we have heard, one of the first acts of this government was to cut $30 million allocated for the modest but promising Indigenous family violence prevention programs as part of the massive cuts to ATSIC’s budget in 1996-97.
What might now be reasonably called the ‘shocked minister syndrome’ must be pretty galling to the many people who have contributed to those many reports and summits—and to the many people who work in this field and have for a long time been urging governments to act—that should have made it impossible for anyone in this place, and indeed in the whole community if they had had their eyes open, to be unaware of the truly dire circumstances in many communities throughout Australia. During the 10 years that this government has been in power, the problem of child abuse and family violence has been examined and reported on many occasions. There is no excuse for ignorance, let alone inaction. There are at least 30 reports—which have been available since that time to any conscientious MP, let alone a minister—which deal in whole or in part with the factors which lead to such violence and which outline the policies which could assist to reduce the pain and suffering which are the daily bread of so many Indigenous people.
The latest shocked minister, who expresses so much surprise at violence in Indigenous communities, has been in this parliament for the decade that the Howard government has been in office and is responsible for Indigenous Affairs. So forgive us if we are little critical that maybe this conversion is a decade too late! And although this minister has been on this planet for 45 years, he appears to have remained ignorant of the dire conditions in many Indigenous communities, although for a time he was the minister responsible for employment services and must have seen some of these problems. But despite his manifest lack of knowledge, he is not embarrassed to proffer instant solutions. As my mother used to say, ‘A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.’
As a previous speaker on our side indicated, it is important that the minister listen to the great many people, especially Indigenous people, who have put a lot of effort and thought into trying to solve these problems. Unfortunately, as we heard from the minister today, in the process of focusing on one area of law enforcement, he appears to be in the process of misdiagnosing the problems and denying his government has any responsibility for the state of affairs that he has so belatedly discovered; it all has to be done to state and territory government law enforcement practices. I say to the minister that responsibility for Indigenous wellbeing is front and centre a Commonwealth responsibility—shared with the states, it is true, but constitutionally and unavoidably a Commonwealth responsibility. It is simply not good enough for the minister to seek to absolve the government by saying:
Law and order and ... criminal justice ... have always been the responsibility of the states and territories.
Yes, they are and those governments should ensure proper policing in Indigenous communities, enforcement of liquor licensing laws and child protection. They should ensure that the full force of the law falls on those who inflict serious violence and abuse children. I absolutely agree with that and I do not imagine that anyone in this parliament would not. I have said and written this before, as many other people have, and I underline it again: Indigenous communities have the right to enjoy the same peace and good order as any others in our nation. And there has been serious neglect of law enforcement in Indigenous communities. But surely the minister understands—or I hope he can be made to by his colleagues—that preventing violence and abuse in the first place must be the prime objective for this national government, that seriously tackling these problems needs more than just more police and more arrests—the Indigenous community have had plenty of those—and that dealing with abuse and violence needs a long-term strategy, as the government were clearly advised by their Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report of last year. The report concluded:
Many Indigenous families and communities live under severe social strain due to a range of socioeconomic factors. Alcohol and substance misuse, and overcrowded living conditions are just some of the factors which can lead to child abuse and violence.
That is direct advice to the government. I hope the minister will come to understand that making any progress will require acknowledgment, as the report also pointed out, that crime is strongly related to socioeconomic disadvantage wherever it occurs. In Australia of all countries, knowing as we do the historical basis of European settlement although we might sometimes seek to deny it, we must acknowledge that if people are condemned to live lives of entrenched disadvantage, social breakdown, crime and violence will inevitably result in many cases.
If the answer were really as simple as more and better law enforcement, we could all go home. What is needed is not just law enforcement, although that must be done, but dealing with the root causes which produce the elevated rates of crime and violence in the first place. A decade down the track, I ask the minister why his government has not followed up on the many promises that have already been held out to Indigenous Australians to act to reduce the levels of violence and sexual abuse in their communities. We all agree, or at least I think we do, that after decades of turning a blind eye to violence in Indigenous communities this violence can no longer be tolerated. It has been tolerated for far too long. We have to place the same value on the lives and security of Indigenous women, children and men as we do on those of the rest of the community. But the responses must be carefully designed: they have got to engage the Indigenous communities, they have to be based on evidence of where the problems are most severe and what intervention actually works and they have to be sustained—I underline this—not a reflex response born of the next shocked minister’s panic. Threatening to close down remote communities by the stroke of a pen or to starve them of funds, which currently seems to be the preferred mode, is not a solution either, not least because research from my own state shows that the level of clinically significant emotional and behavioural difficulties amongst children is actually lowest in the most remote communities. The same study shows that alcohol consumption is much lower amongst the young people who live in those outermost communities than it is among those in metropolitan areas or areas surrounding agricultural and mining regions.
And we do not need any more reports. As I have said in another place, there have already been so many that they could wallpaper this House and the Senate as well. There have been at least three major initiatives by this government which have apparently gone nowhere. Minister, sustained action is what is required. Don’t wait for the media circus to move on and then disappear. It is going to require a lot of persistence. Minister, if any progress is to be made in reducing violence and abuse in affected communities—and it is by no means all of them—then it is vital that there be a proper understanding of the causes of that violence. It is not good enough to simply address the consequences. I really need to stress this because, given some of his public utterances, the minister does not seem not to understand this. To understand is not to excuse. To understand is to arm yourself with the necessary tools to intervene successful. No-one is trying to justify the violence. People are simply trying to understand it by examining, for instance, the immediate precipitating causes, by looking at the situational factors, such as alcohol and substance abuse, unemployment and welfare dependency, and by looking at the underlying factors, including historical circumstances. They cannot be denied.
After years of silence and shame about acknowledging the problem, Indigenous leaders decided more than a decade ago that the only way to begin the process of reducing violence was to confront it directly. As they have done that, the least that we can do is support them. This shift in sentiment was driven largely by women speaking out and refusing to countenance the devastating levels of abuse experienced in many communities. Minister, listen to those women, listen to the people who have been working on this problem for a very long time, sustain the action and you will get unqualified support from the members on this side.
As one of the last speakers in this MPI debate I thank everybody for the wisdom they have tried to bring to a very difficult subject. To sum up in the time I have and to offer added solutions is my challenge. Perhaps I can start with lawlessness. Will we overcome that just through tackling poverty and disadvantage? If only it were so simple that we could spend money and overcome it. As the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs advised us, we have spent $3.3 billion per annum. Never has there been more money spent on the issue. The Four Corners program in a very straightforward and comprehensive way showed Australia the challenge that lies before us.
As in the electorates of many of the previous speakers, my electorate has many Indigenous people; it includes the Pitjantjatjara lands, the Maralinga-Tjarutja lands. I have watched with despair and frustration the inability of our government to find appropriate solutions to these longstanding issues. There have been COAG trials and additional police. Indigenous people are 2½ per cent of the population and the 25 per cent of the jail population, figures that we all know about. The member for Kingsford Smith asked: ‘How can a First World country allow people to live in these Third World conditions?’
Yet, on the other side, over the last 12 months as chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs I have seen great improvements brought about by enlightened leadership. Looking at employment, one of our major corporates has been able to achieve in one operation a workforce in which 17 per cent of the workers are Indigenous people. They are quite optimistic that they will move that figure to 35 per cent over the next 10 years. But dealing with the issues of violence, lawlessness and the trashing of houses in order to allow a community to live in a civilised way is just beyond us.
This week in the parliament Gary Johns, a former minister in this place, had the Minister for Education, Science and Training present to us, and launch in the community, a report entitled Aboriginal education: remote schools and the real economy. In his last three paragraphs in the conclusion Gary Johns says:
Governments must decide if they want to sustain some of the pre-conditions which prevent children from succeeding in the education system. If education is an essential gateway to a satisfying life, impediments to achievement must be removed lest education be left carrying the weight of expectations far beyond its capacity to deliver. Policies which continue to treat Aboriginal culture differently, or play the cultural relativism game, will consign another generation of Aboriginal children to failure.
A change in education policy, from one focused on the artificial economy to one based on the real economy will have consequences. Economic incentives focused on parents will hopefully bring about a change in educational achievement. These changes will have an effect on remote communities. Some of these communities will not survive. Governments will need to plan for the inhabitants of those remote communities. The drift of the population, to regional and urban centres, to find new work will create new adjustment challenges for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.
The clear role of educators is to prepare children for the future, not the past. The future is an economic one and not necessarily in a remote community. This change in direction will attract reactionary criticism from those whose careers are based on extracting rents from the current regime. This criticism should be expected as a sign that the new direction is the right direction. The new policy direction must not apply different standards to Aboriginal children. It must fundamentally treat Aboriginal children as children.
So that is the challenge presented to us by Gary Johns, and I thank him for that. I thank the minister for having the courage to address the issue and for the partnership that he is endeavouring to forge with the states and territories. We can offer something within the adversarial roles in this place if we can just learn a little from the past. The member for Gwydir talked about Richard Trudgen and the benefit of understanding, the benefit of establishing trust, the benefit of engaging and the benefit of building relationships. I agree with the member for Gwydir that we are collectively responsible for the inappropriate outcomes that have occurred, particularly over the last 30 years. We must secure the communities.
We know that our federation creates great challenges in how we work with our partners in the states and territories. As the minister was at pains to say, it is not a criticism that will finger point and not give any outcome or result. There is money available for effective expenditure; it is about how we spend it. All the reports—and I am guilty of a few of them myself—are there. So, with an ounce of luck, and with goodwill from the Commonwealth and throughout our states and territories, there are great opportunities for us. There is no reason why we cannot have, in the future, Indigenous communities that are part of the total community in an equal way. But we must seek positive examples. Trudgen, tries to get us to understand—and he is but one person. Warren Mundine, Gary Johns and some in the media have made this their life’s work as well. We have the mechanisms in front of us to solve these problems. In the employment area alone, very positive outcomes are available to us. There is no reason why we cannot have in this country the wit within the police, law enforcement, the courts and the Koori courts to address this issue in a way which will give Indigenous people far better outcomes than they currently have.
The worst form of praise is self-praise, but I am going to indulge in a bit of that. We have to look at success stories. The library tells me I was the longest serving Aboriginal affairs minister in Australian history—and I was only in the job for about seven years. I found an article that states:
Mr Pearson—
Noel Pearson—
during his speech, also praised the work of controversial Queensland MP, Bob Katter.
Mr Pearson said:
Through the course of a deranged ministry—
he was referring to the situation before I came in—
Katter dragged Indigenous affairs in Queensland into the 20th century. You would have to have lived and grown up on a Queensland reserve as I did to appreciate the huge changes he effected to rigid systems of state control over Aboriginal affairs that had hardly changed since the turn of the century.
He went on to say that I was one of the best Aboriginal affairs ministers. Father Frank Brennan—definitely no great flatterer of mine—said to the Courier Mail that ‘Bob Katter Jr, the new federal member for Kennedy, was the best government person he had ever dealt with in Aboriginal affairs when he was minister for Aboriginal affairs in the Queensland government’. I think that four Sixty Minutes stories were done on me and what we were doing in the department at that time—and they were all highly praiseworthy.
This was an extraordinarily successful model. What was the magic formula we used? I have listened to previous speakers, and some of them are very good people. The member for Gwydir said we have to act to give these people a fair go. The essence of what he was saying seemed to be that policing was the area we had to look at. I do not mean to denigrate any of these people. Mr Fitzgerald, the person who destroyed the Queensland government, was paid a lot of money to disclose that the problem was alcohol. What his report essentially said was that, if alcohol were banned, the problems would be solved. It was a very deep and far-reaching intellectual achievement to tell them that alcohol was the problem!
The member for Fremantle said we should listen to the people who work with them and know their problems. Quite frankly, from my experience, they are the last people I would listen to. The member for Grey said we should give them education. I do not really know why—and I am at a loss as to how you would give it to them. You cannot force children to go to school. Parents cannot force their children to do anything these days. If a kid does not want to go to school, I am at a loss as too how you can give them education.
At Camooweal in my day we had two wonderful teachers. One of them would go to the front of the Aboriginal community and the other would go to the back. When the kids flew out the back, he would grab them, throw them in the back of the kombi van and take them to school. That is how they got them to school. So, Member for Grey, how would you go about getting them to school? Are we going to belt them? We would then have them taken from us.
I will continue on about how marvellous I am. George Mai was a legendary leader, and a great friend and mentor of Father Passi. In fact, Eddie Mabo was kicked out on the second day of the Mabo case and Father Passi, a man of towering integrity and presence, took his place. George Mai, a legendary leader for some 20 or 30 years in the Torres Strait, was kind enough to say I was the best minister he had ever worked with. What was the magic formula? I suppose I had the advantage of playing in football teams. If you look at my wall, you will see all the football teams there. I was brought up and mixed with Aboriginal children. Some of my best friends are Aboriginal. Last time I watched a state of origin match, in Mount Isa, one of my good mates of Aboriginal descent was there. They taught me to ride a horse. They taught me a lot of what I knew about playing rugby league football. They taught me about mining as well.
So I had an advantage, but that was not the reason. The reason was that the one thing nobody said was, ‘Please, for Heaven’s sake, go out and listen to them.’ This is nothing very complicated. When we went out there, I vividly remember a picture on my wall of Jackson Choicha and Eddie Holroyd at what is now Poomperau. I said, ‘Just tell us what you want.’ They said, ‘We want self-management.’ I said, ‘Righto, you’ve got that; it’s on its way. What else do you want?’ They said, ‘We want to have a go at the cleanskins.’ I said, ‘You’re going to have to build yards. You can’t do that on government land.’ The government was not going to put out money to build yards on government land, so I told them they might need to take up some land. They said, ‘We can’t do that.’ So I said, ‘I’m the minister. If you want to take up land, take it up.’ I did not know whether I could deliver, but I said that I could. One of the 60 Minutes segments was done on Jackson Choicha and Eddie Holroyd.
We said, ‘From now on, you build your own homes totally.’ In Queensland we got agreement that all houses would be built by Aboriginals and some 700 jobs were created out of nothing. Until then white contractors were building all of the houses in Queensland or we were buying existing houses. From now on every house would be built by exclusively black labour. This was not easy. I think there were at least a dozen sackings in my department. I went out and inspected site after site myself to enforce the decision that had been taken by the Aboriginal coordinating council in Queensland. Gerhard Pearson, Noel’s brother, said, ‘Why can’t we use the CDEP money?’ That was started off by another Hopevale resident. Two 60 Minutes segments were done on the CDEP Work for the Dole program, which was commenced by a person of Aboriginal descent from Hopevale, home of Matty Bowen, the famous rugby league player. It was commenced by Greg and then Gerhard said, ‘Why can’t we start using CDEP people to build the homes?’
So we went from building three homes a year, and then Donnie Fraser at Doomadgee, another person of Aboriginal descent—these are people doing it themselves—said, ‘Can we get block-making machines?’ So we bought seven or eight, and they did not cost a lot, only about $70,000 apiece. So they were building almost everything they needed. Apart from the fittings and the roofs, everything was being built at the Doomadgee and Hopevale sites. The entire cost of the houses—that $60 million or $70 million that we were spending each year in Queensland—suddenly was providing jobs for all of these people.
With the cattle incentive, in the Aboriginal areas of Queensland we had mustered 1,874 head of cattle before these programs started. By 1985 we were mustering 4,285 head of cattle a year. In the Torres Strait, where the industry was fishing, they went from around $200,000 to $3 million a year—most of that was concentrated on Badu Island.
There was an absolutely remarkable success story with cattle, and the reason was that the government was running the whole fishery up there and the people of Torres Strait Islander descent could not run or own anything themselves. We came along and said, ‘What about the land?’ They were given a choice about whether they wanted tribal ownership, land council ownership, local government ownership—because we were setting up local government—private ownership or a continuation of state government ownership. Surprise, surprise. They all said they wanted to own their own homes and farms themselves.
I do not know of a single government in Australia that has delivered to the black people the simple right to own their own homes. Nobody has been up there to ask them, because the last time I visited Yarrabah the chairman was banging his fist on the table and saying, ‘The only place in the world you can’t own your own home is at Yarrabah.’ They looked at me and I said, ‘Doomadgee, Palm Island—you name the place; you’re not allowed to own your own home.’ And this is in that 40 per cent of Australia that is owned by people of Aboriginal descent.
The money that is handed out by the state and federal governments to these people because they are of Aboriginal descent works out to about $80,000 a family. I have to honestly say I do not see any of my blackfella mates driving around in Volvo motorcars. So where is the $80,000 going? It sure is not going into black pockets. Forty per cent of the surface area of Australia is owned by people of Aboriginal descent, but they cannot access it. They do not really own anything; it is tribal ownership.
The initiative for them to build their own homes was abandoned; they are all back being built by contractors in Queensland and 700 jobs have gone up in smoke. Everything humanly possible has been done to smash private ownership in the reserve areas of Queensland, including by the incoming ALP government, which took the right to private ownership—(Time expired)
Order! The discussion is now concluded.
Debate resumed from 20 May, on motion by Mr Vaile:
That this bill be now read a second time.
When it comes to the Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 we have to ask ourselves a key question. We are dealing with exports, with Australia’s economic future and with the future of Australian manufacturing itself, so what does our manufacturing industry require for the future? What does it say it needs? The Australian Industry Group quotes one Victorian manufacturer as saying:
At a national level we need a business plan. We need a clear set of objectives so we know where we are going, where infrastructure is taken into account and the issues of developing people, getting good leadership, looking at the ways we can be smarter and finding niche markets are taken into account.
This hits the nail on the head and it is to this that the Australian Labor Party is responding in our approach to a future manufacturing policy, plan and strategy for the country. We have no intention of standing idly by while Australian manufacturing sinks quietly below the waves.
Labor has a plan to ensure that the manufacturing sector will be viable beyond the end of the resources boom—a plan to increase skills by abolishing TAFE fees for traditional trades; a plan to increase labour force participation through the provision of more child-care workers; a plan to facilitate exports through a coordinated approach to infrastructure through Infrastructure Australia. We also believe that a new approach is needed to boost Australian exports—an approach which focuses on all industries, not just resource related industries.
Australia needs a new export strategy for the country, one which tackles the productivity challenge head-on across infrastructure, skills, R&D and innovation, one which maximises Australia’s efforts to secure greater global market access through the current WTO round, one which reforms Australia’s approach to export promotion through Austrade and one which implements concrete measures to create a better export culture right across the economy through practical assistance to Australian exporters.
The bill that we debate today does not of itself address Australia’s systemic export problems. It does not of itself address the systemic problems concerning our current account. It does not of itself address the problems that now arise with our staggering half-trillion dollar foreign debt. The opposition, however, will support this bill because it does provide for the administrative transition of the Australian Trade Commission from a statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to a statutory agency which will be part of the Commonwealth, subject to the Public Service Act 1999, and a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
One of the consequences of this bill is that, upon its proclamation, the role of a CEO will be established to replace the Austrade board. The Austrade board was established by the Hawke Labor government in 1985 for the very reason that it would bring the commercial acumen of the private sector into facilitating Austrade’s trade performance. Labor recognise the valuable input that business and industry can provide to policy, and this is particularly important at a time when Australia’s trade position has registered such bad numbers for the economy. We recognise that the legislation allows for the continued involvement of industry through the existing Free Trade Agreement Export Advisory Panel and the Trade Promotion Advisory Committee. Our concern, however, is that there will be no high-level input from business and industry leaders of the type that the current board structure provides. Our view, therefore, is that this question will need to be revisited under a future Labor government. We believe that business input is critical to Austrade’s future success. We are prepared to support this bill because it nonetheless allows Austrade to become a statutory agency. It is for this reason that I now move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the bill will do little to correct Australia’s trade balance which:
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
I call the honourable member for—
Fisher.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams. And I thank my friend the honourable member for Griffith for his assistance to you as to the name of my electorate. It is interesting, Mr Deputy Speaker: so many people from your electorate are moving to mine, I would have thought that you would have known where they were escaping to.
I am pleased to be able to join the debate on the Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. I listened carefully to the contribution made by the honourable member for Griffith. As always, it was thought provoking. Sadly, in this case it was not entirely on the subject of the legislation we are currently debating. His second reading amendment, as so often happens in the House of Representatives, seems to deal with issues other than the issues being dealt with by the Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. Having said that, politics is politics. But I think it is important for all of us to appreciate that the desire of all governments is, or should be, the efficient provision of good services to those people they govern. It is widely recognised not only throughout Australia but indeed throughout the world that this government over the last 10 years has been responsible for sound economic management. We have brought about an enormous number of positive changes. We have repaid every last cent of government debt. We have brought the budget into surplus at a time when we have been able to reduce taxes and improve the quality of life of all Australians.
It is important also for governments to always remember that, no matter what good a job is being done, the job is never finished. This government would be the last government to suggest that our good governance over the last 10 years means that there is no need any longer for more sound economic management in the future. Governments must always be wary that unwise spending decisions could ultimately have an adverse impact on the quality of life of residents.
Mr John Uhrig AC is a person who is highly regarded. In earlier times he would have actually been a Knight of the Realm, because the award of Commander of the Order of Australia was supposed to replace knighthoods. So in 2002 we chose a person who is eminently well regarded in the community to conduct a review of the corporate governance of Commonwealth statutory authorities and office holders to determine whether any of the management operations could be improved or modified to ensure more efficient operations, thereby reducing costs and improving service delivery to the people. The review was known as the ‘Review of Corporate Governance of Commonwealth Statutory Authorities and Office Holders’—quite a mouthful, I am sure you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker. But the name of the review summed up rather nicely what the review was all about. Mr Uhrig was also asked by the Australian government to utilise the review process to formulate suggestions about how things could be done better. He was asked to provide options to the government to get the most efficient results from the statutory bodies. The honourable member for Griffith, in his contribution, has outlined how the character of the Australian Trade Commission will alter in accordance with the recommendations of Mr Uhrig.
Mr Uhrig also came back with a standard framework of good governance guidelines that the government could use for statutory bodies and then apply more widely to public sector organisations. As one would expect with a review of this nature, input was derived from a wide range of areas, including ministers of the Crown, office holders in statutory bodies, various departments, consumer groups and business organisations. This was not a review that the government arranged overnight. It was a genuine review whereby we consulted widely with the Australian community, because the purpose of this review was to ensure that we did have better governance when the recommendations of Mr Uhrig were handed down.
Among Mr Uhrig’s recommendations, it was decided that those statutory bodies that have a service provision role should be subject to the guidelines in the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. The Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 helps to introduce some of the amendments suggested by the review in how they relate to the Australian Trade Commission. The commission, known as Austrade, is a statutory body whose role is to assist Australian business to acquire more successfully overseas sales, thereby boosting our international earnings and ensuring a better quality of life for all Australians.
Austrade—and I think this is accepted generally—have the expertise and the know-how to assist in the international business arena and their experience can help greatly reduce the hurdles, risks, costs and difficulties that would otherwise be faced by those operators eager to export to the world. I think most honourable members would have approaches from constituents from time to time who, having been successful locally in their business, are keen to spread their wings and export to the world. Often it is so difficult for a small business which has had a good idea and has successfully developed that idea to take that next step. That is one of the reasons why, under successive governments, Austrade has done a very good job.
The Austrade mission is to contribute to community wealth by helping more Australians succeed in export and international business. It is a noble and niche service. This bill will enable the Australian Trade Commission to be transformed from a statutory authority, governed under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, to a statutory agency administered through the Public Service Act 1999 and a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
Honourable members might be interested to know that there are around 170 Australian government statutory authorities and that they have all been subject to reviews under the provisions as suggested by Mr Uhrig’s review. The Austrade changes are not the first to be implemented as a result of the review. Last October, changes were made to the operating frameworks of Medicare Australia, whereby the Medicare board has been dissolved and an executive management system has been introduced. Also, the recommendations by the review will lead to operational changes to the Australian Research Council, which will transform to a set-up of executive management similar to Austrade. The National Health and Medical Research Council will become an independent statutory body, but with the appointment of an executive management.
These changes are all designed to improve the efficiency of these bodies. As one would expect, some statutory bodies will not be changed as a result of the review. Honourable members may or may not be aware that these would include the Australian National Audit Office, the Australian Public Service Commission, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office, Geoscience Australia, as well as the more visible bodies such as the Reserve Bank of Australia, AusAID and Australia Post.
A number of other statutory bodies have had their operations assessed. The Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, which is currently before the House, is part of this ongoing process of reform by the coalition, which, after 10 years of effective government, is not reform-weary. We are continuing to do the job entrusted to us by the Australian people in successive elections from 1996 to 1998 to 2001 and 2004.
The Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 will help deliver greater efficiencies and greater accountability to Commonwealth statutory bodies. I am very pleased to commend the bill to the House and, in doing so, I place on the public record my opposition to the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Griffith.
Australia’s monthly trade deficit for March 2006 was $1.5 billion. This is the 48th monthly trade deficit in a row. This means that for four years now the value of Australia’s exports has been exceeded by the value of our imports. By November 2004, Australia’s trade deficit of $2.6 billion was the highest on record. It is a record that we have, regrettably, come close to equalling on a number of occasions since. For example, in February the monthly trade deficit reached $2.4 billion. Australia’s annual trade deficit for the calendar year 2005 was close to $20 billion. These record trade deficits have contributed directly to record current account deficits. In the federal budget, the government forecasts export growth in 2007 of seven per cent. But it is an optimist of Olympian proportions who would set any store by that forecast.
The government’s record on export forecasts over the past five years has in fact been hopeless. In 2001, they forecast five per cent export growth; exports fell by 0.8 per cent. In 2002, they forecast six per cent export growth; exports fell, again, by 0.8 per cent. In 2003, they forecast export growth of six per cent—undeterred; exports grew by barely more than one per cent. In 2004, bloodied but unbowed, they forecast eight per cent export growth, whereas exports grew by only 2.5 per cent. In 2005, they forecast seven per cent export growth; again, exports grew by barely two per cent. So, over the past five years, the government have overforecast growth in exports by an average of 5½ percentage points every year. So, if we are lucky this year, we will get export growth rather than export falls. Continually forecasting six per cent, seven per cent or eight per cent growth is surely a triumph of hope over experience.
The root cause of Australia’s parlous external balance is Australia’s recent performance on exports. If that external imbalance is not addressed, there is every potential that interest rates will suffer as a consequence. Rather than looking at a comprehensive solution to Australia’s export problems, the government is focusing its attention squarely on the resources boom. There is no doubt that Australia should take advantage of its resource stocks to enhance its export performance, but we should not throw all of our eggs into the resources basket. The 2006-07 budget papers effectively hauled up the white flag on manufacturing exports. Budget Paper No. 1—Statement 3: Economic outlook—states:
Other categories of exports—
that is, other than resources—
are forecast to pick up 2006-07, although they are unlikely to grow at the strong rates experienced in the 1990s. Exports of elaborately transformed manufactures are forecast to grow moderately over the next two years ...
In fact, the total value of manufactured exports is now $2 billion less than it was at its peak in 2001. Such a performance is simply not good enough.
Australian manufacturing exports were one of the great success stories of the 1980s and 1990s. Between 1986 and 1996 the volume of exports of elaborate manufactures increased by 13.9 per cent per annum, whereas between 1995 and 2000 they dipped to an annual average growth rate of 7.2 per cent. Manufacturing remains the largest sector in the economy, accounting for 13 per cent of value added activity, but as a share of the economy this is less than the 15 per cent of 10 years ago and the 18 per cent of 20 years ago. It also does not compare well with other developed countries. The manufacturing sector accounts for 20 per cent of GDP in Italy, 19 per cent in New Zealand and 17 per cent in the United Kingdom.
In 2004-05, Australia’s manufacturing trade deficit was $87.5 billion. This is unsustainable in the long term. Of course, there are external factors which have impacted on the manufacturing sector. The average OECD country has lost six percentage points of global market share over the past five years, but over the same period Australia’s share has declined by three times this amount. The question is: with all our eggs in the resource basket, who will be our exporters once the boom is over and what should we do in the meantime to ensure that these industries do not collapse? This is the question the government should be asking itself. Once the resources boom is over, what will be left of our manufacturing industry, an industry we are going to rely on to fill a gap created by a slowing resources sector?
While it is clear that across-the-board tariffs are not the solution, there is a role that government can play in smoothing out the economic cycle. In an editorial last year, the Australian Financial Review argued that there was a role for government in ensuring a balance between industry sectors in the economy. It said:
Industry policy has moved a long way since manufacturing was equated with high levels of industry protection. But now there is a need to do more than simply leave manufacturing to its own devices—as long as we follow the incentive route and do not revert to protection.
Labor is not talking about tariffs or massive industry subsidies and nor is industry. We are, however, about listening to what industry needs to survive—and what does the manufacturing industry say it needs? The Australian Industry Group quotes one Victorian manufacturer as saying:
At a national level we need a business plan. We need a clear set of objectives so we know where we’re going, where infrastructure is taken into account and the issues of developing people, getting good leadership, looking at ways we can be smarter and finding niche markets are taken into account.
This is the sort of thing government ought to be listening to to address the trade deficit. Unfortunately, the Howard government is not listening. The fact is that we cannot simply abandon the manufacturing sector. We cannot haul up the white flag on the largest employer in the country. We cannot just wait for the resources boom to end and leave a devastated manufacturing sector to try to fill the gap. Labor believes that the manufacturing sector needs to be viable beyond the end of the resources boom. We have a plan to increase skills by abolishing TAFE fees for traditional trades, a plan to increase labour force participation through the provision of more child-care workers and a plan to facilitate exports through a coordinated approach to infrastructure through Infrastructure Australia.
We believe that a new approach is needed to boost Australian exports, an approach which focuses on all industries, not just resources. A new national export strategy should tackle the productivity challenge head-on across the infrastructure skills and R&D sectors, maximise Australia’s efforts to secure greater global market access through the current WTO round, reform Australia’s approach to export promotion through Austrade and implement concrete messages to create a better export culture across the economy through practical assistance to exporters.
This bill will not address Australia’s systemic export and current account problems. We will support it. However, what it does is to provide for the transition of the Australian Trade Commission from a statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to a statutory agency which will be part of the Commonwealth subject to the Public Service Act 1999 and a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
The member for Griffith has raised concerns over one of the consequences of this bill—that is, upon its proclamation the role of the CEO will be established to replace the Austrade board. As he points out, the Austrade board was established by the Hawke Labor government in 1985 for the very reason that it would bring the commercial acumen of the private sector into facilitating Australia’s trade performance. The Labor Party recognises the valuable input that business and industry can provide to policy, which is particularly important at a time when Australia’s trade position is in such a parlous state. It is somewhat ironic that the party that holds itself as the champion of free enterprise has taken it upon itself to reduce the level of private sector involvement in facilitating Australia’s trade performance.
The legislation does allow for the continued involvement of industry through the existing Free Trade Agreement Export Advisory Panel and Trade Promotion Advisory Committee. However, there will be no high-level input from business and industry leaders that the current board structure provides. The bill implements the executive management corporate governance model, as per Mr John Uhrig’s Review of Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders. The Australian Trade Commission Act 1985 established the Australian Trade Commission and defined the organisation’s structure and operational framework. This bill is intended to enact revised governance arrangements in the enabling legislation. The changes, according to the explanatory memorandum, will improve governance and accountability in the Australian Trade Commission—and I certainly hope it will.
The recent AWB scandal has raised several serious governance and accountability questions for the Australian Trade Commission and, so far, we are yet to hear answers to these questions. Austrade has been peculiarly silent about AWB providing hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein. The fact is that Austrade, the Australian Trade Commission, was one of many government agencies that were aware of substantive information about the link between Alia, AWB, Saddam Hussein and the coordinated subversion of the UN’s oil for food program.
Austrade continues to be responsible for assisting Australian firms to develop export markets and international business. But, in light of its silence about information concerning Australian traders breaking laws and subverting international conventions, its understanding of its responsibilities appears to be limited. It kept quiet—or at least its concerns and the information it was privy to was kept quiet.
This bill was an opportunity for the Trade Commission to have been given an explicit directive to uphold Australian law in matters concerning international trade. The bill was an opportunity for the Trade Commission to be given an explicit directive to uphold Australia’s reputation in matters concerning international trade. Had the Trade Commission done so in recent years, perhaps the trade sanctions put in place by the United Nations would have worked more effectively. Perhaps—instead of propping Saddam Hussein up—enforcing trade sanctions would have weakened him, lessened the threat that he posed and negated the need felt by the coalition of the willing to invade Iraq. Perhaps tens of thousands of men, women and children would still be alive today. Perhaps tens of thousands more would not be suffering as they are today.
What could Austrade have done? It could have made inquiries. It could have taken some responsibility. It could have reported to the government upon the results of its inquiries. I will give the House a couple of examples of what I am thinking of and two incidents where Austrade had the opportunity to do the right thing spring to mind. First, there was Alistair Nicholas, Austrade’s commissioner in Washington in 2000, who said in his statement to the Cole inquiry that he was approached by Ms Felicity Johnston of the UN oil for food program in early 2000. She told him that the UN oil for food program had raised concerns about AWB’s kickbacks with Australia’s mission to the UN but that they still did not have an answer from that mission. This was an appeal by the UN oil for food program, as far back as 2000, to another arm of the Howard government, at a time when few kickbacks had been paid, and much of the scandal could have been averted. Alistair Nicholas then raised the issue with AWB executive Tim Snowball, who assured him that there were no irregularities. Let me quote what Tim Snowball wrote back to Mark Emons, the AWB Middle East section chief, about the matter:
Alistair mentioned that someone at the UN was asking him quietly/informally about payments AWB was making to Iraq for discharge/trucking ...
We played down the issue and said we would look at the UN request.
We do not want Alistair sticking his nose into our Iraq business and causing us problems ...
What a disgraceful response from AWB. Commissioner Alistair Nicholas was apparently not entirely convinced by Tim Snowball’s assurances, because in late 2000 he sent a cable back to Canberra saying:
... AWB do not understand the seriousness nor the urgency of this matter. It may be necessary to advise the Minister of the situation.
But it would seem that Alistair Nicholas did not ultimately ‘stick his nose in’ and Austrade elected not to cause any problems—which is a shame. Austrade could have done more to avert this scandal. Austrade had further information about these kickbacks that, had it been operating under more explicit legislation, represented at least one other opportunity to do the right thing. In 2003, Ayman Ayyash was Austrade’s manager in Jordan, where he helped secure, among other deals, wheat deals for AWB. General Manager of Alia, Othman Al Absi, told the ABC’s 7.30 Report in April this year that he knew Ayman Ayyash and that he had known him since at least 2000. They had all been to parties at the Australian ambassador’s residence in Amman, Jordan. He went on to say that Austrade’s Ayman Ayyash also knew the Chairman of Alia, Sheikh Hussein al-Khawam.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The speaker has been good in mentioning the bill occasionally, but could you encourage him now to refer to the bill?
Does the honourable member have a point of order?
My point of order goes to relevance to the bill.
I ask the honourable member for Wills to address the bill.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am. The changes, according to the explanatory memorandum, will improve governance and accountability in the Australian Trade Commission. I am pointing to the need for this to be done and I am speaking in support of the opposition’s amendment.
Othman Al Absi also told the 7.30 Report that Austrade’s Ayman Ayyash kept in touch with them all ‘so many times’. I wonder what about? The Australian public has a right to know. Why would an Austrade official who was in the business of selling wheat talk ‘so many times’ and ‘party’ with the chairman and general manager of a kickback receipt company? So far neither Austrade nor the Australian government has provided anything like a satisfactory response. Here again was an opportunity for Austrade to have asked a pointy question or two: did Austrade know that Alia was 49 per cent owned by Saddam Hussein and that all the kickbacks were going straight back to Saddam’s treasury? This is something the Australian public has a right to know about.
Unfortunately, in February this year, during the last round of Senate estimates hearings, Senator Coonan chose to gag Austrade officials appearing before the committee. The government’s contempt for parliamentary democracy took another leap, and public servants working at Austrade were gagged. They were not permitted to speak about AWB. So we really have no way of knowing. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade have repeatedly claimed that they are being open and transparent about the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal, so why is it that we cannot ask Austrade in Senate estimates about what they know? We want to know about the role of Australia’s man in Jordan, Ayman Ayyash. Just what were his dealings with Alia? Just what did he know about AWB kickbacks?
The Cole inquiry’s terms of reference do not call for an assessment of what Austrade did or did not know, or did or did not do. The government has made sure the Cole inquiry protected them from such important questions. The government claims it is being honest and transparent about the AWB scandal, but it has not given the Cole commission any terms of reference to inquire into the conduct of Austrade, much less government ministers themselves. Nor will it allow senators to question Austrade officials about the AWB scandal as part of normal Senate estimates processes. This is a government which claimed it would not abuse its Senate majority. What a joke. This bill claims it will improve the corporate governance and accountability of Austrade. I say that nothing would sharpen the sense of corporate governance and accountability quite like a couple of sessions in front of Senate estimates committees.
In closing, I refer to the current wheat deal. A transparent and accountable Austrade might even be able to give us a full account of what has happened to our on-again, off-again wheat deal with Iraq. We had the trade minister saying today that it is going to be secured. The question is: just how much is Iraq going to pay Australian farmers for 350,000 tonnes of wheat? Hard-working wheat farmers deserve to know where they stand and certainly deserve a transparent and accountable Trade Commission. I encourage the House to support the amendment.
I am pleased, as always, to speak in the parliament on a piece of legislation being promoted by the Howard government—the Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. I have also had the opportunity to hear the member for Wills speak on this matter—another occasion where I have heard a great deal of diatribe from the member for Wills. I have had the opportunity of following him in the parliament on a couple of occasions and it never ceases to amaze me the extent to which the shadow minister, the member for Wills, engages in remarkable muckraking. I am not sure if he is self-appointed or whether he has been appointed by the opposition as the opposition’s muckraker, but little of what he had to say was of substance or about the bill.
All those in the parliament who know the member for Gwydir will be horrified at the remarks of the member for Wills and his attacks on the integrity and the probity of one of the most decent men who has given of his time to the national interest of the parliament. I repudiate the attacks that the member for Wills has engaged in today and on previous occasions against the member for Gwydir, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson.
As a member of parliament and a member of the Howard government—I am in my second term in office, sharing in the victories of the Howard government—I am pleased to speak on this important bill. It is important because it makes significant changes to the government’s structure of the Australian Trade Commission, or Austrade. It brings about some key reforms to the management structure of Austrade that will make that important government agency more efficient and more productive in the overall architecture of the Howard government’s trade policies.
As a statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, Austrade is governed by a board whose members are drawn from business and government. It reports directly to the Minister for Trade. The current bill intends to transition Austrade from a statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to a statutory agency subject to the Public Service Act 1999 and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. This transition comes through as part of the government’s response to the Review of Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders—also known as the Uhrig review, after John Uhrig AC.
The Uhrig review recommended that two templates be applied to ensure good governance of statutory authorities. Agencies should be managed either by a chief executive officer or by a board structure. Both templates detail measures for ensuring the boundaries of responsibilities are better understood and the relationship between Australian government authorities, ministers and portfolio departments are made clear. The Uhrig report recommended that the selection of the management template and financial frameworks to be applied should be based on the governance characteristics of a statutory authority. In general, agencies that exclusively manage Commonwealth appropriations should be represented and governed by a CEO. A board structure is favoured if there is a strong commercial focus to the organisation or if the agency is intergovernmental.
Austrade is currently governed by a board and is subject to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. Under the amendments proposed in the bill, the Austrade board will be replaced by a CEO, who will be appointed by the minister. The governing act will change from the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, and staff will be employed under the Public Service Act 1999. In short, this change comes about essentially because the government has concluded that an executive management template is more suitable to Austrade’s role as the Australian government’s premier trade facilitation agency.
Members of the House will be aware that Austrade is the Australian government’s statutory authority, responsible for helping Australian businesses to succeed in exports and the international business arena. It does this through the provision of advice, market intelligence and ongoing support to Australian businesses preparing, commencing and undertaking export activity. Austrade maintains 17 offices and 52 TradeStart offices across Australia and a network across the globe that includes some 130 offices in more than 60 countries.
Its most fundamental role is to act as a bridge between the Australian exporter and a potential international partner. As part of this role, Austrade provides mentoring, information seminars and training in export related activity. Austrade officials have a fine reputation for identifying export opportunities and potential partners, and provide in-country advice and support from advocacy and research to facilitation and translation services. Austrade also administers the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, the EMDG Scheme, which provides partial reimbursement of approved marketing expenses in export activity.
Another unheralded role that Austrade fulfil is the role of fostering and encouraging a culture of exporting and trade in the Australian business community. For this reason alone, I am a big fan of Austrade. For their overall contribution to Australian exporters and the Australian export industry, I put on record my very strong support and encouragement for our Austrade officials both in Australia and throughout the world. In today’s very competitive world it is vital that Australia develops the business culture of looking abroad for commercial opportunities. We have a history of innovation and entrepreneurship in this country that quite frankly is second to none. We must do all we can as a government to support and encourage greater innovation and entrepreneurship on the back of what we already have. Clearly Austrade has a critical role to play in how Australia promotes trade in goods and services to the world.
We all know that the Australian economy today is experiencing remarkable activity, growth and strength. A few weeks ago the Treasurer delivered his 9th budget surplus out of 11 budgets, and there will be a cash surplus of some $10.8 billion. Unlike the state Labor governments, all of which are likely to be delivering budget deficits in the weeks ahead, the Commonwealth has no foreign debt. The Commonwealth government does not have any debt whatsoever. I have heard previous speakers in the parliament, particularly the shadow minister for foreign affairs, the member for Griffith, talk about the half a trillion dollar debt. Quite frankly, he should know better. He should know that that is private sector debt. It is not debt owed by the Commonwealth.
This economy is a trillion dollar economy. It is a trillion dollar economy because of the strong leadership of the Howard government and the strong stewardship that the Treasurer has demonstrated in his role in the past 10 years. The furphy that the opposition keep putting out that the government somehow has its hands in debt needs to be addressed and addressed very quickly by members of the government, because quite frankly they are again trying to mislead the Australian public.
I want to say again that whatever debt there is in the country is private sector debt; it is not debt owed by the government of Australia. This confusion from members of the opposition is unwarranted in the eyes of the Australian community, and I think they will be held to account. More members of the opposition should come clean on that. I notice that it is only one or two of them who go down the path of misleading the Australian community about the so-called half a trillion dollar debt. The $28 billion that Qantas is expending on aircraft purchases is an example I can give the parliament and those who may be listening of a private company buying overseas made products. That is separate from any expenditure that the Australian government might engage in. That is a very good example of how the opposition is wrong when it talks about a half a trillion dollar government debt.
In the 10 years during which the Howard government has been in office the Australian economy has grown by an average of 3.5 per cent. By comparison, Japan has had four recessions, Singapore has had three recessions, Hong Kong has had three recessions, Taiwan has had two recessions, Korea has had a recession, and the United States went into recession in 2001. At the time of the Asian financial crisis in 1996-97, when this government came into office, we were very strong in helping the Asian economies when they needed a friend. Australia can be very proud of the contribution it made to the economies of Asia when they were desperately in need of a good neighbour. It certainly makes a mockery of the description attributed to the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, that Australia was in danger of becoming so-called ‘poor white trash’. Notwithstanding our good relations and good friendship with Singapore, I think today’s economy stands in stark contrast to the sentiments behind that unfortunate comment.
In relation to Australia’s trade figures, I have heard members of the opposition again try to confuse and mislead the Australian public. The Australian trade figures represent just how healthy the Australian economy really is. Australia’s total trade in goods and services continued to grow steadily last year, rising to $373 billion, representing a 12 per cent increase in total exports. The latest official publication from DFAT has some very good news for Australian exporters and indeed for all Australians who have a strong interest in our prosperity and our growth. The report tells us that in 2005 our 30,000-plus exporters achieved their best-ever year in sales. The value of exports of goods and services rose some 15 per cent in 2005, to $177 billion. Japan remains our largest merchandise export market, accounting for 20 per cent of exports, which are valued at some $28.4 billion. China remains our second largest export market, accounting for $16.1 billion. South Korea is our third largest export market, at some $10.9 billion.
If anyone needs to be persuaded of the importance of trade to this country, let me give a very compelling reason. We are of course a trading nation. Trade affects our standard of living. Trade affects our job market. One in five jobs in this country rest on the success and prosperity of our exporting companies. In rural Australia, one in four jobs depends upon the stability, continuity and growth of our exports. I remind anybody who thinks that trade is not important to this economy of those very important figures—that is, one in five jobs in this country depends upon successful exporters, and in rural and regional parts of Australia that figure is one in four. In the last 10 years 1.7 million jobs have been created in Australia. Our unemployment level is at a three-decade low of five per cent.
Many of my fellow Australians will not need reminding that under the Keating Labor government unemployment levels were into double digit figures. I am sure many of them will remember the horror days of being unable to find a job, being unable to secure employment, because of the shocking economic management of this country by the Keating Labor government. If anyone thinks that the economy today is in good shape simply due to good chance or good luck then they ought to reconsider. These sorts of things do not happen by good luck or goodwill. They happen through very strong policies of the government of the day. This government can be very proud of the policies that it has implemented to bring about job growth and a strong economy.
The business of government, as I like to remind small businesses of the Ryan electorate, which I have the great privilege of representing, is to try and create the environment and the climate in which businesses can get on with doing what they are best at doing—that is, finding purchasers for their products, finding customers for their products and creating jobs for their local communities. The business of government is to get out of the way of businesses, to allow businesses to do what they do best. They do not want the heavy hand of any government. They want minimal intervention, minimal interference by governments, and that is how they are able to prosper in the community. This is the Howard government’s view. This is the policy of the government and this is our practice. It is little wonder that the Howard government are seen as the best friend of the workers of Australia. The last four elections are evidence of that. I think it is important that we remind the Australian community that there was a time when unemployment in this country was at double digit levels.
While I am on my feet talking about the strength of Australian businesses and the Australian economy, I think it is important also to make some general remarks about the international economy. Of course, Australian businesses in this country cannot conduct their operations in isolation of what takes place in other parts of the world. Whether we like it or not—whether Australian businesses like it or not and whether the government likes it or not—we do operate and exist in an international environment, where the policies of other governments and other companies can have a significant impact on the viability of our own businesses. We live in such an integrated, interdependent and interconnected world that we cannot pretend that external forces and external dynamics are not relevant to the success of Australian enterprises and Australian companies.
This state of affairs, of very strong economic integration, interdependence and interconnectedness, is often referred to as globalisation. One of the most powerful reasons for this deep integration, interconnectedness and interdependence—or the so-called globalised world—is the depth and the nature of technology. Technology really has transformed our world in the last few decades, particularly in the last 15 or 20 years. Some people would have us believe that globalisation is a relatively new thing and that it is also an evil thing. Those who hold this view are wrong on both counts. Globalisation is neither a new phenomenon nor an evil thing. The world was globalised in ancient times when the Romans and the Greeks sailed beyond their shores to conquer new lands. The world is globalised today in the same way. The only difference is in the characteristics of that globalisation.
The world may think it can escape globalisation; it cannot. What is intrinsically different today is how that globalisation is manifested. Globalisation today is characterised not so much by sailboats but by jet planes and supercomputers. The instantaneous nature of transactions and the flow of funds and services that connect our world in such an unprecedented fashion are the hallmarks of today’s global economy. No longer does the international exchange of goods or services take weeks or months, as it did in previous decades or centuries. Now it takes only moments—or not even moments but split milliseconds. That is the defining characteristic of our modern, 21st century world.
The other things that the critics would have us believe about globalisation is that it is a terrible thing and that it is evil. I strongly disagree with that. Perhaps it could even be said that there is not enough globalisation in the world today. The problem is not that there is too much globalisation but that there is far too little globalisation. I say that because I am a very firm believer that globalisation is the vehicle by which prosperity and trade can reach people who are actually outside the international economy. Globalisation brings these people back into the economy. It gives them a chance to get a job. It gives them a chance of hope and of employment that they would not otherwise have.
One feature of our global world is the increasing number international trade agreements that are being concluded. I want to end my remarks by very quickly talking about the free trade agreements that we have with Singapore, Thailand and the US. We are also in the process of negotiating free trade agreements with the United Arab Emirates and China. When completed, both of these agreements will open up to Australian businesses greater markets in all kinds of areas. Our UAE agreement will give us a unique platform into the increasingly significant, prosperous and growing Middle East market. The other, with China, will aim to provide us with access previously off limits to the most populous nation on earth and the third largest economy in the world. China’s entry into the WTO in December 2001 and its re-emergence in the international global trading regime will continue to have a profound impact on the fabric of international economics.
I am pleased, as a member of the Howard government, to strongly support our respective negotiators in trying to bring about an agreement that will advance the cause of Australian exporters and Australian businesses. I want to also end my remarks by continuing to encourage those involved in the Doha Round of negotiations to stick at it, to persevere. Nothing could be more fundamentally important to aiding the developing world than concluding the Doha Round and opening up the agriculture sectors of the European economies and the European nations, and those of some of our Asian friends, to the trade that the developing countries so desperately need. A cow in the European Union typically receives a government subsidy of $US2.20 a day. This is untenable. (Time expired)
I rise, as other opposition members have, not to oppose the Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 but to express my strong reservations about some of the changes that it is making. In the course of that I want to talk broadly about what I think it is a serious trade problem for Australia, so I start by responding to just a couple of the points made by the previous speaker, the member for Ryan. I will not waste much of my time with it, because it was essentially banality dressed up as profundity. There are two things I want to refer to. One is the claim that somehow or other our export performance recently has been terrific based on the value of exports of goods and services. That is simply a reflection of the fact that there is a boom in resource prices. When you look at the volume of exports, you see that we continue to have a serious crisis, reflected in the massive and unsustainable current account deficit.
That leads me to the point of the foreign debt, which is in essence an accumulation of our current account deficits. When the then conservative opposition, led by the member for Bennelong and the now Treasurer, were complaining and running the debt truck around the country in 1996, the numbers they had up on the side of that debt truck were not for government debt; they were for foreign debt. When the then shadow Treasurer, the now Treasurer, spoke about having a ‘cold anger’ about the level of debt, he was not talking about government debt; he was talking about foreign debt. It cannot be a crisis in 1996 and okay in 2006. Either it was a bogus problem then or it is a real problem now. I suspect that it is a real problem now.
I do not oppose this legislation, simply because the government has the right to put in place the governance structures for agencies under its responsibility that it chooses. These are not changes that are irrevocable. If they prove, as I suspect they will, not to be improvements in the operation of Austrade, it will be possible for an incoming government to change them. It is not appropriate, in my view, to actually seek to defeat this legislation. The government should be able to manage its arrangements for structural reform of governance in the way that it chooses. But can I make it very clear that I disagree strongly with what is being proposed. I particularly disagree with the proposal to abolish the board of Austrade. I am singularly unimpressed overall with the Uhrig review about governance in the public sector. I think it is an inappropriate application of reasonably old-fashioned private sector principles and an attempt to extrapolate them to public sector circumstances. I will come back to that.
I have a very high regard for Austrade and for the work that it does, particularly for those people based overseas who represent Austrade in posts around the world. It builds on the basis of the longstanding Australian Trade Commissioner Service, which had and retains under Austrade a wonderful esprit de corps and which makes a continuing contribution to assisting Australian exporters either begin exporting, break into new markets or sell new products into those markets. The Trade Commissioner Service was revamped as Austrade by the then trade minister, John Dawkins, and I think it has been strengthened since that time by that enhancement. One aspect of that enhancement was the establishment of the board. I think it is a great pity that it is going to be abolished, and I will come back to that. I want to reiterate that I think it is a step backwards, not forwards; it is the inappropriate application of out-of-date principles in the private sector to the public sector.
Why does it concern me if I am here saying, ‘The government should be able to make the administrative arrangements it chooses, even when I disagree with them,’ which is my view? What is the issue? The issue is that we have a very profound trade crisis in this country. We have a serious current account deficit and ballooning foreign debt, even at a time of record export prices. When other developed countries that have resource based economies are running up trade surpluses, we are running up trade deficits—a serious, substantial, continuing, increasing trade deficit. It ought to be a cause of serious concern to us that that is continuing.
It is because of failure of export volumes, and most particularly a failure in our export volumes with regard to manufactures and services, that Austrade does best. It is therefore the size and the shape of the export crisis that gives me concern. There is the size of it: we are running an unsustainable current account deficit of six-plus per cent of GDP. Recently there have been very interesting submissions to and analysis by a Senate committee indicating the extent to which there will inevitably be an adjustment. When you run an unsustainable current account deficit, at some point there is an adjustment. The question is whether it is sharp and painful or slow and gradual. The longer it lasts and the bigger it gets, the higher the probability that the adjustment will be painful.
It is the size of the export crisis that causes me concern, but it is also the shape of it, because our trade performance is moving back to the quarry and farm export performance of the sixties and seventies and losing the momentum of increased exports of manufactures and services, which was the strength of our economy through the eighties and nineties. We transformed the Australian economy to one that was a successful exporter of manufactures and services in the eighties the nineties, and we are taking a deliberate, conscious, strategic set of changes that is leading us back. Most of the changes that need to be made to solve that current account deficit do not relate to this bill and do not relate to Austrade; they are about domestic productivity and international trade policy. They are broad parameters. But there are two aspects that I want to refer to that relate particularly to Austrade.
One of them relates to the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. I will not speak at length about that, because we debated the Export Market Development Grants Scheme bill in the Main Committee recently and I outlined my views there. I simply think that that very successful, very worthwhile scheme is now a bit tired and needs a revamp. It needs to be enhanced and reformed and, while I support the extension of the existing scheme because there is no reform proposal on the table, we do need some sort of support for exporters to move into those new markets.
The Export Market Development Grants Scheme has been reviewed and the indications are that it is successful. I think we need to modernise it, revamp it and enhance it. But I also think that we need to look at some aspects of Austrade, our very successful Australian overseas trade promotion support service, which many countries around the world look upon with envy. Its long-term success is important to Australia, as having a more export focused economy is not just good because it enhances trade performance and is likely to reduce the current account deficit; an open trading economy with more focus on exports adds a productivity spur. It enhances the activity of the domestic economy, because individual firms that export tend therefore to be more efficient performers in the Australian market. Companies that have to innovate, reform and become more efficient to compete internationally provide better services domestically. More exporters, more exports and an enhanced export focus and export culture add a productivity spur. For those reasons, this general question of how we should structure our trade support and what the shape of Austrade should be is an important part of a broad program of measures that need to be undertaken to do something about the current account deficit.
I want to come back to that which most directly relates to the bill: my profound disagreement with the proposition that we should abolish the board of Austrade. I start with my problems with the Uhrig report. From the time the report was sought, it seemed to me simply to be an exercise to fulfil an obsession of the Prime Minister with getting rid of statutory authorities. Sometimes I agree with getting rid of them and sometimes I do not, but as a prime ministerial obsession—and this was merely a backdoor way of achieving it—I think this is an example, and not the only example, of an inappropriate application of that principle.
I saw recently an interesting review by Minter Ellison expressing concern in a report titled Implementing the Uhrig templates—a time to pause and get it right. It states:
The abolition of boards or statutory authorities that fit the Uhrig Executive Management Template, on the grounds that it necessarily delivers better governance is rather simplistic.
The abolition of these boards will produce different governance challenges certainly, but whether the outcome is better will depend on more than a mere change to the model.
That is a neat and forthright expression by Minter Ellison, not one of Australia’s more radical law firms. It is not an attack on the government; it is some governance experts looking at what, in my view, is a flawed template applied inappropriately to Austrade.
I want to conclude my remarks with the argument as to why Austrade needs a board. It seems to me that the recently announced decision to abolish the board of Austrade, which we are, in effect, implementing with this legislation, is extraordinarily silly and will almost certainly be counterproductive to Australia’s desperate need to improve its export performance, particularly in manufactured goods and services. It is a decision that reflects the triumph of ideology over analysis.
The general idea of reviewing the proliferation of boards and agencies and their governance is reasonable. It is clear that some agencies have grown beyond reasonable justification or outlived their usefulness. Some others would be more appropriately brought under more direct ministerial control. But Austrade does not fit into either category. Over the years, Austrade’s board has enhanced both the effectiveness and the credibility of the organisation. The government has apparently based its decision to abolish the Austrade board on an application of the recommendations of the Uhrig review. This review, unfortunately, is a very weak basis on which to make such an important decision. Some of the decisions arising from the Uhrig review have probably been justified. But the Prime Minister has got it wrong this time.
It appears that the Minister for Trade thinks so too. After all, he was Acting Prime Minister at the time the announcement which directly affected his portfolio was made and yet the Minister for Trade, the then Acting Prime Minister, chose not to make the announcement himself, allowing the finance minister to make it on behalf of the government. If the trade minister did not disagree, he should have. While there are many causes of our current appallingly bad export performance, there is no doubt that our weak performance in the competitive sectors in which Austrade specialises is one of them. We should be strengthening it, not weakening it.
In my experience as trade minister and as a consequence of my subsequent ongoing interest in our trade performance, I have observed the fact that the board of Austrade has often added a commercial awareness, a market focus and a business credibility to Austrade’s very important activities to assist and encourage Australian firms to export or to export more successfully.
Many prominent Australian business men and women have given significant amounts of their valuable time to the task of providing leadership and advice to Austrade because they considered it a useful contribution to the national interest in general and to the interests of Australian business in particular, and they were right. Many of these men and women who contributed their time were hard-headed and astute businesspeople. I was always confident that, if they felt that they were not making a useful contribution to Austrade’s activities, they would have made that view plain and put their valuable time to better use.
I remember in particular the contribution of the late Robert Johnson, then CEO of Toyota in Australia, Alan Jackson, one of Australia’s most successful manufacturers, and Grant Latter, then head of Pacific Foods. In discussions with these three men it was clear to me that, in their experience, the business input into the development and implementation of Austrade’s plans were seen as a valuable contribution. Whatever the performance of the current board of Austrade—and I am not in a position to judge that—a good independent board is important to the success and strength of the organisation because it can bring a perspective which is not Public Service focused and which is independent of schemes dreamt up in ministerial offices or departments. Such a board can drive a focus on the contemporary needs of the new and expanding exporters we most desperately need.
The most worrying aspect of the proposed changes is the trend that will inevitably emerge for Austrade to be drawn into the culture of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. DFAT is a fine policy agency which serves Australia well, but it is not well suited to the task of trade promotion. Previous National Party trade ministers such as John McEwen and Doug Anthony would be horrified at the prospect that the strength and independence of the Trade Commission service might be compromised. A competent, well-focused board of Austrade would ensure that, while Prime Ministers and diplomats might negotiate preferential trade agreements, so-called free trade agreements, however useful they may be proving to be—and I always had grave reservations about that—we had people who understood business to help Australian exports take advantage of the opportunities that diplomatic and economic developments might generate.
Australia’s recent export performance has been abysmal. At the time of a resources boom and record terms of trade, our balance of trade has gone from bad to worse. It is in the area in which Austrade can contribute the most that we are lagging most seriously. What Australian exporters need is a trade promotion agency which is focused on their needs, not on the government’s political agenda. That is what a good board would ensure. That is why the decision to abolish the board of Austrade is wrongheaded. Therefore, while I support the passage of this bill because, as I said right at the outset, I accept that governments are entitled to structure the agencies for which they are responsible as they choose—and if, as I suspect, this proves to be a mistake it is one that will be readily and easily remedied by an incoming government—I profoundly disagree with the underlying philosophy behind these administrative changes and their consequences for Austrade.
It is sometimes said that debate on legislation in this parliament is stage managed and entirely predictable, but we have just heard a contribution from my colleague the member for Fraser, as a former Minister for Trade, which presents a compelling case that the Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 before us tonight should not have entered this parliament. I am persuaded by the arguments of my colleague. I do not have anywhere near the experience that he has had as a trade minister in face-to-face dealings with Austrade, but it certainly stands to reason that a board of Austrade, comprising very busy people who are otherwise financially independent and professional in their work, would bring a value to the whole exercise of the duties of Austrade that with the passage of this bill will be lost. That is a great pity, but I do take comfort in joining with the member for Fraser in the observation that this is an initiative of the government of the day, which does have the numbers in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, which can easily be undone by an incoming Labor government. I am sure my colleague will be arguing for that to happen and he has certainly presented a strong case as to why it should be undone.
But, given that the government does have a majority in both houses and to some very considerable extent has a right to govern, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, we will not be opposing this legislation. We will support it, but so too do I strongly support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister for foreign affairs and trade which notes that the bill itself will do very little to correct Australia’s trade balance, which has been in deficit now for 48 months—four years. Just in the last calendar year of 2005, trade deficits totalled more than $18 billion. We have experienced in this country a current account deficit of more than $55 billion, and that too is feeding successively into our foreign debt, which is fast approaching $500 billion or half a trillion dollars. It is not so often in Australian economic language that we talk about trillions of dollars and it does seem to be ironic that the most common expression of that number in this parliament relates to the size of our foreign debt, which is fast approaching half a trillion dollars.
If this government has a trade strategy, it is a very well kept secret. It appears to me that it is a shambles and that our trade performance is suffering as a consequence, yet every year at budget time the government says that the recovery in our export performance is just around the corner. So I want to have a look at the budget forecasts of our trade performance and the actual performance of the relevant years. In 2001-02, the budget forecast for export growth was five per cent. The outcome for that year was minus 1.5 per cent. In 2002-03, the budget forecast for export growth was six per cent—not to be deterred by the very bad error that was made in the previous budget papers. Yet again the outcome was minus 0.5 per cent. With the government forecasting that the export recovery was just around the corner, another six per cent was forecast in 2003-04 and the outcome was 1.6 per cent. Not to be outdone, as the government became bolder and bolder in its predictions that the recovery in Australia’s exports was just around the corner, in 2004-05 the government lifted its forecast of export growth to eight per cent and the outcome was 2.5 per cent. In 2005-06, the government said, ‘The export recovery is just around the corner,’ and forecast a growth in our exports of seven per cent, and the outcome was two per cent.
In total, over the last five years export growth has been overforecast by more than 5.5 per cent. This is a huge forecasting error, yet the government, persisting with this rosy view that the recovery in exports is just around the corner, in the 2006-07 budget is forecasting export growth of seven per cent. In the last five years the government has massively overestimated export growth and, in so doing, has come up with a multiplicity of excuses. At first it was the world economic slowdown. You have to go back to 2000 to be talking about a world economic slowdown, because world growth has been around four to five per cent through much of this forecasting period. So, far from Australia struggling in a sluggish world economy to sell its exports, the world economy has been screaming out for imports and Australia has failed to come up to the mark.
Then there was the SARS virus and that apparently was responsible for our poor export performance. Then there was the bird flu. That was responsible for our poor export performance. The Minister for Trade, who has joined us here, has invoked every possible excuse for Australia’s poor export performance. When there is an improvement in value terms, the minister claims credit, as if he engineered the economic miracle that is occurring in China—as if he, by going to China, has given them advice and said to the Chinese authorities, ‘This is how you grow your economy; make it grow at 10 per cent per annum and then I’ll go back to Australia, bob up in the Australian parliament and claim the credit.’ The trade minister claims credit for the price increases but never takes the responsibility for the sluggish and often negative growth in the volume of our exports. There is now an ever so slight recovery in the volume of our exports, but that has been held back by infrastructure bottlenecks and, again, the government is saying that that is a problem not of its making but a problem of the states. So it is time for the trade minister and the Howard government to articulate a coordinated, coherent trade policy.
I want to go back in Australia’s history and talk about the folly of the approach that this government has taken, which is the folly of pursuing preferential trade deals. During the Great Depression the government of the day increased tariffs, with a beggar-thy-neighbour approach to economic management, and began a policy of preferential trade deals. By preferential trade deals I mean doing a deal with another country, or a region, to the exclusion of countries that are not party to that agreement. Then it got worse, with the Lyons government entering into preferential trade deals. It is reasonable to conclude that the exclusion of countries like Japan from these trade deals, through the Commonwealth arrangements, was one contributing factor to the Second World War. Far-sighted people understood that restricting trade and entering into discriminatory arrangements was not in Australia’s national interest or the world’s interest. So after the Second World War these far-sighted people got together and created the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which evolved over time into the World Trade Organisation. The founding principle of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was the principle of non-discrimination: if you entered into an arrangement with one country to reduce your barriers to protection then those same arrangements would apply to all other countries.
But since 1990 there has been a massive proliferation of preferential trade deals, such that this principle of nondiscrimination, called the ‘most favoured nation’ principle, is now the exception rather than the rule. This is a tragedy not only for countries like Australia, which are independently wealthy in their own right, but for the developing countries of the world that are being locked out of trading opportunities by rich countries getting together and forming preferential trading arrangements to exclude developing countries. This is folly.
I know the trade minister says, with some legitimacy, that pursuing the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations on a non-discriminatory basis is very hard work. There are entrenched interests that do not want to see that global trade round succeed. There are interests around the world that do not believe in trade liberalisation. But that does not mean we give up; it does not mean that we become distracted and enter into preferential trade deals. It means that we have to work harder to harness the value and power of the Cairns Group of fair trading nations to achieve more through multilateral trade forums than is being achieved at the moment.
This is a time, again, for Australia to show genuine leadership in trade negotiations and to put our credentials on the table. This occurred during the Hawke and Keating era, when we liberalised our trading arrangements to the benefit of the Australian people but provided structural assistance to those who were adversely affected. We repositioned Australian manufacturing so that it could be competitive not just in the narrow, fragmented domestic market but in the tough international markets where we needed to get costs down, get quality up to be able to compete and were able to compete. But the tragedy for Australia is that this government has returned Australia to a farm and a quarry. We know that by 48 successive trade deficits.
At a time when mineral prices are the highest in at least 30 and perhaps 50 years, Australia, as one of the most resource rich countries in the world, is running trade deficits. Very few, if any, other countries that are resource rich are running a trade deficit. We have run 48 of them in a row. We have had in the last couple of years a current account deficit that has passed seven per cent of gross domestic product. Compare that with the time when Paul Keating warned of the dangers of Australia becoming a banana republic because it was overly reliant on primary commodity exports. The current account deficit at that time was 6.2 per cent of GDP. In the recent past we have hit more than seven per cent of GDP. There does not seem to be the improvement in prospects that the government continues to forecast, and that is because it has failed to continue the process of diversifying the Australian export base.
That is where Austrade comes in. As my colleague the member for Fraser pointed out, the expertise in the board of Austrade is precisely in the areas that we need it: services exports and exports of elaborately transformed, sophisticated manufactured goods. We must not give up on this sector. Australia has strong advantages in these areas, but with the high exchange rate caused by the resources boom they are not as competitive as they were before. That means we must redouble our efforts to ensure a strong, viable, growing, export oriented manufacturing sector, but that is not occurring. We must not allow a situation to continue where the government is saying: ‘We’ve got a resources boom. That has an impact on the exchange rate. Sooner or later the exchange rate will fall and then some other sector of the economy will pick up the slack.’ If we lose the engineering base of this country, if we lose the skills base of this country, then it will not be two, three or five years before we regain that—it will be 20 years.
The member for Macarthur is at the table. I have visited his electorate, and in the Macarthur area there is a large number of small export oriented manufacturing operations—very inspiring outfits—but they too would be suffering under the high exchange rate and the lack of interest of this government in the future of those manufacturing enterprises. They are all struggling because of the lack of a coherent trade policy, and a coherent trade policy is what this country desperately needs.
The growth in exports of sophisticated manufactured goods has tapered off badly under this government after enormous growth under the previous Labor government. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration has just agreed to a major inquiry into the future of Australian manufacturing and services industries, entitled ‘Beyond the resources boom’. That is what we need to be concentrating on—retaining that skills base rather than letting it go. It is falling away all the time. Why can’t Australia be a great supplier of manufactured goods to the factories of China? Why can’t we supply the equipment, as Germany did after the Second World War, to go into factories? Why can’t Australia become a centre of engineering excellence? They are exactly the sort of businesses that I visited in the area of Macarthur: small manufacturing businesses producing one, two or three units of very high value which are then used to create more manufactured goods.
When we think of the automotive industry, we think of Australia producing 70,000 or 100,000 vehicles going into a tough export market. What about, on top of that, thinking about producing components to go into two million vehicles? Why can’t Australia become not necessarily simply a supplier of completed automobiles to the rest of the world, but a supplier of the electronics, the brakes or the steering columns—other areas that require high skills and innovation—and produce those not just for our cars but for the world car? China will be producing automobiles very soon in massive numbers, which will provide enormous competition against Australian finished automobiles. But will China have the capacity to produce the high-quality components for those cars?
Let us think ahead. Let us think progressively about the future of Australian manufacturing. Let us as a parliament think about the future of Australian manufacturing. That is why I am encouraged that the House of Representatives economics committee has agreed to this inquiry, ‘Beyond the resources boom’. I hope that business organisations, trade unions and local chambers of commerce, including those in the area of Macarthur, all contribute to that inquiry. I will be asking the inquiry to visit those areas so that we are not just sitting behind a table while others tell us their stories, but actually visiting their factories.
But the problem is that this government is fixated on a resources boom that cannot last forever. We need to prepare for the period beyond the resources boom. The board of Austrade is well equipped to do that. The board of Austrade deserves the support of the Australian parliament. The board of Austrade does not deserve to be abolished, and that is what this minister is doing. He did not put out the press release. Obviously he does not agree with the cabinet decision to abolish that board, which is a great shame, and I would love to hear from him the real reasons that this board is being abolished, because it cannot be in Australia’s national interest.
For the information of the previous speaker, the member for Rankin, I was the minister who took the submission to cabinet on this. I will just make a couple of points before I talk about the substance of the Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. We are talking about the Australian Trade Commission Act, the amendments that we are making to that act and the work that Austrade does. Of course, Austrade spends a significant amount of taxpayers’ funds supporting and promoting Australian exports across the world. There are some very telling statistics that I know members of the Labor Party like to ignore when attacking the government over trade policy and the status of the economy. The one most telling figure is the significant increase in the total value of exports between 1996 and 2005. In 1996 total Australian exports were worth $99 billion. In 2005 total Australian exports were worth $176.7 billion. So over that almost 10-year period they went from $99 billion to $176 billion.
The member for Rankin, as is his wont and that of a number of his colleagues, often likes to talk about the manufacturing sector and what has happened to it, particularly when you break that into the subsets of simply transformed manufactures and elaborately transformed manufactures. In 2005 the total manufactured goods exported out of Australia grew by nine per cent from the 2004 figure so that in 2005 there were $37 billion worth of manufactured goods exported out of Australia. Interestingly, a lot of those were fully built motor cars, but there were probably between $2½ billion and $3 billion worth of automotive parts coming out of all parts of Australia. Seeing as the member for Macarthur is here, and he has been referred to quite a bit, we will continue on that. A lot of those components are manufactured in his electorate. But there are automotive component manufacturers exporting to the rest of the world and adding to that total figure in 2005 of $37 billion. If you break that down into, firstly, the simply transformed manufactures, those exports grew by eight per cent up to $11 billion in 2005. Secondly, exports of elaborately transformed manufactures grew by nine per cent up to $26 billion in that same year. So there are improvements and increases in those critical areas where there is value adding taking place and a higher skill set being deployed in those industries.
The member for Rankin gave us a little lesson about the history of trade policy, the GATT, the changes that took place under the GATT and then its evolution into the World Trade Organisation and the core principle of multilateral trade negotiations—that principle being the MFN, the most-favoured-nation status—that is, a benefit you agree on with one country is delivered to every other member of the WTO system. Surprising as it may seem, we agree. That is our policy. Our primary policy in trade is to achieve much more in the multilateral system, because that is where you deliver the most benefit to the most countries, opening up markets across the world.
That has been very hard to achieve since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. The major industrialised countries of the world have really been dragging their feet in liberalising their markets, particularly to the developing countries in the world, and it has been a hard task. I have obviously been pursuing that since 1999 in this position as Australia’s Minister for Trade, and we are getting much closer. I reiterate: this is in pursuit of that principle of most-favoured-nation status as far as liberalisation is concerned.
But we as a government also took the view a few years ago—as did many like-minded governments across the world—to try and energise this system and move it forward. To try and push some of the major players forward in efforts to liberalise their markets, we needed to deploy another economic principle called competitive liberalisation. This might mean that when you negotiate an FTA—it is a preferential agreement—you are providing preferential access to your market and receiving it in return, with one country bilaterally or in a group of countries. It is not done on a multilateral basis, but these agreements are done in an attempt to continue to feed the growth of market access that is required for an economy like Australia’s. If we cannot get it in a timely way out of the multilateral system, we need to continue to improve opportunities for Australia’s exporters. So, yes, we do negotiate bilateral free trade agreements. We do it with the objective of providing greater opportunities for Australia’s exporters, but we also do it with the objective of providing competitive liberalisation and injecting that into the multilateral system. And it is working.
Since this started, more countries have been engaged in bilateral negotiations. Since the failure of the Seattle WTO meeting in 1999 we have seen movement. We are at a stage this year where we are on the verge of being able to put a deal together if a number of the key players can agree on compromises in the key areas of agricultural market access and non-agricultural market access or access for industrial goods. That is a prospect in the coming months. It has taken years of work since 1999 to get to that point. But that is the very reason why we need to continue to pursue new opportunities in other areas—so that our industries can grow, so we can see exports of STMs grow and so we can see exports of ETMs grow. Our pursuits and our trade policy are not just about the resources boom.
That is the rationale, very simply put, behind our trade policy. We believe it is working and opening up markets. It is also working to consolidate our position in our major markets, like the United States, South-East Asia and Singapore. That is why we are negotiating with China—to capitalise on our market presence that is already there so that we can continue to occupy that space ahead of our competitor nations trying to get into that market, plus the markets of the large emerging developing economies like Brazil and India. So we are pursuing a very clear objective. Make no mistake about the commitment and determination of our government to achieve the desired outcome in the multilateral trading system. I hope and pray that will happen this year, not just for Australia’s sake and not just because our exporters need new market access and the commercial gains that can be accrued that generate new jobs and help underscore and develop our skills base in Australia. We need this round to succeed so that there more opportunities for the developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, of the world so that they can lift themselves up the now much maligned ‘ladder of opportunity’ in a global trading sense, help themselves get off the drip feed of aid and debt forgiveness and start trading to become stronger economies. That is probably the most important reason we have got to achieve a successful outcome in this round that we are negotiating at the moment.
The bill amends the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985. We all know that Austrade has done a fantastic job and will continue to do so, but we do not operate in a static environment. As the global circumstances are not static, we need to continue to reform and change things to make sure that Austrade is focused on the best way of delivering its services in the most efficient and economic way to Australia’s exporters. This bill amends the act by establishing an executive management structure with a CEO directly accountable to the Minister for Trade and by bringing the agency under coverage of the Financial Management and Accountability Act and the Public Service Act. The changes introduced in this bill stem from my assessment of Austrade against the principles and recommendations of the review of corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders. The government’s response to this review will ensure that we have the most effective accountability and governance structures across the whole of government.
On 2 May, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, having considered the bill, recommended that the bill be passed. The committee also recommended a statement of reasons be provided explaining why the board was being abolished, taking note of the opinion in 1985 when the board was formed that it would provide a valuable advisory mechanism to government. The recommendation focuses on the question of what has changed over the last 21 years, and that means the private sector input provided by the board is no longer valuable. Let me be clear: the government’s commitment to seeking industry advice and input on trade issues continues unchanged. This government has always welcomed the advice of the private sector in promoting and developing export markets for Australian business, and we will continue to do so.
The bill before the parliament does not deal with nor change industry consultation mechanisms. It is focused squarely on the appropriate governance arrangements for Austrade. What has changed since 1985 is the awareness that a board that has not been delegated full power to act is not the most effective governance structure. The government’s commitment to improving the governance framework of statutory authorities means that, to establish a sound governance base in legislation, Austrade should move to an executive management structure.
A governing board is not the only means of seeking the views of the private sector. This is demonstrated by the government’s ongoing commitment to non-legislated consultation mechanisms on trade promotion, including the Trade Policy Advisory Council, the national trade consultation process and the Free Trade Agreement Export Advisory Panel. In fact, the flexibility allowed by non-legislated mechanisms empowers the government to seek input on key issues as they evolve. The formation of the Free Trade Agreement Export Advisory Panel in 2005 is an example of the government’s proactive engagement with business to help inform our efforts to promote and develop export markets.
This bill will establish a sound governance framework for Austrade. It does not affect the ability of the government to expand and modify new and existing non-legislated consultation mechanisms to seek the views of business in a manner best suited to the needs of the day. These changes do not have an impact on the role or function of Austrade. It will be business as usual for Austrade in dealing with their clients and the Australian community during and after the transition, meaning that we can continue to look forward to more great results from Austrade, which last year assisted over 4,000 clients to secure export deals worth in excess of $18 billion. I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Griffith has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Turnbull:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006 can be summed up in four short words: too little too late. It is too little because it does nothing to address the key obstacle to Commissioner Terence Cole uncovering the whole truth about the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal—that is, his restrictive terms of reference. It is too late because the little it does do really should have been done months ago. Labor recognised the problem in March, only to be scoffed at by the Attorney-General. If the Attorney had been doing his job he could have acted to deal with this issue three months ago, avoiding the expense and delay of the Federal Court case which told the government what Labor had told them for free—that we need action to stop the abuse of legal professional privilege to obstruct the inquiry.
Having recognised the problem in the first place, Labor of course supports the bill to remedy the problem. However, it should be clear to all members of this House that this bill is no solution to the real problem affecting Commissioner Cole—that is, his restricted terms of reference. This bill will make amendments to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and the amendments will have effect for the current inquiry into the involvement of Australian companies in the UN oil for food program. That is why we are dealing with this legislation urgently.
But the bill will also have a more lasting effect for all commissions exercising powers under the act, and I want to use this opportunity to consider some of the implications of that. First, let me explain what this bill does and why it has the opposition’s support. It is a relatively straightforward bill that will provide a special procedure for commissions to determine the validity of claims for legal professional privilege over documents that a commission seeks. Legal professional privilege, as many in this House would know, is a common law rule of evidence that prevents courts from requiring the production of evidence that would disclose confidential communications between a lawyer and a client.
This is an important principle of justice, as clients should feel free to provide full instructions to their lawyer so that the lawyer can provide complete and accurate advice. This freedom is compromised if clients fear that their instructions could subsequently be used against them in court. However, legal professional privilege does not apply to all communications between a lawyer and their client. In order to attract the privilege, the communication must have been made either with the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice or in relation to actual, pending or reasonably anticipated litigation. As a result, not every claim for legal professional privilege is a valid one. It concerns me that we may be seeing an increasing trend for some companies and some lawyers to make exaggerated claims for privilege or to conduct certain business affairs in the presence of lawyers simply to form the basis for a later claim for privilege. We have seen examples of this in the current AWB case and, to some extent, in the James Hardie case before that and in a number of other cases that have been in the media over the past few years.
The parliament needs to send a strong message that this is not on. To protect the privilege, we cannot allow it to be misused. Legal professional privilege is intended to be a safeguard in our system of justice, which relies on candour between lawyers and clients. But it is not meant to be a cloak to hide unlawful conduct. So this bill goes some way to sending the message that, by streamlining the process for assessing claims of privilege in the context of royal commissions, this can be achieved. This should be a disincentive to trumped up claims by ensuring that the onus to pursue privilege claims lies with the claimant, not with the commission.
The bill will provide that legal professional privilege remains a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a requested document to a commission only if either a court or a member of the commission has accepted that the document is privileged. However, under this bill a member of the commission would be empowered to demand by written notice the document for inspection. Inspection could be made either by the member or by a person authorised by the member—for example, some type of adviser. If the claim is accepted, the commission would be required to disregard the document for the purposes of any report or decision that the commission makes.
The bill also creates new penalties for failing to produce a document once a commissioner has rejected a claim for privilege or for failing to produce a document required for determination of a privilege claim. In both cases the penalty would be $1,000 or six months imprisonment, which is consistent with existing penalties for failures to produce documents. It would be a reasonable excuse for not providing the documents if a court had previously found that they were subject to legal professional privilege.
Why is this bill necessary? It is necessary because of issues that have already been discussed widely in the AWB case, and it is necessary expressly because of the Federal Court case involving the Cole commission—that of AWB Ltd and Cole. This case involves precisely the sort of exaggerated claim for privilege I have been talking about. AWB claimed privilege over the now infamous ‘draft statement of contrition’, which had been produced in December 2005. Commissioner Cole determined that privilege did not attach to the document and that there was no reasonable excuse for it to be withheld. AWB then applied to the Federal Court to order Commissioner Cole not to use the document. The Federal Court found that the document was not subject to privilege, on the rudimentary ground that it had not been produced and circulated for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice. In short, it was produced for the purposes of public relations advice, not legal advice.
The court also agreed with Commissioner Cole that the Royal Commissions Act empowers the commission to determine whether or not a document is subject to privilege. However, the court cast serious doubt over whether the commissioner also has the power to demand to inspect a document in order to make a determination on the claim of privilege. Ultimately, the court did not make a binding determination on this issue. But it did point out that, in principle, the privilege would prevent the commission from inspecting a document over which the privilege is claimed and that any abrogation of legal professional privilege to allow such inspection could only be made by ‘clear and unmistakable language’ in the Royal Commissions Act, not merely by implication.
So that is the vital change this bill makes, using the clear and unmistakable language referred to by the court. In providing a special process, it makes it crystal clear that a commissioner can demand to see a document in order to make his determination over whether it can be admitted into evidence. The fact is that determining whether or not a document meets the ‘dominant purpose’ test of legal professional privilege often requires the decision maker to see the document itself. This is not an uncommon process in the courts.
I note that the Law Council has raised some concerns about this process. It is worried that inspection of a document that is later held to be privileged could nonetheless ‘pollute the mind’ of the commissioner when he comes to write his report. This is a valid concern, and so some caution is sensible. It is also sensible to be concerned about the potential removal of this protection, when you consider the conduct of the Howard government in using very politicised commissions of inquiry on other matters. When forced to establish a commission into an area that could expose wrongdoing or incompetence by coalition members, the government have restricted the terms of reference to keep the inquiry away from sensitive areas. But they were quite open to using commissions of inquiry as witch-hunts to harass the labour movement, such as in the building industry royal commission or in the Centenary House inquiry. When the executive uses commissions of inquiry as partisan tools, I am very wary about granting them too many powers.
On the other hand, I am convinced that the bill comes with enough safeguards to protect against the particular problem the Law Council refers to. I want to touch on those protections. Firstly, the bill makes it clear that the commissioner must disregard the contents of a document for later decisions once it has decided that it is actually a privileged document. As I said, this is similar to the process used by judges in other courts. Secondly, the bill allows the commissioner to authorise a third party to inspect the document in order to advise the commission on whether or not a document is privileged. This option could be exercised where it is a sensitive issue and the commissioner is concerned about the live possibility that inspection of the document could compromise the inquiry. Again, that can be referred to an adviser or someone else—similar to the common process in which judges may refer claims of privilege to other judges for determination when matters are in their courts.
Finally, and most importantly, the bill makes no attempt to limit the claimant’s right to have the privilege determined once and for all by a court. The bill provides very clearly that privilege determined by a court is definitive on the issue and is a reasonable excuse for refusing to provide a document to a commission. Accordingly, if a party genuinely believes that a document is privileged and would compromise the inquiry, they may seek a court order to protect them. This erects a hurdle that exaggerated claims will rarely overcome, but it does not undermine those genuine claims that might be made.
So, on balance, I am convinced that the bill merely streamlines the process by putting the onus for commencing litigation on the claimant, not the commission. This should deter false and exaggerated claims as well as reduce the incidence of litigation during the life of the commission and the expense and delays that go with it. I want to emphasise that the bill does not in any way affect the substance of legal professional privilege or the protection it affords lawyer-client communications if it is properly claimed.
According to the government, Commissioner Cole has said he expects to need more documents that are subject to privilege claims, so the passage of this bill will have an immediate streamlining effect for the remainder of the commission’s life. If that is so, Labor is prepared to offer its support for the urgent passage of the bill—and that is why we are debating it tonight after it was introduced only last week. The bill is correct in policy so, if it is helpful to Commissioner Cole for it to be passed quickly, it ought to be passed quickly.
Having described what the bill does, I want to make it absolutely clear to the House what the bill does not do. The bill does not remove the obstacles to a full investigation by Commissioner Cole into the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal. The bill does not address the restrictive terms of reference through which the government has restricted the inquiry. The bill does not demonstrate any serious commitment to a full, open and transparent inquiry into what really happened behind the Iraq kickbacks scandal and how deeply the government was embroiled. So, at this point, I move:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:
Whether this bill passes or not, Australians can have no faith that the Cole royal commission will get to the whole truth of this shameful episode. The reason for that is that the government has imposed terms of reference that restrict the inquiry. These terms are blinkers designed to deprive the inquiry of its peripheral vision, where, if it focused its attention, it would discover coalition ministers everywhere—the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Trade and even the Prime Minister himself—failing in their responsibility to protect the good name of Australia. The commission cannot inquire into whether the Australian government or its officers or ministers breached administrative law or international law. In other words, Commissioner Cole is not looking into whether government ministers turned a blind eye to, or were involved in, a systematic operation to undermine the Iraq sanctions regime. That is the question which should preoccupy this House. It is an issue which goes to the heart of the integrity and competence of this tired, old government.
Let us not forget what happened. An Australian company—not just any old company, but a company which was for some of the time Commonwealth owned and which to this day retains a Commonwealth-sanctioned monopoly on the export of wheat—paid over $300 million in kickbacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein. At the same time, Australia was party to the United Nations sanctions against Iraq and the Australian government was preparing for war against Iraq to remove its dictator. The bottom line is that, while the Australian government was asking our young men and women in the Navy to participate in a blockade against Iraq, AWB was undermining the efforts of those sailors by paying kickbacks to prop up the very same regime. What an insult to the sacrifices those sailors made! They were serving our country—many thousands of kilometres from home, many thousands of kilometres from loved ones—and trying to enforce sanctions.
Hardly! That’s speculation.
It is not speculation. They were there doing the job that your government sent them to do, and a major Australian company was simultaneously flouting those sanctions. As those sailors served us, money was being funnelled from the wheat exporter, right through their blockade, into the coffers of Saddam Hussein—money that would eventually be spent on weapons, potentially to be used against Australian soldiers.
What Australia really needs to know is what role our government played in this scandal. Was it just a case of sheer incompetence? That is the government’s best defence. Was it a failure to read the cables? Was it a failure to pick up the 29 warning signs or to take the necessary action? Or was it even a failure by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to follow up on his own requests for more information, which he had scribbled in the margin of one of the cables that he bothered to read? The government’s best argument for the behaviour of its ministers is that they were lazy, incompetent or just plain stupid. These are ministers with front-line responsibility for our national security and economic wellbeing, but they were too lazy to read the cables they were sent. Should we accept the ‘incompetence’ defence or was it even more sinister? Was it wilful blindness—the ‘don’t tell me, I don’t want to know’ excuse? Or was it more than that—a sideways nod, a wink-wink, nudge-nudge, she’ll be right signal to AWB? Or was there even direct knowledge and acquiescence?
In all scenarios, it is no exaggeration to say this is one of the most appalling scandals, if not the most appalling scandal, in the history of the Commonwealth. And yet we have an inquiry that is prevented from examining the most pressing and serious question of the affair: how did the Australian government betray Australian sailors and soldiers by letting money flow past their blockade and into the treasury of one of the world’s most ruthless tyrants? One thing we do know is that, whatever happened, the Howard government has been committed to covering up the scandal. That is not changed one iota by this bill. It is a sensible bill that makes a modest procedural change, but it does not go to the core mechanism of the cover-up: the restrictive terms of reference of the Cole inquiry.
Even this little change is not something that the government did willingly. It took the expense and delay of a Federal Court action to show them what action was needed. Labor gave the government the same advice for free. On 12 March the member for Griffith and I issued a statement calling on the government to take action to resolve the problem of AWB’s exaggerated claims for legal professional privilege, which threatened to stymie the work of the inquiry. Typical of his arrogance, the Attorney responded with a withering press release calling our demand for a solution to the legal professional privilege problem ‘misconceived’.
In this place we sometimes might overlook, if not forgive, arrogance when it is displayed by someone gifted with extraordinary ability, but that does not seem to apply in this case. This press release was an example of how the Attorney’s arrogance is in inverse proportion to his competence. The self-righteous, lecturing tone was a sure sign that he was about to stuff this up. In fact, the Attorney seems to have the temperament of a BASE-jumper—if he is going to take a fall, he will make it all the more spectacular by talking himself up to great heights beforehand.
Almost three months and an expensive Federal Court case later, the Attorney-General finally dealt with the problem that he had ridiculed Labor for recognising. In presenting this bill, he has had to face up to his own incompetence. This extreme sports approach to governance may give the Attorney-General an adrenalin rush, but it leaves the rest of Australia cold. We would prefer that he got it right in the first place, even if it does mean admitting that Labor occasionally has a good idea.
To make matters worse, today we have learnt more of the consequences of the Attorney-General’s failure to take action in March when Labor urged him to do so. We learnt that AWB is now applying to the Federal Court for a declaration that 1,240 extra documents sought by the inquiry and subject to privilege. This looks like being yet another delay and another expense in this increasingly drawn-out inquiry. We have to wonder what the point is of streamlining the process for assessing privilege claims when those claims have already escalated into litigation of this level.
If the Attorney had taken our advice in March rather than issued his silly press release, a streamlined process might have been in operation some time ago. Of course, this bill would not have prevented AWB from taking court action to assert their privilege over the documents, but it would have meant the question was addressed at least two months earlier and, potentially, through a simpler and less expensive process. Now we are faced with an utter mess: a dispute over the status of over 1,200 documents at a time when the commission of inquiry should be nearing its end. What is even more frustrating is that it is not the first example of Mr Ruddock’s unique blend of arrogance and incompetence, nor, it seems, should we expect it to be the last.
Just yesterday we saw another classic example, when the Australian Law Reform Commission carpeted the Attorney’s sedition laws, saying sedition ‘should be removed from the federal statute books’. This followed the Attorney’s heavy-handed manner last year when pushing the antiterrorism laws through parliament. He ignored Labor at that time, but he also ignored his own backbenchers and the recommendations of a Senate committee, who joined in our warnings that the sedition laws were a mistake. Only last week, Mr Ruddock was back in this place parading like a peacock about the chamber and attacking me and others on this side for opposing those laws on the basis that they only scared journalists and artists, not the purveyors of violent propaganda.
Then yesterday, again from the heights of hubris, came the fall. The study by the Law Reform Commission of the laws he had commissioned told him what the rest of us had been saying for six months: the sedition laws were a mistake. Mind you, the Attorney’s conceit was only amplified in the face of this extraordinary criticism. He pretended it was all part of a cunning plan. I am not sure, Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, whether you listened to The World Today on ABC radio this morning, where, staggeringly, Mr Ruddock said:
This is no embarrassment to me. It was the result that I anticipated and expected.
You have to ask: why on earth did the Attorney ram through the sedition laws if he ‘anticipated and expected’ such stinging criticism from the Law Reform Commission? Why did he not simply accept the view of Labor, of his backbench, of the Senate committee and, now, of the ALRC that 14th century sedition laws designed to stifle criticism of the government are not the right vehicle to deal with the 21st century problems of terrorism and community violence? If that is the best spin he can put on this exposure of his ineptitude, then the Attorney’s career has truly descended, almost into the realms of some sort of tragicomedy.
We saw the same pattern on the bankruptcy anti-avoidance laws. Early in 2005, the Attorney opposed outright Labor’s plan to improve the clawback provisions against those high-flying bankrupts who hide their assets in the names of families and related entities. Early in 2006, the Attorney’s own plan included Labor’s suggestion that he had opposed 12 months before—again, the height of arrogance and the fall of incompetence. Now we are seeing something similar with the family relationship centres. The Attorney has been swanning about the country talking about these centres and plans a trip in July to open all of these new centres.
Really?
Really. Managed properly, this could actually give him something to be proud of. Indeed, it would be sad for him—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The bill before the House is the Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006, not the family centres bill, nor does it concern the travel details of the Attorney-General. I ask you to draw the member back to the bill.
I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. I have been listening to the rather wide-ranging address from the member for Gellibrand, but she has been making a point of continuity with regard to her attitude to the bill. I regard it as in order, if somewhat wide-ranging, and I will allow it to continue.
Thank you. Both you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the parliamentary secretary might be assisted by the fact that the second reading amendment I have moved does indeed deal with the Attorney’s approach to a number of these issues. I am simply using it to highlight what is unfortunately a consistent pattern that we see running right through this bill, through his approach to bankruptcy, through his approach to sedition and now through his approach to the family relationship centres in a way that causes us on this side of the House some grave concerns.
I am particularly concerned with the family relationship centres because, if they are managed properly, this indeed will be something that the Attorney could and should be proud of. It would be sad for him to leave the parliament after such a long career if he were not able to say that this was one of his great achievements. But if it is mismanaged, as we think it has been along the way, despite warnings from Labor, like those warnings that were given on this royal commissions bill—and the government was too arrogant to accept any of our recommendations and advice—then we are going to see a system fail that could actually be a good one. So even this worthy plan could be undermined by his incompetence. At estimates we learnt that the contracts for many of these centres had not even been signed, only five weeks from opening day.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have just had a look at the amendment moved to the royal commissions bill. There is no such provision in there for the wide-ranging debate—
I thank the parliamentary secretary. I do not consider that the amendment helps the member for Gellibrand in her debate either. Why I ruled her in order was not for that reason, although I accept that she raised it and you are entitled to raise a point of order. I do not consider that it helps the member for Gellibrand. The member for Gellibrand is in order because she has been making a connection in a pattern of behaviour that relates to this bill. But I do hope that she will make that pattern a bit clearer and promptly draw it back to the bill.
It is important to us because we are concerned that, on 13 March this year, when Labor put forward a proposal and called on the government to deal with the issue of legal professional privilege, as it was taxing the mind of Commissioner Cole at that time, the Attorney scoffed and sneered at us. But here we are, two months later, with the full backflip by the Attorney, finally taking action to address this issue of legal professional privilege. We have learnt not to take his arrogance seriously, because we know it is nothing more than a bravura performance to cover up his incompetence. But my concerns, and the concerns that should actually worry the parliamentary secretary, because I think he might be getting a family relationship centre in his area—
No.
He is not? He must be one of the very unlucky nonfavourites of the Attorney in that case. I am not sure why you are defending him so strongly. Those of your colleagues who are getting a centre do not want to be standing up here and having us say, ‘We told you so months ago,’ in the same way that we are doing here with the bill, because we can see that problems are arising. The information that we got in Senate estimates this week showed that the centres are not able to set up properly, that they are being rushed to start. In poor old Townsville, where they have been hit by the effects of Cyclone Larry, they are being told that they have to open in a tent, if that is what it takes to be open by 1 July—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have just had a reread through the amendment. I understand what you have said about a wide-ranging debate. But the member opposite has not referred back to the issues contained in her own amendments, which are in relation to the Cole inquiry, or indeed to the various aspects of that inquiry. Her whole speech seems to be about family relationship centres, which bear no resemblance at all to a royal commission, to a royal commission bill or to the Cole inquiry. I ask you to exercise your judgment and bring her back to the bill. If she has nothing further to say about the bill then perhaps she should sit down.
I thank the parliamentary secretary. I previously indicated that I do not consider the question of whether or not this part of the member for Gellibrand’s contribution is in order to be related to the amendment, which I agree with you does not help her in this matter. The member for Gellibrand has made the connection. It goes to what she is trying to establish as a pattern of behaviour that is reflected in this bill. It is not the longest bow I have heard drawn in this House. I will allow her to continue but I do ask her to continue, to refer to the bill.
We are concerned that before this House is a bill that is actually affecting a commission of inquiry that is under way now—in fact, due to report exactly a month from today. We want the commission to be able to complete its job and we want it to be able to do it quickly. We are happy to support the bill, because we think it is going to help the commission do its job, but we are still disappointed that we were not having this debate weeks or months ago, when the issue was first raised, which would have enabled the commission to do its job more quickly. We would also prefer to be here addressing a change that would actually go to the substantive problem that Commissioner Cole faces, which is the very restricted terms of reference that this government has given the commission.
We are pleased to be supporting the bill. We are happy to facilitate its urgent passage through the parliament, so that Commissioner Cole can continue his work with minimal further interruptions, but the government cannot be allowed to continue its ruse that this bill demonstrates its commitment to helping Commissioner Cole to find the truth. As we all know, the truth is that Commissioner Cole is hamstrung by restrictive terms of reference that prevent him looking at the question Australia needs to know the answer to: exactly what role did Howard government ministers play in this shameful betrayal of our sailors and soldiers who served our country in the Persian Gulf and in Iraq when these sanctions were in place?
Unfortunately, even with the modest change that is before the House, we will not get an answer to that question. And unfortunately, I fear, it will not be the last time I am in this House criticising the Attorney for failing to take any advice, either from the public—from those advocates who raised concerns with the approach he was taking—or from our side of this House, when we see mismanagement or incompetence or laws that could be improved or changed and the Attorney persisting with his standard behaviour, which is that he is the only person who can be right and he will not accept any sort of recommendation from anybody else. I do not want that to happen with this bill. I do not want it to happen with the family relationship centres, which could offer so much to the community. I do not want it to happen with every other debate that we have in this House. So I trust that the Attorney will by now have learnt that lesson. While supporting this bill, I hope that we do not have to be here again in the future to tidy up yet another one of his messes.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
In the closing remarks of the member for Gellibrand, she made what I thought was a rather interesting comment. She referred to Commissioner Cole as being ‘hamstrung’—and I guess that might be the truth when one looks at the reasons for the Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006.
The major reason that the commissioner is hamstrung is the total lack of cooperation by AWB Ltd. This issue arose only because AWB Ltd accidentally provided a piece of information that was supposed to have been shredded. I have no sympathy for AWB Ltd. I am not going to pronounce on any aspect of what the commissioner might eventually decide, but I point out to this House that the view of many people in my electorate is that AWB Ltd is a form of public property. It portrays itself as a servant of the wheat growers. I do not know how often it has told them the truth or what it has failed to disclose, and in a moment I will return to that matter.
The legislation that is before us today certainly has merit. On reading the pious amendment moved by the opposition, I am pleased that it in no way suggests that the bill should not proceed. So I welcome the remarks by the member for Gellibrand in that regard. The purpose of the bill is to respond to a highlighted set of circumstances where a raft of information of substance might be available to assist a royal commissioner in a determination that the parliament expects them to make. In fact, as things stand after the Federal Court ruling, unless the commissioner is aware of certain information, in each case the excuse available to companies like AWB is to say nothing and hope nobody finds out. What is now becoming obvious and will be facilitated by this legislation is that a royal commissioner can oblige those witnesses that he or she calls to provide all the documentation. If there is a suggestion of legal professional privilege, the commissioner will make a determination, which is still contestable in another jurisdiction.
This makes a huge difference to discovering something by accident—that is, unless the commissioner has some knowledge that information has not been disclosed, there is no opportunity to have the matter decided in, say, the Federal Court because no-one knows about it. It does not alter the fact that a company which requests the trust of 7,000 wheat growers in Western Australia—the majority of whom live in my electorate—and which expects that trust has behaved in the fashion that it has.
I refer back to the document I mentioned earlier. It is no longer a secret; it was published after the ruling of the Federal Court. What is it about? It is about the company making some admissions to a guru in America who apparently has a very high reputation for advising people who find themselves in a situation like that of AWB Ltd. What did he tell them? He said: ‘Confess. Get in there on day one and confess, and apologise.’ What a good idea that might have been 20 days later or whenever it was into the hearing. A few shareholders might contest other statements that AWB made to the Stock Exchange and question the legal costs—which were published in financial reports in the papers on 25 May—of some $9 million that has been spent already. I should think some shareholders might be interested to know how much more of their dividends will be diluted by the procedure that AWB decided to adopt.
I also take this opportunity to make a defence of two parties: the Wheat Export Authority and, with howls of possible derision, the government. The government’s responsibility—and I will put it in the words of the parliament—goes back to 1989 when it endorsed and modified a piece of legislation that put a certain company virtually above the law. We gave it a licence for exploitation and corruption. Why did we do that? Because it was going to belong to the farmers and, to quote the Prime Minister in the earlier moments of this issue: ‘Oh, they’re good people.’ I am pleased to say that most of them are, and I know who the villains are. I have dealt with them for years. If you look at the scruffiest farms in my electorate, you will find them directing AWB Ltd.
The fact of life is that, throughout this period of privatisation, the major source of influence came from a certain group of people. This goes back further than 1998; it goes back to 1989 when, with my endorsement, the then Labor government commenced the deregulation process. They deregulated the domestic market and, when I put my hand up and said, ‘While you are about it, you had better deregulate the transport market’—which was a disgrace—they did so, and great benefits flowed from that. We continued with the export monopoly and, in the end, the legislation was passed to corporatise that activity, having extracted $600 million from wheat growers. Many of them could not afford it. For many it represented a quarter of their disposable income—two per cent at the farm gate of growers.
We accumulated this money and the people who had suggested that be done were the first to be elected to the board. We discovered the other day that the company’s chairman, a wheat grower from the state that produces for export by far the lowest quantity—that is Queensland, which produced about three million tonnes out of the last 75 million tonnes—is the chair of that board. His salary and entitlements are $220,000 a year, and he and his fellow directors put a motion before the annual general meeting to increase that by 36 per cent. When I exposed those figures to the media, a storm erupted and he and the board changed their minds about doing that. But did they have a good chance of getting it passed? Bearing all costs, they flew 200 shareholders to Melbourne for the annual general meeting. I would like to run the book on that. The company that we are talking about is still fighting the royal commission to have the rest of the facts involved in this matter exposed.
We all know—and I appreciate and support this—that, if you have correspondence with your lawyer who gives you advice and you give them certain evidence upon which they will give you that advice, that is privileged. That has always been the rule. But just to stand up and say, ‘This was transacted or handed to our lawyers,’ is a bit like Premier Peter Beattie putting all the tough stuff into cabinet so that no-one can read it for 30 years. But it is a fact of life that this legislation will differentiate that argument. Maybe it should have come before us sooner, but it has happened. It was probably appropriate to let that matter first be tested in the court so that we have clear evidence of how we now might go about it.
Apparently, the other day, the Wheat Export Authority was questioned by a Senate estimates committee for eight or 10 hours. It only has one defence and it happens to be true: this parliament denied it—a statutory authority and the watchdog, if you like—every opportunity to have some influence on the behaviour of AWB Ltd. My objection is much more about the fact that it had no control or means of stopping AWB price gouging the farmers that I represent. If somebody wants some evidence of how that has been happening, they should look to the financial announcement that AWB made the other day. It has boasted over the years of its huge profits from futures trading. The reason it can participate so strongly in the US is that it has a security—that is, all the wheat belonging to all the wheat growers who have tipped into that pool but for which the AWB has not paid. The AWB has all this wheat, it is its property and it gives you an undertaking that it will pay you one day at whatever price it can get. That is what the pool is about. To quote one of AWB’s competitors: ‘Mr Tuckey, I’d love to run that pool. That is where the farmers take all the risk.’
The AWB bets with that money. It bets on the futures exchange and it delivers profits to its shareholders—not back to the farmers. But this year, as reported, it lost money instead of making a profit on the futures exchange. Then some time ago it invested $825 million to buy a big agricultural service firm, currently known as Landmark, from Wesfarmers. Wesfarmers has a reputation, particularly under Michael Chaney, as one of the smartest businesses in Australia and Mr Chaney got the transaction through in a week. He thought all his Christmases had come at once—$825 million. What does its report tell us? It tells us that it had a drop in profits for the year of 17 per cent and it was well behind the targets by which it had justified the $825 million. So it did not make much money there.
Then we get to item No. 3, which is a 74 per cent jump in profits from servicing and marketing wheat. AWB is not allowed to make a profit on the actual sale of the wheat; it sells that virtually as an agent. These are just the fees it levies. AWB has a sycophant called AWBI—AWB International—which is supposed to run the pool, but up until recently it had no staff and the board of directors, as such, was dominated by the executive and the board of directors of AWB Ltd. They were doing business together. They settled down and decided that no matter how little wheat in a drought, for instance, was delivered to the pool, they would get $65 million for managing it and then they would get bonuses. Guess who set the benchmarks for the bonuses? It was AWB Ltd.
This is the situation that this parliament created. But it gets worse. With some credit to Labor senators 2½ years ago we had the Williams inquiry. What is more, we had to change the law to force AWB Ltd to give even reasonable information to WEA. But then we were bludgeoned again into agreeing that, when that report was written and given to the minister, the minister was not to tell anybody else about it—and we wonder how the government was supposed to find out what AWB Ltd was up to in terms of its sales of wheat to Iraq.
As I have said, we now should change that legislation. I have listened to the Labor Party’s criticism of the current arrangements and I sincerely hope that an effort is made—and I will make it myself, if no-one else will—to change these rules and put in a statutory authority with adequate powers to control the activities of a virtual monopolist, who I do not think should have that total monopoly. The best power to give the wheat authority is what was proposed.
Members might have forgotten but when a bill for corporatisation was brought to the parliament, this so-called veto power was covered under clauses 57(3), 57(3A) and 57(3B). But the bill which passed this chamber, having been endorsed by the executive, had a subsection (3C). Subsections (3A) and (3B) do not apply to a consent given by the authority on or after 1 July 2004. That is what we voted for in this place. The vetos presently in place with AWB created a circumstance of some three months to get someone else to sell some wheat to Iraq on behalf of Australia. When one looks at the act, one finds that that particular clause, which deals with the situation after 1 July 2004, is missing. When one reads that legislation today, one finds it contains subsections (3A), (3B), and (3D).
The House and the Senate removed subclause (3C) because they were bullied by the agripoliticians. I fought it to the end, as would be recognised by those present in my party room. You do not give that sort of monopoly power to any corporation anywhere in Australia, and we did, collectively. Then we made it exempt from the Trade Practices Act and the Financial Services Act. You wonder why it got a bit arrogant. It is outrageous to think that this parliament has not fixed this already. It has nothing in particular to do with the UN. It is a matter of process and it is a matter of a company having a right to extort money from wheat growers. It is all because they think, are told and are preached to that there is some special advantage in their overseas marketing. That has never been supported by the seven or eight inquiries that have been put forward, including one that included on the panel the then chairman of the Grains Council of Australia. One of them in particular was commissioned by the government. A couple said they could not see where that benefit existed; the rest gave evidence of up to tens of millions of dollars of benefits that would accrue if it ceased.
This legislation may not have come about if this government and this parliament, years ago, had recognised some fundamentals about people doing business. That does not mean that you cannot have a restricted and regulated export market. I might add that under Labor’s competition policy, which we support wholeheartedly, every state has been told to deregulate their coarse grains selling. Some, such as Western Australia, have got a halfway sort of zone, which does not seem to be working too badly. Victoria just cleaned the thing out and the farmers are receiving $30 more a tonne for their barley than the South Australians whose government, under pressure from farmers or farmers’ organisations, actually took a $3 million competition policy hit to keep regulation.
What is their farmers’ federation doing now? They are running to WA to look at the program over there where the barley is up 50 bucks on South Australia, because suddenly all of the single deskers have got their calculators out. They are the worst paid farmers in Australia for barley production. If we do not do something soon, I invite the Labor Party to do it. They can stop chatting and they can address the core problem because it is outrageous; it was wrong at the time and, unfortunately, there are honest farmers and dishonest farmers. I am not going to say who they are but Mr Cole might want to say something about that in due course. The most amazing thing is that when they all got into the Cole royal commission they never said they did anything. They were getting between 90 and 220 grand a year and they did nothing. Excuse me! I have never been so annoyed about anything in my life and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to talk about it.
I have to say I have never had much in common with the member for O’Connor but there is no doubt that he is very well versed in the ways of the wheat industry. I think that to listen to him on topics to do with AWB is something which will bring wisdom to those of us who have the opportunity. The Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006 is a response to problems that have arisen in the Cole commission on the oil for food program. It will, however, also affect future inquiries and royal commissions.
The bill will amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to ensure that claims for legal professional privilege over documents sought by a commission exercising royal commission type powers can be determined by a member of the commission, including the power to require production of the document in order for the claim of legal professional privilege to be determined. This follows a Federal Court case that put in doubt Commissioner Cole’s power to inspect documents in order to determine a claim of legal professional privilege.
I support the bill and the second reading amendment moved by the member for Gellibrand, which points out that Labor demanded action on this issue back in March and also that this bill will not solve the broader problem that Commissioner Cole’s terms of reference are too narrow. It notes that the current terms do not allow Commissioner Cole to make findings of whether or not ministers, their offices and departments have discharged their duties under Australian administrative law and under international law, in particular United Nations Security Council resolution 661. Of course, Commissioner Cole has provided formal written advice that a change to the current terms of reference, which would allow the commission to make such determinations, is outside his powers and can only be done by the executive. Furthermore, if the Howard government had nothing to hide in the $300 million ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal, it would expand Cole’s terms of reference to allow the commissioner to make such determinations.
Commissions exercising royal commission powers will have the power to determine claims of legal professional privilege, including the power to demand to inspect the relevant documents in order to determine the claim. Given the outcome of AWB Ltd v Cole it is now not clear that commissioners currently enjoy this power. This can frustrate commissions with delays and additional costs as legal professional privilege claims are tested in courts, which do have the power to see the documents and to determine legal professional privilege claims.
The bill does not remove or diminish the protection of legal professional privilege, which is an important principle of justice. It simply affects how the determination is made as to whether a claimed privilege actually exists. It would not take away the right of the claimant to seek judicial review of a commissioner’s decision to reject legal professional privilege. It is important to give commissioners exercising these powers the power to effectively determine legal professional privilege claims in order to keep commissions running with minimal cost and delay caused by litigation. Legal professional privilege should be preserved, but the onus should be on the claimant to pursue it, including commencing litigation if necessary. Such a change could be a deterrent to exaggerated claims of legal professional privilege being used to hide wrongdoings. I think the misuse of legal professional privilege has been seen in some high-profile cases in recent times, including this one—the AWB case—and the James Hardie case. The parliament should send a clear message that legal professional privilege is an important principle but that it should not be claimed without grounds in order to obstruct commissions.
In the course of the Cole inquiry, AWB claimed legal professional privilege over a draft statement of contrition which was produced in December 2005. The commissioner determined that legal professional privilege did not attach to the document and that there was no reasonable excuse for it to be withheld. AWB then applied to the Federal Court to order Commissioner Cole not to use the document on the grounds that it was protected by legal professional privilege. The Federal Court found that legal professional privilege did not attach to the document because it had not been produced and circulated for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice. In short, it was produced for the purposes of public relations, not legal advice.
Ultimately, the court did not make a binding determination on the issue of whether the commissioner has the power to demand to inspect a document in order to make a determination on a claim of legal professional privilege. It is clear from this case that commissions can decide whether to accept or reject a claim of legal professional privilege and this bill is providing a special process for determining whether legal professional privilege is a reasonable excuse for failing to produce a document. It provides that legal professional privilege remains a reasonable excuse if a court has decided that the document is subject to legal professional privilege or a member of the commission has accepted that the document is subject to legal professional privilege. A member of the commission would be empowered to demand the document for inspection by written notice. Inspection could be made either by the member or by a person authorised by the member, such as an adviser. If the claim is accepted, the commission would be required to disregard the document for the purposes of any report or decision the commission makes.
We have seen reports today concerning further developments on this issue. According to a report in the Australian today, the wheat exporter AWB was to be forced to agree to a timetable to produce potentially damning documents to the Cole inquiry. The report indicated that Commissioner Cole would hold a public hearing today to address the production of documents, some of which are likely to show that AWB knowingly breached UN sanctions and provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the regime of Saddam Hussein. As the Australian said:
AWB is known to have conducted a secret legal review of its trade with Iraq, known as Project Rose and later as Project Lilac. Mr Cole wants access to some of the 30,000 documents collated as part of Project Rose.
We can see that significant issues are at stake here. Indeed, I understand that today wheat exporter AWB said it would be asking the Federal Court to decide whether some 1,240 documents sought by the Cole inquiry are protected by legal professional privilege. Legal counsel for AWB said today, ‘The most expeditious and responsible course would be to let the Federal Court rule on whether the documents should be made available to the inquiry.’ He said, ‘We will be commencing proceedings today to have the Federal Court resolve the claims in respect of all documents.’ This sounds innocent but it is not. It is anything but. It is more of the culture of cover-up and obfuscation which has marked AWB’s conduct in this matter. Commissioner Cole said today that the extent of future hearings was dependent on the inquiry receiving all the documents to which it was entitled—that is, the inquiry will be delayed. AWB has claimed this privilege over 1,240 categories of documents and the claims could extend to some thousands of documents to come.
Mr Cole also said that it would greatly increase cost and delay if each of the claims were tested in the Federal Court as no decision could be made on what witnesses needed to be called or recalled until he had all the necessary documents before him. He said that only 45 of the 164 documents in the Tracey brief—that is the brief in dispute—had been given to the UN’s Volcker committee, which found of course that AWB had been paying $300 million in kickbacks to Saddam’s regime. This makes a joke of the claim that there has been cooperation with the Volcker committee. Only 45 of 164 documents were handed over to the Volcker committee. So we have AWB commencing proceedings to have the Federal Court rule on whether the Cole commission is entitled to view these documents. This is no doubt an attempt to seek advantage as they seek to exclude detail of their in-house legal review of the contract and the deals with Iraq and Alia, known to the Cole inquiry as Project Rose documents and Project Lilac documents. Project Rose alone is thought to contain up to 30,000 documents.
The other issue that I think is important for us to be aware of is the 1998 wheat deal involving the former Australian Wheat Board and India, which is more evidence of the need for the House to support the amendment moved by the member for Gellibrand concerning the powers of the Cole commission. Back in February 1998, India’s STC bought $310 million of wheat from AWB, which was then owned by the Australian government. Indian politicians protested that the tender was extraordinary and the Central Bureau of Investigation in India began investigating corruption allegations against three senior Indian government officials. They suspected kickbacks because there was a $7.50 per tonne increase in the price of wheat compared with the price of wheat that had been sold to Egypt. A request for help by Indian police investigating AWB’s possible involvement was never referred to the Australian Federal Police. The Times of India reported last week that the Indian investigation was stalled because the Australian government refused to hand over documents, claiming the Australian Wheat Board was an autonomous body it had no control over. India’s CBI was forced to close the investigation in January 2004, blaming noncooperation from Australian authorities.
Last week Senator Ellison told the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee that, in 2001, after fielding a mutual assistance request from India’s Central Bureau of Investigation, the Australian government deemed there was no evidence to justify any inquiries by local authorities into possible breaches of Australian law, yet we now have exhibits before the Cole inquiry showing that in October 2001, when AWB was under pressure to cooperate with the CBI, the wheat seller had documents showing that it had paid $US2.5 million to a Cayman Islands bank account for a May 1998 wheat shipment. In May 2004, just as the Volcker inquiry began investigating AWB for breaching UN trade sanctions against Iraq, an officer in the Attorney-General’s Department knew some Federal Police officers were ‘keen to explore the possibility of an investigation by the AFP to see if AWB Ltd had broken any Australian laws in its Iraq dealings’.
Indeed, an email tendered to the Cole inquiry shows Jonathan Chew of the Attorney-General’s International Law and Transnational Crime Section told Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials that the AFP officers had expressed ‘some concern that, despite Australia having antibribery and corruption laws in place for a number of years, there had been few prosecutions’. So we have details emerging of something like a forerunner to the AWB kickback deals with Saddam. When the price being paid to AWB was found to be significantly over the market rate, the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation began asking questions. When these questions reached Australia, they were met by the same deaf ear that received dozens of accounts, allegations and warnings about the kickbacks being paid to Saddam. The questions here are: why was the matter not referred to the Federal Police? The AWB was still government owned at this time. What actions did the government take?
I agree with the member for Gellibrand’s amendment and its point that Commissioner Cole’s terms of reference ought to allow him to make findings concerning the conduct of ministers. During the Cole inquiry I saw at least 10 reasons why the Cole commission should be empowered to make findings concerning the Minister for Foreign Affairs. First, ministerial ignorance is not bliss. We live in a constitutional system of ministerial responsibility. The idea that nobody is responsible for such a monumental disaster so damaging to our international reputation is unacceptable. On an issue of such profound significance, ignorance is no excuse. Second, Minister Downer had a legal obligation to ensure that Australian companies complied with UN sanctions against Iraq. He failed to discharge this obligation, yet he still claims he did nothing wrong. He continues to try to buck-pass—blame the UN, blame AWB and blame Australia’s wheat competitors.
Third, he gave conflicting answers to the parliament and the Cole commission. He was asked in parliament about a January 2000 cable from his departmental staff in New York. He said, ‘Of course I would have read them,’ but when he was questioned by the Cole commission he said he had no specific recollection of the cable. Did he read it or didn’t he? Fourth, he has not been able to cope with the demands of the job. He told the Cole commission he does not have time to read diplomatic cables and only reads them when he is stuck on a plane and has nothing better to read. He told the Cole commission that was one reason he failed to pick up on a series of warnings from diplomatic and intelligence officers about problems with AWB.
Fifth, he has been too gullible. He simply accepted AWB’s denials that it was not paying bribes and made no further inquiries. He did not apply the same standard to Saddam Hussein’s denials concerning weapons of mass destruction. He got that one wrong as well. Given the stream of warning bells, he should have made further inquiries. His claim to the Cole commission that the only other option he had was to call in the Federal Police is disingenuous in the extreme. For example, he could have personally demanded to be taken through the structure of the contracts. They would have been pretty brave to have lied to his face. The former Labor government scrutinised contracts with Iraq thoroughly.
Sixth, he has been too lazy to follow up serious issues. In March 2004 he wrote ‘This worries me’ on a departmental report about the Volcker inquiry and asked about AWB’s pricing arrangements, but he failed to follow the issue through. He got an AWB letter in June 2004 which was unenlightening, but he failed to chase up this matter. Despite this, he was party to Australia’s Ambassador Thawley misleading United States senators later on in 2004, which has damaged Australia’s standing in the US congress. He presides over a department so administratively sloppy that, even when he says he is worried, nobody does anything to pursue the issues he raises, including him.
Seventh, he has not run his portfolio in a professional way. For example, he met with AWB’s former CEO Andrew Lindberg in June 2004 to discuss the UN’s Volcker inquiry, but no-one took any notes, even though he had two staff there. Perhaps they thought there was no point taking notes because he never reads them. This is disgracefully unprofessional. The Public Service used to record everything in triplicate and was a reliable historical record. Now it has become plain sneaky. And the absence of a record of this meeting is no mere academic point. A major dispute has emerged at the Cole commission between Mr Lindberg and Mr Downer as to whether Mr Lindberg informed him that Alia, which AWB was paying fees to, was half-owned by the Iraqi government. Mr Lindberg says he did; Mr Downer says he did not.
Eighth, his department has degenerated into little more than a postbox, on its own admission. His department rubber-stamped AWB’s corrupt wheat deals with the Iraqi Grains Board. What on earth was it being paid to do? Minister Downer was totally unable to explain to the Cole commission why his department did not drill down into the detail of the inflated prices in AWB wheat contracts, and his excuse that finding out corruption in contracts was the UN’s task is just not good enough. For example, he had Australian taxpayers, through AusAID, take over liability for one of the most corrupt contracts three days after war broke out—but, although taxpayers became liable for the contract, the bribes inside the contract went undetected.
Ninth, he has failed to distinguish between AWB’s interest and the public interest. In June 2005, despite the myriad warnings he had heard by then, he indicated his ‘strong support’ for the company and said he ‘saw it as his responsibility to defend AWB’. He embarked on a strategy of trying to tough it out and of cover-up, which has maximised the embarrassment for Australia, instead of trying to get to the bottom of the matter and make a clean breast of it.
Finally, he still does not get it. The Cole commission challenged him over the failure of his staff on numerous occasions, yet he expressed full confidence in his staff. He said they had ‘done a good job’ and ‘faithfully implemented government policy’ et cetera. If ministerial responsibility and public accountability are to mean anything in this country, this system must be cracked open. If the Cole commission’s terms of reference allowed it to make findings and to report on the conduct of ministers, it would assist a public which is now heartily fed up with having to tolerate such miserably low standards of ministerial performance.
The House tonight is debating the Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006, which will facilitate a royal commission being able to assess for itself and to adjudicate in relation to claims for legal professional privilege. This particular mechanism is one which the opposition supports and, indeed, has called for for some time. The need for it arose because a decision of the Federal Court, whilst upholding the royal commissioner’s judgment that a particular document was not covered by legal professional privilege, did nothing to overturn earlier findings that it was not for the royal commissioner himself but for the court exclusively to adjudicate upon any claim for legal professional privilege. In practice, that meant that such claims might have been made, not only in this royal commission but in future royal commissions, designed in a way which would have resulted in protracted litigation regarding the legitimacy or otherwise of those claims, thereby slowing down or entirely thwarting the capacity of royal commissions to undertake the task that the executive commissions them to undertake to inquire into particular matters in as effective a manner as possible. It may indeed have prevented royal commissions addressing their terms of reference in the time frame required of them. Clearly, that is an impractical outcome and, with great respect to the judge who made that conclusion, I suspect it would not have been sustained on appeal.
It is the case that the higher courts have said that lower courts and tribunals are attended with all necessary powers to determine questions in relation to their own jurisdiction. It cannot be the case that parliament can endow a court or a tribunal with a set of responsibilities and then have a circumstance whereby any question as to whether or not a matter falls within those powers is incapable of determination by the tribunal or court. It has to be as a practical matter—not all such matters can be referred up to higher courts for adjudication. Of course, if somebody is disappointed with a conclusion of a court or a tribunal that the matter is within jurisdiction or is not within jurisdiction, they have the capacity of testing that in higher courts. So too I would have imagined, had this matter gone on appeal, it would have ultimately been determined that it is entirely logical and necessarily within the reach of a royal commission to make findings in relation to whether or not a particular document or thing brought before it is covered by legal professional privilege. In doing so, a royal commission would behave no differently in terms of its fact-finding responsibilities than any other court which routinely undertakes such an assessment. Where a claim is made in relation to legal professional privilege, the judge makes that determination and excludes from their mind, difficult though it may be, the material that has come to their attention which is legally inadmissible.
It seems to me implausible that our higher courts would have ultimately determined that such mental skills are within the reach of those appointed to higher judicial office, or even magistrates or justices of the peace, but not within the capacity of a commissioner appointed under the powers of the Royal Commission Act to undertake an inquiry on behalf of the executive. Be that as it may, whether or not ultimately the Federal Court decision would have been decided otherwise had the matter been subject to lengthy appeal, plainly that course would have been time consuming and its ultimate resolution would have been outside of the time frame of the reporting of the Cole Commission of Inquiry. So the matter comes to this parliament and is being resolved in a timely way which will enable the commissioner to take into account those matters where claims of legal professional privilege have been made. In particular, of course, he will be considering the document that was originally claimed to be covered by legal professional privilege, which the court has now asserted and found is not—that is, the apology. Although again it is difficult to see on what plausible basis that claim could have been advanced in the first place, how the draft terms of an apology could have been said to be material to disclosing the nature and character of legal advice sought seems somewhat beyond my simple understanding, but we now have settled those issues.
That said, the more interesting question that is before us is why this parliament is not acting with the same alacrity to tidy up the deficiencies in the terms of reference themselves in relation to the royal commission. Whilst the commission now is cloaked with the necessary capacity to examine whether or not the actions of the Australian Wheat Board were criminal and whether or not any person associated with those actions committed criminal offences, it is not cloaked with the authority to examine whether or not ministers of the government or public servants were negligent in the carriage of their responsibilities in a way which ought to carry censure.
There is a huge difference between someone being criminally liable for misconduct and being worthy of censure—being negligent or grossly negligent. We make these distinctions all the time. If it were the case, for example, that those examining the aftermath of the terrible tragedy of September 11, where planes were flown into the twin towers, had concluded that any officer of the security services in any country had been guilty of a criminal offence, that would have been a shocking state of affairs. But had anyone suggested that the inquiry be limited to the question of whether or not those officials had been guilty of a criminal action we would have said, ‘How silly—that is not the substantial question.’ The substantial question is: did the security agencies operate effectively? Did they alert government to the risk? Did they put in train proper measures to secure the interests of the community? Were there deficiencies that need to be remedied? And were it to be established that high public officials had been warned, had been given information disclosing the likelihood that planes would be crashed into the twin towers and had failed to do anything, we would not have expected an inquiry to bypass that question because it did not involve criminal complicity, did not involve those high public officials in any criminal conduct.
When we turn to this particular instance, the parallels are stunning. We have before us the greatest circumstance whereby a program—designed internationally to circumvent what were then understood to be the designs of Saddam Hussein, the then leader of Iraq, to develop weapons of mass destruction through a program of sanctions—was circumvented by one of the very countries that later took military action to invade that country and to replace the government. This is not a small matter, because one realises that the sums involved were such as to place that regime in funds to a substantial degree—$300 million.
The inquiry was established without giving it power to look beyond the simple questions of criminality. It cannot make findings in respect of negligence, incompetence or incapacity of high public officials, whether they be in the Public Service or in the ministry. My friend and colleague who has spoken previously, the shadow minister, the member for Wills, has gone through a whole list of instances where the Minister for Foreign Affairs appeared before the Cole Commission of Inquiry with no explanation—or certainly no plausible explanation—as to why various warnings that were made available to him and to his office did not trigger further action on his behalf. The point, simply made, is that any reasonably drafted terms of reference would now alert the commissioner to examine whether or not the person holding such an office is competent to continue to fill it. That is a finding that is not available to the royal commissioner. It is a finding not available to the royal commissioner because it is not within his terms of reference.
Of course, we might have thought initially that the narrowness of the terms of reference was a mistake in their drafting. But that is plainly not the case. Though for a short period of time the Prime Minister and those who are defending these particular arrangements claimed that the royal commissioner had all necessary powers to make findings in relation to the conduct of government ministers and high public officials, that claim has been effectively and totally demolished as the commissioner himself has clarified his obligations under those terms of reference and as the legal advice that the opposition has sought has been made available publicly. Both that legal advice and the commissioner’s response to that advice make it very plain that the point that I and the opposition have made in relation to these constraints is valid.
So at the end of this day we will have findings made which may or may not conclude that board members or the executive of the Australian Wheat Board and other associated persons were guilty of criminal offences—that is, they conspired in one way or the other to get around the regulations that this government put in place to prevent the evasion of the sanctions regime. Whether or not such findings are made, the commission is not empowered to make findings on the government as a whole and its management of this affair or on particular ministers—the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Trade and other ministers who have been mentioned as this inquiry has proceeded—or on those in the ministers’ personal staff or on senior departmental advisers who perhaps could have done more and failed to do more in relation to these matters.
I might make one particular mention of how these events make prisoners of those who find themselves caught in their travails. My colleague mentioned the fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke in extremely warm and complimentary terms of both his personal office and the department, who he said fulfilled their jobs in an exemplary way—notwithstanding the fact that many warnings were given which were not heeded. In a sense a minister becomes a prisoner because, if he were to draw attention to deficiencies in relation to the conduct of such persons and those persons in turn felt the need to defend themselves, the minister then becomes subject to the possibility of being undermined. And of course the defence that is being constructed is one in which all persons who are not the subject of the direct terms of reference have to be mutually supportive. They all have to tell each other what jolly good chaps they were, that they all did the right and proper thing, that they all could not have anticipated the fact that the Australian Wheat Board behaved in the shoddy way that it did, that no reasonable person could have anticipated this, that it was all a great big surprise and that successive warnings took them all by surprise. Yes, they all feel a bit sheepish and foolish in retrospect, but no-one really could have expected any better. Of course if anyone steps out and sings from a different hymn sheet, the whole defence crumbles.
There is a game of which interrogators and prosecutors are very aware called the prisoner’s dilemma. The prisoner’s dilemma deals with the question posed by the circumstance whereby various co-accused are faced with the prospect of diminished punishment if they confess to a crime. Working through the way in which the prisoner’s dilemma actually works out in practice shows it is a very challenging piece of theory, one which any person who has been involved with the justice system will be intimately familiar. In practice, in the criminal law jurisdiction many people do in fact confess to get a lesser sentence, despite the fact that if all hung together and sang from the same hymn sheet the conviction of none would be possible.
Fortunately for the way in which the criminal justice system operates, people actually subject to the enforcement of the law do find themselves often telling the truth and dobbing in their mates. Our criminal justice system could not work without such self-interested confessions. But very clearly here we have a rather more sophisticated group of persons all working together, plainly aware for a very long time of the problems of the prisoner’s dilemma, with no-one from the high group of public officials or ministers saying anything nasty about another. There was no possibility that any of them could have had any foresight, none of them could have thought ahead—each of them supporting the other in their incompetence, making no criticism of the fact that foresight was not available to them or to another, because of course not for a moment could anyone fall away from what was obviously a phoney account. I say ‘phoney’ because from its commonsense the Australian public knows that, with so many dead fish and the smell rising so profoundly, the failure by any of those persons to take any action means someone in that system failed in their responsibility to the public and in their responsibility to their duties.
The public realises this and no doubt the royal commissioner does, but the royal commissioner cannot track down or examine those matters because they are not within his terms of reference; they have been excluded deliberately. Which of those persons were in fact responsible for a failure to inquire when they should have inquired, a failure to take action when they should have taken action, a failure to pass messages up the system—if they failed to do so—or a failure, if they were up at the highest ends of the system, to take heed of those messages and to act upon them is not within the royal commissioner’s remit. The royal commissioner cannot attend to those matters because he has no power.
The end, I suppose, is that we send a message. The real message here that I am concerned that we should send is not to those ministers who are being criticised in this debate or to the public servants who may feel that they are being chastened unfairly in relation to this debate. My real concern is the take that the kids, the young people, in our schools will have on responsibility. When things go so badly wrong and when incompetence of such a degree is demonstrated and nobody takes responsibility—when no-one accepts that such a botch has been made of such an important matter in which our national interest is concerned, our troops are engaged and people’s lives are on the line so nobody takes responsibility—then how do we say to those young people, ‘This is a society where you have to take personal responsibility. Honesty, decency and accepting responsibility for the conduct of your own actions is fundamental to our expectations and to the way in which you have self-respect in the world’? I think that somebody should take responsibility for this mess. It should not just be a question of whether some person or other in the AWB committed a crime. That will be for the criminal courts. But the real question of accountability should be for those in higher office. (Time expired)
The ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal is about three things: gross negligence, gross cover-up and grave damage to Australia’s national interests. Labor supports the Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006, but we do so with the second reading amendment proposed by the member for Gellibrand, which I also support in full. The obligations on UN members to enforce sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime have been clear since the inception of those sanctions in 1991. After the first Gulf War, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 661, which states:
[The Council] Decides that all States shall not make available to the Government of Iraq or to any commercial, industrial or public utility undertaking in Iraq ... any funds or any other financial or economic resources and shall prevent their nationals and any persons within their territories from removing from their territories or otherwise making available to—
The government of Iraq—
... except payments exclusively for strictly medical or humanitarian purposes and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs …
That is all in UN Security Council speak, but the intention is clear. In other words, the government of Australia was bound to prevent any payment by any Australian individual or any Australian company to the Iraq government, or to anyone acting on behalf of the government of Iraq. As Felicity Johnston, the UN customs inspector who blew the whistle on the entire oil for food program scandal globally and on AWB in particular, stated:
Mr Vaile may try to wash his hands of it but they—
the government of Australia—
do have a responsibility to ensure that their nationals abide by the rules and the regulations.
But the obligation on the government to approve AWB contracts did not stem just from its obligations under the UN charter or to uphold the specific provisions of UN Security Council resolution 661. It went much beyond that as well. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade have repeatedly said that this was all exclusively the UN’s responsibility because it was the UN that approved the contracts. What they consistently refuse to recognise is that they had an obligation under Australian domestic law to ensure that AWB’s contracts were not funnelling kickbacks to Saddam Hussein. That is the import of UN Security Council resolution 661, and the section I just read.
When the oil for food program was first established, the Australian government took steps to implement the obligations of this resolution and to incorporate them into Australian law through the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations. Regulation 13CA provides that goods can only be exported to Iraq if the Minister for Foreign Affairs—nobody else—granted an export permit. And such a permit can only be issued if ‘the Minister is satisfied that permitting the exportation will not infringe the international obligations of Australia’.
There is no ambiguity whatsoever here. The buck stops with the foreign minister, and the foreign minister knows it. On 30 January this year, the Prime Minister said in relation to the AWB’s dealings with Saddam Hussein’s regime, ‘We had no suspicion, no suggestion there’d been any bribes.’ That was plainly untrue. In fact, the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal has been a rolling story of Howard government negligence, with government ministers turning a blind eye to warning after warning on what the AWB was up to in Iraq.
To date, we have uncovered 29 separate warnings that the Howard government received on the AWB’s engagement with Saddam Hussein’s regime, an engagement which involved the payment of corrupt moneys to that regime. Let us take the intelligence warnings as examples in point. The first intelligence warning was dated in 1998 and said that Australian intelligence indicated that Alia Corporation—the front company for Saddam Hussein—based in Jordan, was part owned by the Iraqi government and that it was involved in circumventing United Nations sanctions on behalf of the Iraqi government. That was in 1998. The second intelligence warning said:
By the first quarter of 2000 the AIC held intelligence indicating that Alia received fees in Jordan for the discharge and inland transport within Iraq of goods purchased by Iraq under the Oil for Food Program. It received these fees as agent for the Iraqi Government. The fees, less a small commission, were paid into accounts accessible by Iraq in violation of sanctions. The amounts involved were very substantial.
That is the Australian intelligence community’s warning in the first quarter of 2000. The third intelligence warning came in November 2000, and stated:
... the IAC held intelligence indicating that Iraq’s transport charges for humanitarian goods under the OFFP had been very substantially increased. Alia was one means by which these transport fees were paid to Iraq. The AIC also held information that such fees would probably be used for procurement purposes outside Iraq.
The fourth warning from Australian intelligence, in March 2001, stated:
... the AIC held intelligence of endeavours by Iraq to breach sanctions by, amongst other methods, collecting commission on contracts for humanitarian goods imported into Iraq under the OFFP. It included information that Iraq violated sanctions by charging a “commission” of at least 10 per cent on imported humanitarian goods under the OFFP and that the 10 per cent commission was rigidly enforced.
The fifth intelligence community warning said:
By September 2001, the AIC held intelligence indicating that inland transport fees for humanitarian goods, including fees paid through Alia, were proposed to be increased very substantially ... This increase was on top of the 10 per cent commission already paid and the fees were payable in advance of delivery. The proposed increase in transport fees was to apply on all humanitarian goods delivered under the OFFP through the port of Um Qasr.
And the sixth intelligence community warning, which came in December 2002, stated:
... the AIC held intelligence that Iraq was enforcing the 10 per cent commission on imports under the OFFP and that one means by which it continued to be paid was by payment into accounts in Jordan.
These intelligence warnings were received by the Howard government prior to the decision to invade Iraq. These intelligence warnings all pointed to the corruption of the oil for food program and the use of Alia in the process of that corruption. We now know that several warnings from the United Nations to Australia were also received by the offices of the Prime Minister, the foreign minister and the trade minister and their respective departments. For example, in January 2000, the UN raised concerns with the Australian permanent mission in New York. A senior Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade official reported the meeting in which these concerns were raised by cable, explaining that another country had alleged that AWB had entered into an arrangement with Iraq where it would pay $14 per metric tonne to a Jordanian bank account of a company owned by a son of Saddam Hussein. The UN asked if Australia would make some ‘discreet, high-level inquiries’ to ensure that the AWB was not in breach of the sanctions. DFAT Canberra responded and said, ‘We think it is unlikely that AWB would be involved in a breach of the sanctions regime.’ This cable was sent without first contacting AWB. This cable was sent to Minister Downer’s office, and he has admitted in parliament that he read it.
In another cable, on 10 March 2000, a senior DFAT officer reported that ‘until we are able to provide a formal reassurance of this, there will remain a question mark over the matter from the point of view of both the OIP’—that is, the Office of the Iraq Program—‘and the third country’—in this case, the warnings received from the government of Canada. The foreign minister has admitted in parliament that he read this cable as well. On 11 March 2000, an Austrade representative in Washington reported to DFAT in Canberra that there were continuing concerns that the AWB had agreed to irregular payment terms with the Iraqi Grains Board and that Austrade was:
… concerned that AWB do not understand the seriousness nor the urgency of the matter. It may be necessary to advise the minister of the situation.
This cable was copied to the managing director of Austrade and to the Secretary of DFAT. The trade minister has since told parliament that he would have been briefed on this cable. On 20 October 2000, AWB Chairman Trevor Flugge wrote to the trade minister regarding AWB’s recent visit to Baghdad. AWB then had discussions with DFAT about its proposal to engage Jordanian trucking companies and on 30 October 2000 wrote to DFAT seeking approval for this arrangement. On 2 November—a few days later—DFAT replied to AWB giving its formal green light to this process. DFAT said:
We … can see no reason from an international legal perspective why you should not proceed—that is, this would not contravene the current sanctions regime on Iraq. International Legal Division has been consulted in the preparation of this response.
On 10 April 2001, a senior DFAT officer at the Australian Permanent Mission to the UN in New York sent a cable to Canberra which referred to ‘anecdotal and in some cases hard evidence of Iraqi purchasers and agents demanding fees and commissions in association with ... the import of humanitarian supplies’. The cable went on to say that the official had been approached by Iraqi officials in the UN corridors who had complained that the sanctions committee could ‘complicate the matter’. The official noted that ‘Iraq’s interest in keeping port fees outside the oil for food program appears self-evident from the Iraqi delegation’s approach to us’. The cable was sent to the offices of the Prime Minister, the foreign minister, the trade minister, the agriculture minister and a range of government departments, including ONA, DIO, A-G’s and Treasury. For 18 months after the Iraq War, the warnings on AWB’s activities in Iraq continued and the government continued to ignore them. So much for the record of negligence. There were 29 separate warnings which were systematically ignored by one government minister and official after another.
The other thing this scandal brings into focus is a systematic cover-up on the part of the government. On 15 February 2006, the Prime Minister said:
… the dam really burst on knowledge in relation to Saddam Hussein, and Volker bears this out. After the fall of Saddam Hussein authorities investigating these matters began to have full access to the documents of the former regime.
Of course, we now know that this was only half the story. After the ‘dam wall burst’, it is clear that the government engaged in a systematic attempt to cover up its complicity in the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal. We now know: (1) that the government tried to avoid cooperation with the Volcker inquiry; (2) that the government attempted to pressure a US congressional inquiry into dropping its investigation into AWB’s activities in Iraq; (3) that the government severely limited the powers of Commissioner Cole to make findings of negligence or otherwise on the part of government ministers and officials; and (4) that government ministers have point-blank misled both the public and parliament.
The Prime Minister and the foreign minister have continually claimed that the government fully cooperated with the Volcker inquiry, which was established in April 2004 to examine allegations that UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein had been breached through the oil for food program. On 31 October 2005, the Prime Minister told parliament:
The government cooperated fully with the Volcker inquiry, providing all information requested by the committee.
Again on 31 October 2005, the Prime Minister told parliament:
… having received in the case of Australia full responses and cooperation and full documentation, if there were anything lacking in the behaviour of Australia in relation to her obligations the Volcker inquiry would have so reported.
However, the Prime Minister’s claims that his government cooperated fully with the Volcker inquiry are not underpinned by information contained in documents tabled at the Cole inquiry which reveal Mr Volcker’s frustration with the lack of cooperation he was receiving from the Howard government. On 23 March, it was revealed at the Cole inquiry that in February 2005 Australia’s ambassador to the UN met with Mr Volcker in New York at Mr Volcker’s request. A cable report back to Canberra following that meeting revealed that Mr Volcker expressed his concern that the government was not being sufficiently cooperative and described the government’s approach as ‘beyond reticent, even forbidding’. The cable also stated that Paul Volcker strongly indicated in the meeting that it would be in the government’s and AWB’s best interests to cooperate with the Volcker inquiry. You can add to that the fact that the opposition had established, before the release of the these cables from the UN, that the Volcker inquiry had not been provided with full documentation, because the Howard government had not provided Volcker with access to DFAT’s electronic files or any documents in the possession of the Wheat Export Authority.
The cover-up was not restricted to lack of government cooperation with the Volcker inquiry. It also extended to the government’s attempt to shut down the Coleman inquiry, which was being conducted by the United States Senate. During the 2004 federal election campaign, in the weeks leading up to the 9 October poll, the Howard government instructed its ambassador in Washington to exert pressure on the congressional inquiry not to investigate the actions of AWB in Iraq. This is a matter of documentary record. We now know that Australia’s ambassador met with Senator Norm Coleman, chairman of the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations, in an attempt to dissuade him from pursuing allegations against AWB. This was despite the fact that by October 2004 the Howard government had received multiple warnings—29 warnings of a direct or indirect nature—about the AWB’s corrupt payments to Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Of course, the cover-up, and the pattern thereof, extends also to the government’s cooperation with the Cole inquiry itself. The Prime Minister and the foreign minister have repeatedly claimed that they have provided full documentation to the Cole inquiry. On 12 February this year, the Prime Minister said:
… we have unprecedented transparency here. We’ve got a full blooded Royal Commission effectively into this and Mr. Cole has access to something I don’t have access, you don’t do, Mr. Beazley and Mr. Rudd don’t, he has access to all of the documents. The bureaucracy’s documents and also the documents of AWB, so I think we should all wait until Mr. Cole has reported.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
… everybody respects Mr. Cole, he’s got all the powers of a Royal Commissioner, he’s got all of the documents, he will ask all of the questions …
We know now that Commissioner Cole did not have all the documents at all. On 3 February 2006, the Prime Minister said:
So far as the Government is concerned, it remains the case that we will continue to cooperate fully with the inquiry. Information sought will be provided, if I were asked to attend or any of my ministerial colleagues, we would do so. Any officials of the Government who are asked to attend will do so and my only request of everybody is that they tell the truth.
On 3 February 2006, the Prime Minister also said:
… I am advised that all of the documents directly relevant to the matters under investigation by the Inquiry, within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and I believe within my own Department, are in the hands of the commission. You can’t be more cooperative than that.
You can be more cooperative than that.
Debate interrupted.
Order! It being 9.00 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
The Queensland National Party have hung up the ‘For sale’ sign. I do not mean they have hung up the ‘For sale’ sign like they used to, when in the good old days with a brown paper you could guarantee yourself a rezoning or a new development or for the right amount of money you could get yourself a knighthood. What I am talking about here is the full sale—not like it used to be; that was more ‘Rent the National Party’ rather than ‘Buy the National Party’. This is actually the wholesale purchase. For this you get the buildings, the property, the funds and the membership. The whole lot is on the selling block. It has been an extraordinary couple of days watching the events unfold.
The front-page article in today’s Brisbane Courier Mail referred to the meeting to be held this evening. From reports late this evening, I am sure the meeting occurred and we will no doubt get the details confirming this. The paper said:
Mr Howard will meet Queensland Liberal MPs tonight and declare his total opposition to a single party, unless the Nationals want to join the existing Liberals. While no decision has been made on the structure and name of the merged party, a leaked briefing to the Liberal members from the state director, Geoff Green, outlines the effective takeover of the Nationals.
I quote from the circular from the Liberal Party’s director:
The merger would not form a new conservative party in Queensland. Rather, talks are centring on the Nationals joining the Liberal Party.
It is a wholesale purchase of the National Party by the Liberal Party. What an astounding set of circumstances. As someone from Queensland who, I have to confess, has followed state politics closely for a few years now, I would never have thought I would see the occasion where the National Party in Queensland would fold its tent and desert its basic supporters.
It has now got to the stage where the Leader of the National Party in this place, Mark Vaile, who found out about these goings-on well after the handshake had taken place and the deal was sealed, has now publicly called for the federal President of the National Party—a Queenslander, David Russell—to resign because David Russell has gone behind the leader’s back to negotiate this arrangement. It is a matter of public record that the deal between the Liberal Party and the National Party was negotiated by David Russell, as the federal president, and by the state president, who is a member of this parliament—the member for Maranoa.
I watched with some interest the responses of some National Party members in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, who have been asked their views on this. When I first heard this, one of the things that came to my mind was: I wonder what Ron Boswell thinks about this, because, whatever else may be said about Senator Boswell, he has been a true-blue, staunch advocate of National Party politics for some time. I give him credit; I actually like Ron; I think Bos is a decent fellow. But this is what he said: ‘I was born politically a National and I will die one.’ He better have a talk to his state president—his colleague from Queensland—because that is not the deal they have stitched up. This is not the ‘Rent a National Party’ that we knew in days of old; this is actually the holus-bolus sale of the show.
But there has been, I suppose, one silver lining on the cloud for the Queensland Nationals. During the last 48 hours the unthinkable has occurred: the member for Maranoa and the national President of the National Party, David Russell, have achieved what I thought could not be achieved—they have got Senator Ron Boswell and Senator Barnaby Joyce on a unity ticket. They have Barnaby Joyce in the same camp with Ron Boswell. Only a few days ago that is not something that many of us would have thought possible, but it is an indication of the mess that the National Party is in in Queensland.
All jokes aside, the real tragedy of this is that the constituency west of the divide have, for two generations, looked to the National Party in Queensland and the Country Party before it to defend their rights. I have to say, for two generations before that they looked to the Labor Party for the same reason. They will return to the Labor Party after they see this debacle. This is a very interesting development in Queensland politics. Those west of the divide have been forsaken by those they have placed their trust in for two generations now. Barnaby Joyce knows that; Ron Boswell knows that; in fact, every member of the National Party in this parliament, bar one, knows that—but they are not willing to say it publicly. They know it in their hearts, and their problem is that they now have themselves into this cycle of feeding on one another. The National Party can put out their ‘For sale’ sign; the Liberal Party can subsume them— (Time expired)
Tonight I wish to speak of the achievements of a great and growing Northern Territory business with a bright future. It is a business owned by Northern Territorians, built by Northern Territorians and, indeed, committed to the Northern Territory. Regional and Northern Maintenance Services, known as RANms, is a great example of how small businesses working collectively can add benefit to each other, particularly in regional locations like Darwin. This business was the idea of Greg Haigh, managing director of Air and Gas Systems, a local business in Darwin. He felt that, for his company and others of its size to compete in the emerging defence, mining, oil and gas, and rail sectors in the Northern Territory, they needed to work together.
RANms was formed in 2001 with 10 shareholder companies—all local Darwin based businesses that have been operating there for many years. The proprietors and business names are as follows: Paul and Helen Smith of Askensmith; Steve Tiley of Universal Engineering; Warwick and Karen Price of Industrial Electrical Supplies; Karl Radonich of Rado Refrigeration; Peter Carew of Integrated Technical Services; Mark Tinley of Transhose; Mark and Marianne Taylor of Fingers Aluminium; Rob Bonney of Fluid Power Darwin; Tim Proctor of Territory Diving Services; and Greg Haigh of Air and Gas Systems, as I mentioned before.
It was felt that combining the strength of these 10 companies with a single marketing project and technical management focus would provide the economies of scale to compete against and work with larger organisations. Given the location of RANms and the cost of interstate companies establishing a presence in the local market, covering the broad range of skills that RANms provide, they have been extremely successful in securing ongoing work from very large companies. The approach since inception has been for RANms to concentrate on larger customers and allow member companies to continue to service their smaller clients and their pre-existing client base.
Some of the customers of RANms are the Australian Defence Force, ConocoPhillips, GE Energy, Raytheon, BAE, TenixToll, Austal Ships, Woodside, Clough AMEC and United Rail. RANms is committed to providing a wide variety of services in a controlled manner to major companies in the Northern Territory region. Paul Mahoney, the chief executive officer, has stated that the success of the business is based on being able to provide skilled resources when required; quality workmanship, demanded by these key clients; and a higher level of management capability than could be provided by businesses working alone. Major clients are continually looking to reduce the number of companies in their supply chains. RANms provides them with this opportunity for any work being undertaken in the Northern Territory. The business is now investigating the evolution of its model even further, whereby it may become one company rather than being owned by 10 companies.
RANms currently employ 14 apprentices/trainees, with further intakes likely in the coming months. They participate in the hugely popular Adopt a School program, which gives young people an insight into a trades career, and they have recently formulated an industry participation plan supporting Indigenous employment. The owners and managers of Regional and Northern Maintenance Services should be congratulated on their foresight and their commitment to the Northern Territory. RANms has a clear strategy to become a major company servicing the resources, defence and infrastructure sectors operating in Australia’s northern regions.
This is a modern-day pioneering story. It is very hard for small businesses in the Territory to compete and work with the large multinational companies that we are seeing arriving in Darwin now, with through-life contacts for defence, and further work occurring in the major resource sectors and rail. They are really taking it up to business. I think they are a great Territory success story and I wish them well in the future.
It will be no surprise to you, Mr Speaker, or to the rest of the House, that I raise the issue of the rolling joke in Queensland: the coalition. It is important to all Queenslanders and the rest of the country to know what is going on. This week we heard the news that the Queensland branches of the Liberal Party and the National Party are planning to merge. They are doing that because they have run out of any other ideas on policy or anything else they are doing. They are talking about becoming the New Liberals or the Old Nationals. But, regardless of what they are going to call themselves, no merger will ever hide the fact that, if you put the same old rubbish in, you get the same old rubbish out from the same old tired faces. As the saying goes: you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. You can serve mutton anyway you like, but it is never going to taste like lamb—that is the reality.
If these grand wedding plans do go ahead, it will definitely be the end of the National Party in Queensland and it will be the beginning of the end of the National Party federally in Canberra. That is what scares them. It scares the federal Nats because they know that this is the beginning of the end for them. They are not worried about Australia or Queensland; they are worried about themselves—that is the real point.
That goes to my more important point, which is that the only true friend that the bush has is the Labor Party. You need only look at Queensland to see that. On the big issues—on road and rail infrastructure—it is the Labor Party that stands up for the people of Queensland. If you look at water infrastructure, it is the Labor Party. Look at telecommunications. You have only to take the sale of the century: Telstra. Who has rolled over on Telstra, the one big issue for the National Party in this country? If there were a defining issue for the National Party, it would be that they stood up for their constituents on Telstra. It is painful for them, but they rolled over. They are more interested in pleasing their Liberal Party masters than they are in looking after their own constituents.
But the truth is that Queenslanders are not silly. They are a bright lot. The truth is that they have long since abandoned the National Party. What this merger is all about is the Queensland Nationals realising that they are a party of the past—and the federal Nationals are not far behind them either. They need to merge not for the benefit of the country, not for the economy, not for their constituents but for themselves, to save their own skins. The merger in Queensland is about the National Party surviving. It is not about them doing their jobs; it is about them keeping their jobs. That is what they are in it for.
On the other hand, interestingly, the Nationals in Canberra are completely opposed to any merger, because it will reduce their power base. It will reduce the importance they have here in Canberra. So what do the Nationals in Canberra want to do? They do not want a merger, because they are interested only in themselves. They want to save their skins; they want to save their jobs. Does anyone actually believe that, if the merger trend continued from Queensland and flowed down to Canberra, Mark Vaile would still be the Deputy Prime Minister if he had to compete with the rest of the Liberal Party? That might be a question we could ask some Liberal backbenchers or Liberal ministers.
If this merger actually does happen, let us be frank: it will not be a merger anyway. It is simply a takeover of the National Party by the Liberals. Regional and rural Queenslanders have been fundamentally betrayed by this mob. That is why they do not vote for them. I also heard this week that they still are not sure what they should call this new so-called party of theirs. You do not have to look very far. Just like they treated their own constituents with Telstra, they could call themselves the ‘sell-out party’. It would be true to form. You sold out on your own constituents. You sold out on the one big issue that actually could have defined you. The National Party is arrogant and is out of touch with rural and regional Australia. For too long the Nationals have put the Liberals first and their constituents last. Every time rural and regional Australians look for representation, what do they see their National Party MPs doing? Rolling over for the Liberals.
Who could forget the sale of the century on Telstra? I will tell you who will not forget, and that is your constituents out in the bush. The National Party should be standing up for the bush and regional constituents, not themselves. This is the Queensland Nationals having given up on themselves and given up on their constituencies. The only thing they have ever agreed on in Queensland is merging, but that is just a complete sell-out. They are desperate not to make a change but to save their own hides and skins. But the reality is that they do not have the guts to carry it through, and it will not make any difference what they want to do as they will never get away with it. (Time expired).
I rise tonight to praise the efforts of an organisation called the Friends of Ermera. The Friends of Ermera is an aid agency based in Narre Warren in Melbourne, in my electorate of La Trobe. As its name suggests, the Friends of Ermera focuses its efforts entirely on the Ermera district in western East Timor. Ermera is a landlocked district and is home to over 100,000 people. Ermera’s capital, Gleno, is located 30 kilometres south-west of Dili.
As the House would be aware, on 20 May 2002, East Timor became the world’s newest sovereign state. The events of the last few weeks have been a poignant reminder of the immense challenges that lie ahead of this fledgling nation. However, the Friends of Ermera have been great ambassadors for helping out the people of East Timor.
On 24 April this year, I had the privilege of meeting this group, which includes president, Jan Trezise; vice-president, Mary Mumford; secretary, Robert Daniel; treasurer, Phillip Rocke; and committee members: Joyce Robeiro, Lynn Bryan, Don Hudson, Jack Clarke, Judy Barton, Marilyn Davidson, Ann Riswick, Judith Kierce and my great friend Jack James. They explained that the group was formed in June 2002, with the aim of helping the people of Ermera rebuild their lives and their communities after the violence and destruction that followed East Timor’s vote of independence in 1999. Tragically, we are seeing the same incidents occurring again today.
Initially the group’s sole focus was education. It has since extended that to programs for health and sanitation, women’s groups and export assistance. Each year, since 2002, the Friends of Ermera has provided materials such as picture books, puzzles and easels to kindergartens and schools. The group has rebuilt four kindergartens in the district, and a fifth is near completion. What an amazing effort. I say again that it has contributed to building four kindergartens.
The Friends of Ermera is also undertaking fundraising through Australian schools to generate funds to repair school buildings, reinstate basketball courts and provide adequate toilets and water supplies. Through the OPAL organisation, Overseas Pharmaceutical Aids for Life, the Friends of Ermera has provided basic pharmaceuticals such as ointments and antibiotics for ear and eye infections. The Friends of Ermera has also supported several women’s groups throughout the district by providing sewing materials—a basic commodity, yet something that is vitally needed by the local residents. Moreover, it has funded a women’s shelter that provides adult literacy classes and that is a safe harbour for women and children who are victims of domestic violence.
When I met with the members of the group last month, they were very anxious to impress upon me their view that Australian aid should be directed at building capacity across East Timor. Tragically, at the moment, with recent events, we are seeing the majority of our aid being spent on security measures, but I was pleased to assure them that this is exactly the approach that the Australian government is taking.
The Friends of Ermera can rest assured that the Australian government is helping East Timor to build effective national institutions and public administrations with their new revenue. Major increases in the Timor Sea revenues have the potential to underwrite East Timor’s development in coming years. However, East Timor’s transition to a stable and democratic nation will involve first and foremost strengthening law and governance.
At this point, I congratulate the Australian defence forces on their fantastic work. I also recognise the efforts of the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, and, at the time, the Acting Prime Minister, Peter Costello. This has been a fantastic effort by the Australian defence forces. It is exceptionally dangerous and, with my background in the police force, I look with horror at how the ADF were required to disarm gangs who were looting with weapons such as knives and firearms. It is absolutely tragic what is happening over there. I commend the ADF. Now the Australian Federal Police are also on the ground, and their first task is to investigate the tragic murders of members of the police. (Time expired)
The Prime Minister has declared:
If there is to be a single party in Queensland, then the only basis on which I would accept a single party in Queensland would be the Liberal Party.
The Prime Minister is meeting Queensland federal Liberal MPs tonight to declare his total opposition to a merged party. So let us be clear that this is not a merger but a takeover of the Queensland Nationals by the Liberals. It is a capitulation by the Queensland Nationals. It is a capitulation by the member for Dawson, who has pretended to fight the privatisation of Telstra as a National but who now will join the very Liberals who have led the privatisation push. It is a capitulation by the member for Hinkler, who would now run as a Liberal. And it is a capitulation by the member for Wide Bay, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, who has joined us here tonight but who is now to become a Liberal. ‘Warren Truss, Liberal candidate for Wide Bay’ has a certain ring about it, don’t you think?
I will chance my arm on the forthcoming redistribution and predict that a new seat will be in the Hinkler-Wide Bay area because both of those are heavily over quota, and that too would be contested by a Liberal. It is a capitulation by Senators Ron Boswell and Barnaby Joyce. We all know that Senator Boswell has long been a closet Liberal, but Senator Joyce has paraded himself as a fiercely independent Queensland National who stands up against the Liberals. Senator Joyce is set to join the Liberals. No more photos of angry confrontations between Senator Heffernan and Senator Joyce in the Senate. They are about to become the best of friends, bosom buddies. Senator Joyce complained about an election letter signed by the Prime Minister introducing his Senate team that failed to include Senator Joyce as a team member. Next time around the Liberals will include Senator Joyce on their team, but in the unwinnable No. 4 spot.
Queensland National Party members might think that they can run as candidates for some sort of federal National Party, but they would be candidates for a National Party controlled 100 per cent by the Liberals. Barnaby, if it looks like a Liberal Party, if it walks like a Liberal Party and if it quacks like a Liberal Party, it is a Liberal Party. This is John Howard’s nightmare. I was a staffer to Bob Hawke in 1987 when we returned from an overseas trip—
Order! The member will refer to members and ministers by their title.
Thank you, Mr Speaker—to be told that a group of businessmen had lost faith in Mr Howard and had launched a ‘Joh for PM’ campaign. On 31 January 1987, Sir Joh addressed a rally in Wagga and launched the ‘Joh for PM’ campaign, telling a small group of admirers:
I’m starting a bushfire today and it will go all over Australia.
He said:
I have some very, very good news for you today. The Coalition is finished.
In explaining the reasons for his decision to destroy the coalition, he said:
You can’t walk with a foot on either side of a barbwire fence. It’s very uncomfortable.
He went on to say:
And we will annihilate them and they will not be able to sustain their position. You cannot do the things they are doing and expect to win. You cannot win particularly when you have the record they’ve got. They are losers.
He was not talking about the Australian Labor Party; he was talking about the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister then announced the 1987 election when Sir Joh was in Disneyland. Peter Charlton reported:
The reaction when we rang Joh and said, ‘Look, the election’s been called and you haven’t even got a seat, you haven’t been preselected, you haven’t got your organisation. What do you think?’
Sir Joh replied:
That Hawke hasn’t called an election, has he? Oh that’s ... goodness gracious ...
The ‘Joh for PM’ campaign destroyed any chance that Mr Howard might have had of winning the 1987 election. Now, 20 years later, the Prime Minister gets to relive his nightmare: the Queensland Nationals are about to destroy the coalition again, but this time they are going to destroy the coalition by agreeing to be taken over by the Liberals.
This time it is not Sir Joh who is in Disneyland but the National Party leader. The Prime Minister knew two weeks ago about the talks that were going on but did not tell the National Party leader. His National Party colleague the member for Maranoa participated in the talks for two weeks, but he did not tell the National Party leader. The President of the Queensland National Party, David Russell, organised the talks but did not tell the National Party leader. The Queensland Nationals are about to abandon provincial Queensland—seats like Dawson, Hinkler and Wide Bay. We say to the people of Dawson, Hinkler and Wide Bay: you have no better friend than the Labor Party—a party committed to a nation building agenda; a party committed to making regional Australia a new engine of national economic growth. As Sir Joh famously declared 20 years ago, ‘The coalition is finished. Don’t you worry about that.’
Often in this parliament we draw aside, pay tribute, give recognition and pause to remember people who have contributed to national life, state life and local communities. Tonight I draw aside and pay tribute to the life and achievements of Mrs Dorothy Edwards CBE, the first woman mayor of a major Australian city, who died in Launceston in March this year. Dorothy Edna Annie Edwards grew up in Deloraine, near Launceston, where her father was the local council clerk. She was educated at Launceston High School and later at the University of Tasmania. She studied at the London School of Economics and graduated as a Master of Arts. Mrs Edwards taught at Launceston High for many years. Many of my constituents remember her as an exacting and very professional teacher, in the best traditions and, if I may say, the old traditions of the Tasmanian state system. Dorothy Edwards joined the National Council of Women as secretary of the northern Tasmanian chapter and held many offices in the NCW and its international affiliate.
A special tribute was paid to her at the civic memorial service in Launceston by Mrs Mollie Campbell Smith MBE, another of my distinguished constituents. Having grown up in a family involved with local government, Dorothy Edwards was incensed that the law prevented Tasmanian women from being elected to local councils. She campaigned for the Launceston Corporation Act to be changed to permit women to stand for the city council—and the law was changed in 1945. In 1949, Dorothy Edwards stood for election—the first woman to do so. Seven other candidates stood, and Dorothy Edwards was resoundingly elected second on the poll. She served as a Launceston alderman for 15 years and was Mayor of Launceston from 1955 to 1957.
That does not seem so long ago, but Dorothy Edwards was the first woman in Australia to head one of its major cities. During her time as mayor and alderman, Dorothy Edwards was significantly involved in the major flood prevention measures built to protect the city from a repeat of the devastation of the very well known 1929 floods. After retiring from the council, she was Commissioner of the ABC from 1962 to 1975, served on the state library board for 25 years, was a member of the Decimal Currency Committee and was Chairman of the Board of the Launceston General Hospital. She was also involved in many other community affairs. She was Vice President of the International Council of Women from 1963 to 1979 and a Life Vice President of the National Council of Women Australia. Mrs Edwards was appointed OBE in 1958 and promoted to CBE in 1979. She was also admitted as a Freeman of the City of Launceston.
The present Mayor of Launceston, Alderman Ivan Dean, and current and former aldermen of the City of Launceston honoured Dorothy Edwards with a civic memorial service at the very beautiful Albert Hall, where photographs of her life were shown and excerpts of a interview she recorded not long before her death were played. In recalling her as a former Mayor of the City of Launceston, I think it is important for me to say that Launceston is a very proud city. It is a historic city. It is, in fact, an early city of Australia. It was settled in 1806 and is this year celebrating its bicentennial year. I often say that Launceston is a place of proud history, spirited people and great natural beauty.
Tonight I extend my sympathies to Mrs Edwards’s son, Alan, and other members of her family. They can be enormously proud of their mother’s contributions to Australian civic and cultural life and for being an important part of Launceston’s culture, its civic life and now its history. I think it is important that the House record the achievements of our great citizens, and Dorothy Edwards certainly qualifies as a great Australian and a great Tasmanian. I know that all of my Tasmanian colleagues in this place and in the other place would want to associate themselves with these remarks.
Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
The following notices were given:
to move:
That this House notes:
to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to health, and for related purposes. (Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 2006)
to present a bill for an act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and for other purposes. (Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006)
to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to education services for overseas students, and for related purposes. (Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006)
to present a bill for an act to amend the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act 1990, and for related purposes. (Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006)
I rise in the chamber today to speak briefly about a recent visit to Tasmania, where I attended the state RSL congress in Ulverstone. I also met with representatives of the Vietnam veterans’ community to talk about some of the local counselling services down there and some issues they were having with the department with respect to the continuing and ongoing funding of a particular project. The particular project I am talking about was written up in the local newspaper at that time, and I read from that story:
TWO North-West support groups assisting with stress management for Vietnam and other war veterans could lose the services of clinical psychologists by the end of the year as a result of Department of Veteran Affairs red tape.
A loophole in DVA policy has meant that for the past nine years groups have been able to utilise the services of psychologists by rerunning 12-week programs that qualify for the funding.
According to Men’s Health Peer Education State representative Les Nicholas, of Penguin, a new DVA director, appointed last year, has told the groups the services can no longer continue because they did not conform with DVA policy.
Mr Nicholas said regular evaluation reports by the attending psychologists over the past four years supported the value of the services, but hadn’t been acknowledged by the department.
I met with representatives of those groups to discuss the nature of the sorts of services provided and the reasons why these were essential services that needed to be carried on into the long term, because there is no doubt that they were working very effectively. They provided me with information regarding the operation of these services. I will read from a stress management evaluation report of one of the groups:
One veteran reported that he did not get as angry. One veteran commented that the group had helped him see the psychological damage you could do if you hit someone when you were angry.
One reported that it helped his depression to come to the group and get out of the house. This in turn helped him go out other days and begin activities like bowls.
… … …
Another said that his kids tell him that he has improved and they can talk to him now. “I’m not so sarcastic. I don’t tell them what to do. I listen to them too. I used to roar my head off at them.”
… … …
Another veteran reports his daughter tells him if he is getting too het up “Why don’t you go and see your vet friends” as she knows the group calms him down.
There is no doubt that this service is of value. I am certainly encouraged by some of the comments that have been made by the minister and by the department head about properly evaluating these services and the fact that they ought to be able to continue. We intend to question the government with respect to the ongoing operation of these services and the value that they have through the Senate estimates process. These are the sorts of services that directly and in concrete ways help veterans who have real problems that they need to deal with to make sure that they get the sort of support that they need to be operating members of society.
There is no doubt that many veterans from conflicts have come back with severe problems as a result of their war service. It is incumbent on society and on the government to ensure that they are provided with the sorts of services that they need to try and deal with those issues. We believe, on this side of the chamber, that that is what needs to be done. (Time expired)
Yesterday, Monday the 29th, an icon of the Australian sugar industry passed away. Joseph, or Joe, Toft died in Bundaberg at the age of 95 from complications after suffering a heart attack over the weekend. Joe was a local cane farmer with a huge talent for engineering, which shone through despite his lack of formal schooling. He was a key figure in the success of the sugar industry, particularly in the Bundaberg region, because of his landmark achievement in designing and building the first mechanical cane harvester.
It was Joe’s natural engineering ability and ingenuity which spawned one of Australia’s most successful home-grown engineering enterprises to date, the Austoft cane harvester business, originally known as Toft Bros or colloquially as Tofts. Joe actually designed and built the first machine, a loader, from scrap parts of metal. He did this in the late thirties and, although Austoft was established by his brothers Harold and Colin, it was Joe’s vision that led to the company’s creation.
Since 1947, the Austoft enterprise, in its various manifestations, generated wealth for Bundaberg and led the way in the global cane harvest sector. At one stage, 85 per cent of the world’s cane harvesters were made in Bundaberg. Austoft did not restrict itself to manufacturing just cane harvesters even though that remained its core business.
The company expanded into manufacturing other machinery by the 1990s and it was Australia’s largest agricultural machinery manufacturer. I recall Joe’s dismay when Austoft closed its doors in 2003 due to difficulties in the sugar industry and the fact that cane harvester manufacturing had moved from the Australian-Asia sector to Latin America. His words at the time were:
Well, that doesn’t make me very happy at all. After all, it was the Toft’s work that put the cane harvester in the field, and the company was known worldwide everywhere where sugar was grown, and I still would have liked it to have stayed in Bundaberg.
I was touched to receive a personal message from the Toft family to inform me of his passing. I would like to relay to his family that Joe’s respect for me as an MP is doubled in my respect for him as a pioneer, a fine citizen and a man who gave so much to the local community. I offer my condolences to his children, Cal and Desley; to his grandchildren, Lyn Andreassen, Ken Toft, Judy Green, Paul Gear, Wendy Bugden and Jeff Gear; and to his 10 great-grandchildren. He was a truly fine Australian and I pay tribute to him.
I want to raise an issue today that is of great concern to schools and schoolchildren in my electorate. Everyone in this House knows how much school visits are enjoyed by students from our electorates when they come to see how the parliament works and what their national capital does. Unfortunately, more and more schools in my electorate are unable to come to Canberra as the costs of travel and staying overnight et cetera are increasing.
I want to put on the record my concern that the way the school subsidy works is a great disadvantage. Those of us from Melbourne with schoolchildren in our electorates who may not have sufficient personal funds to be able to visit, are excluded by the 1,000-kilometre rule, which means that students from further flung states, who should also be given assistance, are the only ones given that assistance. I would like to place on record my concern that it has been quite some time since the formula used for the granting of this assistance has been revisited. I believe that there should be some sort of socioeconomic measure put in place so that schools operating in areas where the students do not have very many means, even if they fall within the 1,000-kilometre exclusion zone, should be considered for some sort of assistance.
We have all seen the enthusiasm of schoolchildren when they suddenly see the parliament coming to life. They get very excited about the idea of being involved in our political system. We feel strongly about wanting to educate people about civics. One of the best ways of doing that is by letting them come to Canberra to experience all that the national capital has to offer. I think the Parliamentary Education Office do an extraordinarily good job. They have very well qualified staff who are able to inspire even the most disinterested of students. If they were given the opportunity to work their magic on more students that would be a good thing for the community.
I am concerned because I have four schools already—and I know there are more—both public and local Catholic schools, that have stopped coming to Canberra because the students simply cannot afford it. They are St Margaret Mary’s School of Spotswood, Eastona Primary School, Footscray North Primary School and St Monica’s Primary School. It concerns me greatly that these students, through no fault of their own, are missing out on a great experience, which often captures their imagination and gives them an interest in the future in politics and the way our country works. I urge the parliament to reconsider the formula that applies for providing assistance to school students so that mere distance is not the only factor that is taken into account and that disadvantaged students are also given the opportunity to receive some assistance to visit Canberra.
Last Saturday I had the pleasure of welcoming the Hon. Tony Abbott, Minister for Health and Ageing, into my electorate. Tony undertook the very special task of officially opening Hill View House at Merrimac, which is a new aged care facility. It is a $20 million state-of-the-art aged care project, which was commenced in September 2004 and began its operations on 29 December 2005. The federal government has approved 85 high-care and 43 low-care beds, and aged care will be provided to people with dementia, which is great for residents on the Gold Coast, particularly for those families who have the responsibility of caring for frail aged parents or relatives.
I was particularly impressed with the links that have been made with the local community, and that was evident by the people who were at the opening on Saturday. In particular, a link has been forged with the Merrimac state school, which is next door to the aged care facility. The principal, Randall Pointing, has signed a memorandum of understanding with the aged care facility for interaction between the young students and the frail aged in the nursing home. There has also been a memorandum of understanding with the multicultural communities on the Gold Coast. That is to ensure the appropriate placement of multicultural aged people who require care in this facility. I think that that is particularly appropriate on the Gold Coast, where we have so many people from different backgrounds.
I want to pay tribute to the people who organised Saturday’s official opening—in particular, Bronwyn Locke, the CEO, who is passionate about her role with Hill View Aged Care Pty Ltd. She has always been committed to the care and welfare of the aged in our community. She and Sandy Foote and her team at Hill View House provided a wonderful opportunity for the community to have a look through this new aged care facility on Saturday. The function went off extremely well and I know that, with these people at the helm, aged care on the Gold Coast has gone to another level.
They are pleased you’re the member too.
They certainly are. We did a tour through the aged care facility, and the minister was particularly impressed with the facilities that are being provided for aged care on the Gold Coast. I congratulate all those involved in the opening of Hill View House on Saturday and give special thanks to the Minister for Health and Ageing for participating in the official opening.
Before I call the honourable member for Richmond, and without making a partisan comment from the chair but to encourage people to take note of the Main Committee, let me say that a wonderful photo opportunity was missed just before when there were six members of the coalition on the government side from the one state—Queensland.
Mr Slipper interjecting
The chair could not comment on that to the honourable member for Fisher.
Today I rise to extend my congratulations to one of the great schools in my electorate—Terranora Public School—which recently celebrated its centenary, a remarkable effort. These celebrations ran from Friday, 19 May to Sunday, 21 May. I was very honoured to have been invited to the official opening ceremony on Saturday, 21 May at the school as, together as a community, we celebrated 100 years of public education at the school.
What made the day so very special was the array of people joining in the celebration. There were students and teachers, both current and past; parents and grandparents, many of whom had attended Terranora school; and a large number of members of the local community from Terranora and the surrounds. In particular, it was wonderful to meet Mr Ed Parker, a man 95 years of age. Mr Parker was a former principal of the school. Indeed, Mr Parker was principal 50 years ago at Terranora school. He had in fact organised the celebrations which marked 50 years of the school in 1956, so it was great to see him here in 2006 celebrating the centenary.
Terranora Public School now has 330 students but, in Mr Parker’s day, it was a one-teacher school with only 13 students at one time, later rising to 51 students. Whilst the school and, indeed, the community of Terranora were much smaller in 1956, what remains the same is that the school really is the heart of the Terranora community, and this was evidenced by the large number of locals in attendance at the centenary celebrations.
It is indeed a very vocal, proud and community-minded village—one of the many throughout the electorate of Richmond. These centenary celebrations saw students involved in a variety of activities including a centenary costume parade, a tree planting and arranging a time capsule. The students and staff of the school organised this time capsule information and documents. It will be buried and hopefully in another 100 years the children at the school will learn about the things that happened at Terranora Public School in 2006. The students also participated in an array of activities including games and tasks that students would have participated in over the last 100 years, so they got a taste of what it was like at the school for their parents, their grandparents and, indeed, their great-grandparents.
I would like to commend all the current students who did presentations on the day: Tahlia Oakley from year 5, who presented a wonderful song, and the kindergarten class and their spectacular presentation. I would also like to acknowledge Amarlee Kelly, who introduced the official ceremony with the welcome to country; the centenary committee; the current principal, James Hackett; the P&C president, Heather Nuss; the school’s Education Director, Ron Hankin; and the Regional Director, Carol Carrigan. Terranora school’s motto is ‘Care and excellence’ and they certainly lived up to this motto during their fantastic centenary celebrations. I would like to extend my congratulations to everyone involved and particularly the centenary committee, who I know worked so hard over a long period to make sure this centenary celebration was the great success that it was.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of coalition members for Queensland I would like to thank you for your generous comment about six members of the hopefully soon to be merged Liberal and National parties of Queensland sitting on the government benches in the Main Committee. I did speak supportively in the House yesterday of the proposal announced by the state executives of the Liberal and National parties on the weekend.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The members to my left should not be encouraged by the member for Fisher.
Today I wish to bring to the chamber an interesting issue in my electorate, which, as everyone knows, is situated on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast. It is an issue involving the local Horton Park golf course, which is situated very near to the major business hub of the region, Maroochydore. It is actually only a short stone’s throw from the car park beside my electorate office. As is regularly the case with major infrastructure items such as parks and airports, urban sprawl eventually catches up and engulfs a facility. Airports are a classic example. Most often they are initially located well away from built-up areas but as time goes on new developments spread further outwards and eventually the airport finds itself surrounded by homes. Then it becomes a noise problem for those residents, who then campaign to have the airport removed.
The Horton Park golf course has experienced a similar phenomenon. The 53-hectare site is today completely surrounded by commercial areas, residential neighbourhoods, the Sunshine Motorway and a large vacant block that is destined for a major residential development. Headlines in the local newspaper reveal that major developers have approached the golf club board to purchase the land, valued at between $75 and $100 million. Council is currently investigating and revisiting the boundaries of the Maroochydore central business district. With the golf course site being so close to the main commercial precinct of the CBD, it is possible it may well meet criteria for a development such as high-rise buildings. The region I represent is experiencing considerable population growth and we are one of the fastest growing areas in the country. There has been ongoing debate over whether the Maroochy Shire Council should accommodate the influx of new residents by allowing high-rise that goes beyond the 10- to 12-storey limits, or whether urban sprawl should be encouraged so as not to detract from the region’s amenity.
Maroochy council’s planning committee chairman, Councillor Steve Dickson—the Liberal candidate for Kawana—has suggested that any developments on the golf course site should include significant areas of green open space. I think that is a sensible suggestion and it is something that ought to be considered by the council as it looks at this development. It is important, however, to make sure that council does not unilaterally victimise the members of the Horton Park golf club by imposing unreasonable conditions on any development. It is important to look at this site very carefully. It is a very important site, it is an opportunity for proper planning and I do hope that it is possible to incorporate substantial green areas of open space in any development. I thank the chamber.
Today I wish to raise the issue of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Time Use Survey. This survey requires people to account for every five minutes over a 48-hour period. This is an onerous survey that would take somebody a significant amount of time to complete. People refusing to participate in this survey leave themselves open to a $200 fine, and I think this is outrageous. A number of constituents have contacted me to complain about this and I agree with them. They have received visits from ABS officials and were told that unless they participated they would be fined $200. I recognise that this survey does provide valuable information for the government, but I think the ABS needs to be convincing people to participate instead of forcing them to.
The participants in this survey need to account for every five minutes of their time, and there is a sample survey of things that they are required to report. For example, at 6.20 it is recommended that they write ‘toilet’, at 6.25 ‘had a shower’, at 6.35 ‘got dressed’, at 6.40 ‘put on a load of washing’, at 6.45 ‘made breakfast’ and at 6.55 ‘ate breakfast’. This is a Kafkaesque survey which has been forced on people who have absolutely no interest in participating. At the beginning of the survey, people are asked how often they feel rushed or pressed for time and, if they do feel rushed or pressed for time, they are asked why, and there are some options given: trying to balance work and family responsibilities, not good at managing time, too much to do and unpredictable working hours. I think there should be another option: filling in silly and onerous surveys which are made compulsory by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
This is not like the census, which most people accept and understand. They appreciate why the census is compulsory. There is a significant community information campaign which goes into letting people know about the census, but there is very little understanding and acceptance of this survey and why it should be compulsory. Frankly, I think that is because it should not be compulsory. I call on the ABS to reconsider its approach to this survey and to give people the freedom to choose whether they participate or not. Perhaps the libertarian streak of members opposite could mean that they find it in the goodness of their hearts to support my call and say that Australians should not be forced to participate in surveys such as this against their will. Regardless of which party they represent, I think there is a libertarian streak on that side of the House, as there is on this side of the House. If honourable members opposite would be so good as to support my call for the ABS to drop this silly, onerous and ridiculous survey, I am sure the Australian people would appreciate it.
I begin by recognising Dr Peter de Jersey and his wife, Beverley, in the gallery this afternoon. Peter and Bev have given long service to medicine in North Queensland—particularly, in Peter’s case, to renal medicine. The community of North Queensland recognises that service. I would also like to recognise other service in North Queensland, and that is in relation to the Australian Defence Force. Last Friday I was privileged to be at Townsville airport farewelling soldiers who were going overseas. It was quite a significant farewell because at one aerobridge there was a group of soldiers and an aircraft flying off to Iraq and, at the same time, on the adjacent aerobridge there was a group of soldiers flying off to East Timor.
These were men and women from Australia’s largest Army base in Townsville, Lavarack Barracks. These men and women give fantastic and professional service to our country, and the service that they give—the humanitarian service, the peacekeeping service and so on—in other areas of the world is very much appreciated by the countries where they are deployed. I also pay tribute to the brigadier who is leading the deployment to East Timor, Brigadier Mick Slater. Brigadier Slater comes with a wealth of experience in command, having been in 1999 the commander of the 2nd Battalion when it went first in Australia’s name to East Timor in those very difficult conditions, as they were. They are not so difficult now.
Elements of every battalion and regiment at Lavarack have gone to Timor, and our community—our garrison city—of Townsville very much respects the work that they do. But we also respect the families who are left behind and the support that they give to their loved ones who have been deployed overseas for long periods of time. I was thus very distressed by the comments overnight of Reverend Tim Costello from World Vision. He was utterly wrong. Reverend Tim Costello went to East Timor for a day. It was no more than a media exercise. He wanted to see Brigadier Slater in relation to protecting World Vision assets and food. The brigadier saw him and offered a solution to protect the food. That was not taken up by Tim Costello, but Tim Costello came back and made media comments that the ADF were not helping. That is absolutely disgraceful. It does not help relations with the ADF, and it certainly does not help Tim Costello’s credibility whatsoever. I reject what he said. I think it was a very poor effort indeed.
Before I start my speech, I will make a suggestion about the new amalgamated party in Queensland. It will obviously be looking for a name. The member for Herbert might like to take back that it could be called the ‘I’m a Little Mushroom Party’, based on current events.
For some time in this place, I have been calling on the federal government to address the desperate need for federal funds to upgrade the stretch of Great Eastern Highway between Kooyong Road in my electorate and the Perth airport. This section of the Great Eastern Highway carries some 55,000 vehicles per day and is the main road link between Perth, the airport and the eastern states. It is a vital lifeline for residents of Perth and interstate businesses alike. I am convinced that this stretch of highway should be designated part of the national highway for federal funding purposes so that improvements can be made. It should, at the very least, be recognised as a road of national significance.
This section of the Great Eastern Highway forms part of the eastern gateway to Perth. It currently comprises four lanes, with numerous intersections and direct access from abutting properties. The traffic volume is such that congestion is a problem and road users experience lengthy delays. The road condition is very poor over a significant portion of its length and many of the major intersections along this route have crash rates that require attention. Businesses along the highway have long complained about the pitiful state of the road and access problems to their premises. The entire stretch of road is also visually unattractive and certainly belies the beauty of Perth city, 10 kilometres down the road.
I am pleased to report that following representations from me and the state member for Belmont, Eric Ripper, earlier this year, the state government agreed to carry out an analysis of the requirements for works to be undertaken on this section of the Great Eastern Highway to assist in prioritising funding for these works. In the most recent state budget, a further $150,000 was allocated to this study. I am encouraged by the state government’s recognition of the problems faced by motorists and business owners along the highway and, in particular, Minister Alannah MacTiernan’s acknowledgement of the problem.
Politics aside, this project requires the commitment and teamwork of all three spheres of government: local, state and federal. Minister MacTiernan has pledged to work cooperatively with the federal government on a fifty-fifty funding basis. I understand that the federal government has intimated that it may help fund the project once costs are established. Obviously I will be working with the federal government on that particular initiative and will be trying to bring it to account to come up with its half of the money when we know how much it will cost to conduct the work.
I have been advised that by the end of the June I will be provided with an upgrade cost estimate and possible stages of improvements. We need to know that very accurately these days, because the federal government has often shirked its responsibilities in funding when it has said that the state has not really known how much the work would initially cost. Once the initial findings of the report have been released, I will be pursing the Commonwealth government to ensure that it delivers on its own financial obligations to this project.
I am pleased to rise this afternoon to talk about an excellent function that I was able to host in my electorate office a little over a month ago. As part of an annual event that I host, I convened the Moncrieff youth forum. I invite young Australians in their senior year at school to come to my electorate office, sit down with me and talk about the issues that are very important to them. I wrote to all the high schools in my electorate and I am pleased that, this year, three high schools agreed to participate in the Moncrieff youth forum.
I am disappointed that more high schools have not taken up this invitation. Notwithstanding that, I am delighted that Nerang State High School, Emmanuel College and St Michael’s College have all decided to send representatives from their schools. The participants from Nerang State High School were David Kortooms and Toni Preece; from Emmanuel College, Dane Moores and Danae Bjorem; and, from St Michael’s College, Laura Hansford and James Clark.
I must say that I was very impressed with the quality and the calibre of these young Australians. Australians can feel assured that young people coming through our education system today most definitely have in their hearts the interests of ensuring that our nation continues to go from strength to strength. All the participants are involved in their communities. All the participants have an eye to ensuring that our communities become even better places. There is a strong emphasis on ensuring that Australian families can continue to remain strong, with a focus on ensuring that there are more opportunities in terms of work both and study for young Australians going forward.
At my Moncrieff Youth Forum we spoke about a variety of topics ranging from the ubiquitous schoolies week—which of course all young Australians are familiar with and which unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your perspective, has its home on the Gold Coast—through to other opportunities such as tourism development on the Gold Coast and the tourism and hospitality industry generally, which of course is the lifeblood of the Gold Coast local economy.
The six participants from their respective schools all demonstrated a high level of optimism about their future. Some were choosing to go on and study abroad, some were choosing to go to university, whilst others were assessing opportunities with respect to vocational trades. All, however, are proud young Australians, and I was pleased to provide them with the opportunity to put forward to me their points of view about what can make Australia an even stronger country into the future. I thank them for their participation and I congratulate the schools for raising such brilliant young people.
Order! In accordance with the resolution agreed to in the House yesterday, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Mr Costello:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mr Swan moved by way of amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the view that:
It is with pleasure that I rise to speak about the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007 and the related budget bills. Firstly, I welcome the tax cuts and my constituents welcome the tax cuts and the family payment increases contained in the 2006 federal budget. However, in many other areas this budget has been a string of missed opportunities. One thing to remember in terms of the residents of Holt, many of whom have a taxable income between about $40,000 a year and $60,000 a year, is that they will get, according to budget documents, a tax reduction of about $9.80 per week. The tax relief in this budget is long overdue—certainly that is the feedback that I get from my constituents. After all, this is the highest taxing government in Australia’s history and families are going to need every cent of that tax cut to cope with the interest rate hike and record petrol prices.
When looking at the assessment of the interest rate increase that we had in May, a family who has recently bought a typical established home in Narre Warren faces increased mortgage repayments of $37 per month. A family who has recently bought a typical established home in Cranbourne has an increased payment of roughly $33 per month, and a family who has recently bought a typical Endeavour Hills house will pay up to $39 more per month as a consequence of this interest rate rise.
At the same time these families in Holt, many of whom are dependent upon cars for transportation, are facing record petrol prices and spending at least $40 a month per car extra on unleaded petrol compared to a couple of months ago. In fact when I was driving around my electorate at the weekend I noticed that prices of $1.33 a litre and $1.30 a litre were quite commonplace. The fact is that many of my constituents have two cars because their households have a mum and a dad. I have the highest rate of couples with dependent children in the country. I also have the highest rate of mortgagees in this country. The 2001 census data had it at 49 per cent and it must be well into the fifties by now, so an interest rate rise is going to severely affect families in my region.
What they are very disappointed about is that nothing has been done to tackle the record petrol prices that are increasing the financial pressure on families in Holt. There has been no specific funding in this budget for the ACCC to investigate widespread community concerns about price gouging within the petroleum refining and distribution industry and no funding for the ACCC to formally monitor fuel prices under part VIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
It is interesting to contrast this with the action taken by President Bush, who recently instructed the ACCC equivalent, the Federal Trade Commission, to investigate whether the price of gasoline had been unfairly manipulated in any way. I would like to use the words of George Bush. He recently said:
Americans understand, by and large, that the price of crude oil is going up and that the prices are going up, but what they ... will not accept is manipulation of the market. And neither will I.
That is worth thinking about when oil profits for companies like ExxonMobil and other oil companies that produce most of the petrol we consume are expected to exceed $134 billion this year. ExxonMobil chairman Lee Raymond has an income of $200,000 per day and, when he retires, he is going to get the princely sum of $400 million.
I did not have the opportunity to raise this in my motion on fuel and petrol yesterday in the House, but there are serious concerns by elements associated with petrol refineries and service station operators about the price manipulation and the padding of what is called the terminal gate price by oil refineries owned by companies like ExxonMobil. The terminal gate price is determined by oil companies and then on-sold to petrol retailers. The VACC has investigated the practices of those refineries that are selling at the terminal gate price and assessed that the terminal gate price is 8c higher than it should be, with all the profits going to oil companies.
The VACC has something like 5,000 members—these are crash repairers, service station operators and petrol retailers—saying that they believe that there has been price gouging of up to 8c per litre in the terminal gate price. Why isn’t this being investigated? The American President, George Bush, when petrol hit, I think, the equivalent of $A1.20 in America recently, pushed the panic button and said something had to be done and it had to be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission, but there has been no action by this government. President Bush also released a comprehensive energy statement that spoke about biofuels and the need for the country in the future to diversify fuels.
I did not have the opportunity to raise this in the fuel motion that I put to the House yesterday, but why isn’t this an item on the COAG agenda? No-one can tell me and my residents that this is not an issue that is going to concern Australia into the future. I know it is not listed on the COAG agenda, and that is a serious issue. It should be front and centre. If it is good enough for President George Bush when the price of petrol hits $A1.20 a litre, it should be good enough for John Howard when the price of petrol is averaging, in my area, between $A1.25 and $A1.33. It is not good enough and it is certainly not good enough for the residents that I represent in Holt.
The other issue for families in Holt, who have experienced the second interest rate rise in 14 months, is that they feel the budget fails to make the investment needed to solve the skills crisis. We have heard a lot about that in parliament over the past couple of months. If we do not address that, there is going to be further upward pressure on interest rates. It is interesting that there have been fewer opportunities provided for young tradespeople in the area, and there is some concern about the wages that are being paid to apprentices in the area. Contrast that with some of the stories that we have been looking at in the papers with respect to cheaper imported labour being brought in which may take the jobs of these apprentices that want to establish a career in the area that I represent.
I would like to cite an email that I received from a resident in Cranbourne—I will not name her—in regard to her son Brett. This illustrates the issue. He is a first-year motor mechanic. He works 40 hours a week and receives $6.53 an hour before tax. Out of this he has to make repayments for his tool box and school books of $5 each per week as well as having to pay for the additional tools required and vehicle running costs. The son is disheartened by the amount that he is paid for the work that he is required to carry out, given that he could take an unskilled position and receive a much higher wage. We need these sorts of apprentices to keep our economy, our country, ticking over. When apprentices like this fellow feel that they would be better off getting out of an apprenticeship rather than into one, it shows that this government have failed to invest in our young people in Holt—and we have a large number of young people in Holt—and have missed the opportunity to build on the future economic prosperity of Australia. As I said, they are looking towards employing cheap labour from overseas.
The budget is also a big blow to parents in Holt who cannot afford or find child care in this area. We have a very high birth rate in the city of Casey—of the order of 3,000 births per year. Not a single extra place is guaranteed, child care in the area will not be a single cent cheaper and the issue of quality still has not been addressed.
The government announced that it will get rid of the cap that currently applies to outside school hours child care—before and after hours school and vacation care—and family day care from 1 July 2006. There is no evidence at all that this decision will result in any new places. The problems of affordability and availability of child care have nothing to do with the cap. I cite the example of a mother, also from Cranbourne, who continues to struggle with this child-care system. I received an email from this lady. She is currently studying an arts-law degree but feels she may have to give it all away due to lack of child-care options in the area. Her son goes to school and since she has started she has had nothing but trouble getting before and after hours school care for him. She wants to work while studying but cannot because of the lack of care. Now she may also have to give up her studies for the same reason. She says there is just one centre in Cranbourne that picks up from her son’s school and provides before and after hours school care, and that centre is full. She writes:
This is ridiculous, how many other people don’t work because of the same problem. The government wants to force people off welfare when their kids start school but how can this happen when the ratio for after school hours care is like this. I have tried family day care that the council organise and they don’t have anyone who will pick up from any schools. I have tried family and friends but that is not a long term solution as they have to work or go to school themselves. I have called every centre in Cranbourne and the situation is they are either full or don’t do this sort of care.
After seeing John Howard appear on the Sunrise program, which is a very popular program in my electorate I might add, on 10 May 2006, she writes:
Then I had a good laugh at Mr Howard on the Sunrise program this morning when he said there are enough before and after school hour programs in operation, and that people just need to look hard enough to find them.
I think from the evidence I have provided, she has been looking pretty hard. She continues:
I pose a challenge to anyone who dares to try, including Mr Howard, to come to Cranbourne and find a before and after school care place for my son. It’s not like the school he is in, is located within an area that is miles away from the town centre, it is in the centre of town.
She believes that it shows just how out of touch this government is with the everyday lives of families in Holt, telling them that the child-care crisis is their problem and that families need to look harder to find places. This is family belt central. The area I represent is a mortgage belt, growth belt corridor. These are the people that John Howard purports to represent.
At a time when families are working hard to pay off their mortgage and provide for their children, this budget lets families down on proper tax reform. The budget has done nothing to stop the tax grab on families extra earnings. Hardworking families in Holt will still routinely face marginal tax rates higher than 51c in the dollar on extra income due to the intersection of the tax and family benefits system.
Given the large number of families, it is also worth looking at the community based facilities, community organisations and the demand on services. The growth in this area has outstripped the social infrastructure capacity. So when looking at the budget that has been brought down and at how it might affect the provision of these services, I was very disappointed to find that there is no funding for local sporting clubs and community sporting organisations, which are the glue that binds the community in these sorts of areas. Their facilities, as I have said, are under pressure due to the rapid population growth.
A study prepared for the City of Casey in July 2004 of a recreation facilities development plan in Narre Warren and the surrounding areas found that total active membership of sports clubs in this area had increased by 25 per cent from 2002-04; of all active members, 82 per cent were juniors; and a shortage in facilities in cricket ovals, Australian rules ovals, soccer fields, netball outdoor courts for training, lawn bowls greens, tennis courts and indoor basketball courts. There are a lot of young people wandering around shopping centres in my area looking for these sorts of facilities. I was certainly hoping that there would be some funding and acknowledgement of that in this area. I will show you why. There is a contrast here, which shows the hypocrisy of the government. I will draw it to this chamber’s attention in a second.
The study found that a high number of young families in the area, almost 60 per cent of the residents, were under the age of 35 and that there will be continued high demand for facilities in the future. There was strong community support for additional facilities for junior sport expressed throughout these extensive community consultations. It is clear in this area in particular that sporting participation is rapidly increasing. Why not? Facilities are not adequate and they will not be adequate in the future, given the number of young families in the area. In fact, 65 families per week shift into the city of Casey. I think it is the third fastest growing council area in Australia. There is strong community support for additional facilities for junior sport, but this government is out of touch. Again, looking at the budget, there was no funding for sporting facilities for Holt.
There is no better example of this electorate not getting its fair share of sports funding than the Cranbourne Aquatic and Leisure Centre. The current pool in Cranbourne, the Cranbourne Indoor Heated Pool, is 25 years old. Part of the structure and plant are nearing the end of their life, so a quality state-of-the-art facility is needed. A new facility is also needed to cater for the massive population growth in the area. It is estimated that between 2001 and 2006 the population of Cranbourne East increased by 1,270 per cent, Cranbourne North by 16 per cent and Cranbourne West by 50 per cent. Whilst swimming and better facilities were the most requested future participation activities in the scoping study, no federal government funds have been provided. Here comes the contrast: the Frankston Regional Aquatic, Health and Wellness Centre, in the electorate of Dunkley, has just received $5 million for its construction.
It is just coincidence.
Why wouldn’t I be looking for it? It is just coincidence. Those are the facilities that are needed to bind communities, the facilities to keep our kids involved in physical activity. They are the facilities that families want. There is no funding in a growth belt corridor, with 40,000 kids aged between zero and 12. It is just mind blowing.
I also want to look at an essential service in the area, the Casey Cardinia Community Legal Service. We all know that the budget had an $11 billion surplus. Do you know what? The Casey Cardinia Community Legal Service received no new money. The Casey Cardinia Community Legal Service was established in 1977 to address the legal needs of the local community. It is a free legal service, providing assistance and advice to those who cannot afford to pay the high costs of engaging a private lawyer. In the last financial year, it assisted over 7,500 people who reside in the rapidly growing areas of the city of Casey, the shire of Cardinia and Dandenong. The Casey Cardinia Community Legal Service made it clear to the federal government that it is in urgent need of funding, due to massive increases in demand for their services and rising costs. But this government again in this budget simply turned a blind eye, and the funding for the community legal service this year will not even keep pace with inflation—meaning that the Casey Cardinia Community Legal Service will be in an even worse position.
No meaningful increase in funding in a decade from this government has already taken its toll on this legal service. Earlier this year, the service had no choice but to cut its hours, with its principal solicitor cutting down from full time to 4.5 days per week. At a time when very hardworking families in Holt are under enormous financial pressure—from interest rate rises, from petrol price rises, from increased child-care fees—access to free legal services is vital. The lack of funding from the government for this particular service means that many families are having to be turned away or put on very long waiting lists. It indicates to me and to a lot of the people down there that the government seems to be completely out of touch with the lives of working families in Holt.
I would also like to touch on a couple of other issues in the time remaining. One pertains to doctor shortages. I have painted a very strong picture of the substantial growth that occurs in my area and the adjoining federal seats. The shortage of doctors in Holt has hit crisis point, with just one full-time GP for 1,833 people. These are statistics compiled by the Dandenong District Division of General Practice, which oversees this area. The Commonwealth health department regards areas with a ratio of 1,400 people per equivalent full-time GP as areas of need. The ratio in Holt is 30 per cent higher than this figure. The ratio of 1,833 people per GP means Holt now has the fifth highest doctor shortage in Victoria and the 12th highest in Australia. Families in Holt are seeing the impact of this government’s neglect as they face very long waiting lists to see a GP, particularly when their children are ill and they struggle to find any doctor outside of business hours. I have seen this for the number of years that I have been representing my electorate. They wind up in the emergency departments of state government funded hospitals.
The chronic shortage of doctors in Holt means that it is more than an area in need; it is an area that requires decisive action. Yet there was no funding for after-hours medical services to take the pressure off emergency departments in this area and, further, the government has also ripped $1.5 million out of the More Doctors for Outer Metropolitan Areas program. The concern about whether or not GP training is adequate has been raised by me and by representatives from the Dandenong division of general practice. They are finding it more and more difficult to attract doctors to the area. The incentives that the government has put forward are just not adequate. They need more doctors because they are going to start running out of doctors. I have heard really disturbing figures of, say, one GP to every 3,000 or 4,000 people in the next four or five years if this decline continues, and that is completely unacceptable.
I want to take the opportunity to also talk about the fantastic service that has been provided by the Casey North Community Information and Support Service and their struggle to get appropriate funding. The Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs through the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy has a funding program called Local Answers. Local Answers is a $137 million program, which is funded over five years. On three separate occasions, the Casey North Community Information and Support Service—which provides counselling services, emergency relief and advocacy, to name just a few activities for disadvantaged members needing support in the city of Casey—has been unsuccessful in getting funding through this program.
It was a service focused on low-income families experiencing relationship problems. It was an intervention and prevention model. It provided support to families who had experienced separation in order to avoid economic and financial crisis. It was aimed at families with young children and young parents on low incomes. It would have assisted over 3,000 families in my electorate. No local funding was forthcoming through Local Answers in this area where the rate of family breakdown is an issue identified by all levels of government. No funding was forthcoming through the Local Answers program in an area which 65 new families call their home every week. No new funding was forthcoming in an area where families are under extreme financial pressure due to interest rates. It just goes to show that in this budget the government has ignored families in Holt. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007 and related bills. Firstly, I would like to share with the chamber some of the points that I make to constituents when I talk about the 10 years of the coalition government. You can get used to a good thing and not realise that there are alternatives; that prosperity is not a generic inheritance. I ask them to cast their minds back 10 years. I ask them to assume, wild as it may seem, that it may be a Labor government now. I remind them that the net government debt when we came into government was $95.8 billion—Beazley’s black hole. What would that be now? What would it be with the interest charges payable on that greatly expanded government debt? With good management, however, we have brought it down to a surplus in terms of government owings.
Remember that there are some 1.3 million Australians who now have invested in property—in their own homes and in investment property. Back in 1996, the average mortgage rate was 12.75 per cent. Very few of those Australians would have been able to invest in property or in their own home had those mortgage rates continued. Of course they would not have been able to. With Labor’s burgeoning debt, we know that their average mortgage rates would have increased. I am pleased to say now, though, that—thank goodness for families in Dawson—the average mortgage rate is 7.15 per cent. Those who remember blue suede shoes and such other things from the sixties—and I must confess that I have only seen photos of them—that was about the last time—
I’ve worn them!
You’ve worn them! The member for Hinkler: sartorial splendour! Average mortgage rates have not been that low for 30 years. The small business lending rate now is down from 14.25 per cent to 8.75 per cent.
What about Australians at work? I can recall doorknocking before the 1996 election. As I went from house to house, guess what I found? Generally the person who answered the door was an unemployed young person, someone at home watching a video, looking pretty disappointed with their lot. I can recall handing out how-to-vote cards at polling booths where there were very disgruntled young people coming through. If you talked to them they did not have a job. The youth unemployment rate was some 30 per cent. It is one of the great shames of the Labor Party’s time in government that they did not give a future to young Australians.
The number of Australians at work—I will refer to my own electorate shortly—now totals some 10 million. The unemployment rate has fallen from 8.2 per cent in March 1996 down to 5.1 per cent. The figure for the long-term unemployed has fallen from 197,800 to 95,800, so much so that we now have programs looking at the long-term unemployed. Certainly it is difficult to take people who may have drug and alcohol problems, as they have in Mackay, perhaps living under a bridge, and get them used to a work ethic. It is a long, hard road, but I am very pleased to see that a number of the employment agencies in Mackay are giving real hope to the long-term unemployed.
What about household wealth? Household wealth has increased from $2.048 billion in 1996 to $4.553 billion. That means the average Australian now has a stake in their own future. They own a home or are paying off a home. They have considerable assets. They are far more prosperous. It is a great thing to see young people in my electorate, perhaps 20, with a new car, a mobile phone and looking to put down a deposit on a house, looking at a prosperous and secure future with a place to raise their own family.
What about waterfront crane rates? I recall that it was said that they could never improve from 16.9 per hour. The rate is now 27.7, helping our exporters considerably with lower costs and a far more efficient waterfront.
I want to now talk specifically about the budget. In our budget there is $2.3 billion for AusLink, including Roads to Recovery. This is significant assistance for roads like Farrellys Lane, which is a major turn-off from the Bruce Highway into Paget in Mackay. Mackay is now the largest coal exporting port in the world. It is significant for us to be able to ensure that port access is efficient. I look forward to some of the AusLink money being spent in Mackay to make sure that our exports travel efficiently.
I want to talk about taxpayers as well. With the coal boom in my electorate, I am very pleased to see that hardworking coalminers and others in the seat of Dawson will benefit from new tax scales. It was only six years ago that the top marginal tax rate cut in at $50,000. That is changing. We are now looking at new tax scales. This low tax scale will be 15 per cent to $25,000, 30 per cent to $75,000, 40c in the dollar to $150,000 and 45c in the dollar for above $150,000. What a change! What an incentive for people in the electorate of Dawson who work hard, who work four days on, four days off or who may work shift work.
For senior Australians there are also benefits. They are eligible for a tax offset, which means they will pay no tax up to $24,867 for singles and $41,360 for couples. Families will now be able to earn up to $40,000 a year without having their part A entitlement reduced. These are significant benefits for families. I would like to talk about older Australians for a moment. This was the first government to tie the age pension to male average weekly earnings. Again, I remind constituents of what the single pension rate used to be back in 1996. In 1996 the total single pension rate, taking into account the pharmaceutical allowance, was $8,873.80. The married rate at that time was $7,355.40. Now, 10 years later, thanks to the coalition government, we are looking at a total single pension rate of $13,143 and a total married pension rate, obviously per person, of $10,922.60. Why? Because for the first time we have indexed it to real earnings.
The government has removed the cap on the number of child-care places that can be provided. Child-care fees of eligible parents on welfare, while they are looking for work or completing training, will be paid in full by the Commonwealth. These changes mean that, for the first time, there is a real opportunity. If a mother wants to go back to work to top up the family’s income, there will be no cap on the number of places that can be provided.
For those selfless people in the community who care for someone with a disability, there is a one-off payment of a $1,000 lump sum carer bonus. In Dawson, 800 selfless carers will get that $1,000 carer payment, and another 2,600 recipients of the carer allowance will receive a $600 one-off bonus. This is a significant recognition of the enormous contribution these carers make to caring for those in our community who are unable to care for themselves.
I now come to skill shortages. I would say that the rarest thing in Dawson at the moment is probably a young person with skills. We are really chasing young people with skills. The Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, Mr Hardgrave, has visited the Dawson electorate and we are delighted with the support he is putting into apprenticeships and training. There are now 3,500 people in the region who are undertaking apprenticeships and training. That is to be augmented by the removal of barriers to a nationally recognised training system. Only recently I visited three young people—Jai Bailey, Joshua Ribaldone and Ryan McKenzie—all of whom are looking at federally funded training programs to give them the opportunity to become electrical apprentices and boilermakers. For young people to get that training and be able to see themselves in a secure career in the future is a tremendous outcome. Training features of the budget include: an allocation of $2.5 billion for training and apprenticeships, which is a significant investment in our young people; $106.7 million over four years for New Apprenticeships Centres; $53 million over four years to create a nationally recognised apprenticeship program; and $6 million being allocated to the national skills shortage strategy—which, with businesses, will find solutions to address current and future skills shortages.
I will turn very briefly to doctors. I am very pleased to see that Minister Abbott is investing in funding medical graduates. Since 1996, in Queensland the number of medical graduates has increased by 25 per cent, while the population has increased by only 21 per cent. This government has put in three new medical schools, with 160 funded places. We are putting in the hard dollars to create medical graduates in Queensland. But I am disappointed to say that, unfortunately, this is not matched by the Queensland Beattie government.
In the last three years, in Queensland, 2,462 out of 4,000 doctors have resigned. You have to ask yourself why, out of a total of 4,000 doctors, 2,462 would resign. The reason is that Queensland Health is an appalling system to work in. Why would that be? Recently, in 2004-05, the Queensland government hired 4,853 public servants—and how many doctors did it hire? It hired 123. Public servants are great people, and we work with many fine ones in Canberra. But I will tell you what: if you need medical care, you need a doctor; you do not need more public servants.
The fact is that 90 per cent of first- and second-year registrars in Queensland refused to renew their contracts. The reality is that the amount of money the Beattie government says they are going to commit to this is not going to change a system which is awash with public servants, is bureaucratic, has red tape and is an appalling workplace environment for medical graduates. I am delighted that this federal government is doing all that it can to increase the number of medical graduates and the number of medical schools, but the reality is that until Queensland Health lifts its game the crisis in Queensland is going to continue.
I would now like to return to senior Australians. I am delighted that the Treasurer has addressed the intergenerational challenge that we face—the reality that there will be fewer younger Australians to pay the way for an ageing Australia. The sensible thing to do, of course, is to encourage senior Australians to provide for their own retirement and take responsibility for themselves where they can. The superannuation changes are going to go a long way to addressing that. At the core of this plan for intergenerational change is a proposal to exempt Australians aged 60 or over from any tax on their end benefits where those are paid from a superannuation fund. This will apply from July 2007. That means no tax on a lump sum or a superannuation pension. This is a tremendous incentive for all Australians, but particularly for older Australians and for the self-employed, to invest in super to provide for their own retirement. It will boost national savings significantly.
I will now deal specifically with the seat of Dawson. Minister Dutton has delivered a sound outcome for the Airlie Beach charter boat industry. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Airlie Beach has more beds on the water than it does on land. The Whitsunday charter boat industry is world renowned. Many overseas visitors fly to the Whitsundays to go game fishing and to rent for a week or a few days one of our magnificent modern charter vessels and go out to 76 tropical islands. Charter boat owners will no longer be at risk of having their charter business effectively closed down by the ATO because of an arbitrary level of profit to be declared as the criterion for a legitimate business. Charter boat owners, like every other business in Australia, will have to prove on the existing criteria that they are running a legitimate business, but 50 per cent of them will not be at risk, as they were, of closure due to some arbitrary profit limit arrived at by the ATO. This is a great relief to the hundreds of charter boat operators at Airlie Beach, whose whole industry was at risk. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the chairman of the Whitsunday Bareboat Operators Association, Mr Adrian Pelt, the secretary, Annie Judd, as well as numerous others, particularly Minister Dutton, who gave us a very good hearing.
I would now like to talk about recreational fishing grants. There is a huge recreational fishing industry in the seat of Dawson. The region has already successfully applied for four projects under the program totalling $234,394, which were funded. We have looked at successful projects, such as the Molongle Creek boat ramp, which received $41,500 for a community activities area; the Home Hill Boat Club, which received $18,394 to improve fishing amenities at Groper Creek; and many others. I am very pleased to see that this very successful program is already being supported with additional funding in years to come.
Illegal fishing, however, is a concern for our fishers, and there is $389 million over four years in the budget to deal with illegal fishing to protect the nation’s fish stocks from foreign poachers. It is very important that we ensure that, with the fishing areas open to Australian fishers, those are not exploited by foreigners. I am delighted to see this initiative in the budget.
In terms of more Dawson initiatives, there is $9.7 million for financial counselling. I would like to mention the George Street Neighbourhood Centre, which has a very good financial counselling service. It provides that not only for farmer but for others. During tough times, people can be very reluctant to approach friends or perhaps an accountant if they are in financial crisis. The George Street Neighbourhood Centre has done an outstanding job in financial counselling. I am very pleased to see this additional funding for financial counselling.
In terms of Roads to Recovery, I would like to mention the funding for some of our shires: Mackay City Council will get an additional $1.7 million; Burdekin, $835,000; Bowen, $826,000; Mirani, $297,000; Sarina, $334,000; and Whitsunday, $495,000. Again, this will enable them to take on Roads to Recovery initiatives within Dawson. This will add to the already extensive work being done on the Bruce Highway—Wilmington Overpass, something that has been near and dear to the hearts of many of those near the town of Bowen, and $10 million for the realignment of the Bruce Highway at The Leap.
I would like to talk now in the time left to me about the resources boom in Dawson. I am pleased to see that there is now $100 million in addition to that already committed to develop clean energy technology as part of the Asia-Pacific partnership. It is absolutely vital that we look at more initiatives to ensure the continued success of our coal export industry in Australia and, particularly, in my electorate. Dawson is the coalmining powerhouse into the future.
This is a sensible way to approach the responsibility of greenhouse gas abatement. Under the Labor Party, they are going to sign the Kyoto protocol, a tax on coal exports. As many of the major mineral and coal exporters out of Australia have said to me, they would move their capacity offshore. You do not build a nation by closing down its major resource industries as the Labor Party have proposed; the way to build a future is to look at technological ways of ensuring abatement of greenhouse gases. I might add that Australia has met its greenhouse gas abatement targets, but it is very important to see in the budget that there are more initiatives to ensure that that good work continues.
In terms of the post resources boom, obviously in my electorate the community of Bowen are working hard to ensure that they are in line to secure the Chalco refinery in Queensland. I am very supportive of their initiatives in that regard. Chalco is looking at taking up a bauxite lease in Aurukun, and we will be looking at a greenfields refinery.
The current resources boom has produced a multibillion dollar windfall for the government’s revenue stream. The estimate of additional revenue produced as a result of the unexpected resources boom and increase in commodity prices is in the order of $17 billion to $18 billion in increased revenue. It is a very large amount of money by any estimation. It was completely unexpected. If you go back and look at last year’s budget and at the forward estimates of how much money the government thought it would get in tax, it is well below the actual revenue that the government have collected.
It was therefore no surprise to see a budget on budget night armed with some $17 billion or $18 billion in extra revenue that the government had not anticipated just 12 months ago and that there should be what was described as a big spending budget—even an election year budget. The great pity of that tale is that, instead of investing that windfall gain in the desperately needed infrastructure of Australia, in the future growth industries and in the skilled development and training of the Australian people, the Howard government have once again played short-sighted politics.
No-one knows how long this windfall of enormous proportions is going to last. In fact, in the weeks immediately after the budget the commodity prices started to take a dip and the share prices of mining companies in Australia suffered as a consequence. We all hope that the commodity price boom continues and that the revenue it generates provides wealth for Australians not just in that industry but across the country and, in particular, increased revenue to the government so that important programs around our nation can be undertaken. I have little hope, though, that this government is about to undertake those measures.
There is nothing in this budget that builds for the future. The Australian people have seen through the government’s veneer. On budget night and in the press the next day, this was billed very much as a budget for everybody. And yet, two weeks later, every opinion poll said that the Australian people were not impressed. I think that one of the reasons the Australian people were not impressed is that they understood that there had been a multibillion dollar windfall but they also understood that the massive amount of money in the government’s budget documents was actually increased tax that was coming from them.
One of the other things that did not miss the attention of people in the electorate of Brisbane is that the tax cuts will actually evaporate before they are received. For most people, these tax cuts are less than $10 a week. Most Australians earn less than $60,000 per year. In the budget 12 months ago as well, the government announced tax cuts—some of which come into effect on 1 July this year. In the budget last year, not one cent in tax cuts was provided to those Australians who earn $60,000 a year or less. That happens to be most Australians. They did not get a single cent in tax relief 12 months ago in the budget. The second tranche of the tax cuts in last year’s budget come into force on 1 July.
The tax cuts announced in this year’s budget also come into force on 1 July. At least the government heeded the criticism of the Labor Party over the course of the last 12 months and did provide some tax cuts for Australians who earn less than $60,000. On 1 July, someone earning less than $60,000 will get a tax cut of $9.81. I have to say that that looks very pale in the face of increased petrol prices and increased interest rates. There is every likelihood that these are the very same people—those who earn $60,000, $50,000 or $40,000—who are most in danger of working at a place like Spotlight and finding that the industrial relations system has turned their standard of living on its head overnight. That $9.81 a week will not go far for those families.
I want to contrast that with someone who earns $120,000 a year. They get double the income, but how much tax cut do they get? They do not get double the tax cut but eight times the tax cut. A person on $120,000 a year will get a tax cut of $78.85. On what basis does the government argue that is fair, equitable and decent compared with the tax cut that a worker on $50,000 or $60,000 a year will get? And let me say that the average weekly wage is nowhere near $50,000 or $60,000; it is actually about $40,000, so let us put this in some perspective. Average weekly earnings are around $40,000, but someone who is actually doing better than average and has got a good job—they might be a teacher, a nurse, an electrician, someone who works in a profitable venture or something of that kind—might be pulling in $50,000. If they are lucky, they might pull in close to $60,000. They will get their tax cut of $9.80.
The person who earns double that money—the person on $120,000—is going to get a tax cut that is eight times that amount: $78.85. I know of no principle of fairness, equity or decency that says that is a proper way to relieve tax burdens on the Australian population. Nevertheless, every tax cut is welcome—we all know that—and I welcome the tax cut. I do, however, grieve for those Australians, particularly my constituents who earn $60,000 or less, who will see very little of that $9.80. They are already paying more than that for their petrol price increase and the interest rates that have already gone up.
There is one provision in the budget which I particularly want to single out for positive comment. That is the increase in funding for medical research. I have long been an advocate of the need for Australia to invest more in medical research and health support systems. I have spoken on youth suicide in this parliament on a number of occasions. I have also spoken about the need for research into type 1 diabetes. I am pleased to see that members on both sides of the parliament who have argued for those very important initiatives can take some comfort out of the provisions in this budget which do provide a lift.
In the case of those suffering mental illness, I look forward to the states, as part of the recent COAG agreement in support of those with mental illnesses, pulling their weight as well. These are serious issues that confront our society and, although we seldom want to talk about things such as mental illness and youth suicide, we have an obligation to do what we can as legislators to overcome those problems.
I want to spend most of the time available to me in looking at what could have been—what could have been done with those billions. Instead of the government playing the short-term politics that they have so often put ahead of the national interest, what could have been done with those billions of dollars that are a windfall—unexpected largesse at the disposal of the government? They could have been invested in things like major transport infrastructure in our capital cities. For example, there was not a cent for south-east Queensland roads. Even the Courier-Mail, which very rarely publishes a word of criticism of the Howard government, was moved to produce a photograph of the Hume Highway, with a few trucks on it, together with a photograph of the Ipswich Motorway as it usually is every day, fully congested—pointing out that one of these roads got a big bucket of money and the other one did not get a cent.
The fact is that urban transport issues are important, and by that I do not mean we need to build more roads and more tunnels. I do not have time here to have a broadside at the Brisbane City Council’s tunnel program, which the Liberal lord mayor has been unable to convince any of his counterparts in Canberra to provide a cent towards. What I am talking about here is a sensibly coordinated public infrastructure network for our capital cities. We do not want to turn our major cities into the vehicle traps and bottlenecks that we see in so many other large cities around the world. We have a tiny window of opportunity to get these things right. In Brisbane that window of opportunity is closing pretty rapidly as the population increasingly moves to our corner of the world. It is an enormous disappointment that the government have not provided any funding for road infrastructure in south-east Queensland, one of the fastest-growing areas of the country.
We need as a nation to be doing something serious about water supply, and that is water supply across all parts of the country, not just the Murray-Darling. We need to look at the use of water in our high-use areas, with industry, and in our heavily populated suburban regions. We need to look at waste water processing and recycling. There are proposals, which have been starved for funds, to take Brisbane’s sewage, recycle it and use it on crops in the Brisbane area, the Lockyer Valley and the Darling Downs area. They are major proposals. They provide many ecological and economic benefits.
This was an opportunity to invest in some long-term nation-building opportunities, but we saw none of that in this budget. We saw no commitment to sustainable energy research. Australia should be the world leader in sustainable energy research. We should be second to none in solar research and the production of solar powered cells, and yet, despite the fact that there are brilliant scientists in Australia who work in those fields, they go starved of money, when we should—not only for environmental reasons but for good economic reasons—be investing in them for the future opportunities that would present to us as a nation, not to mention the benefits it might hold in dealing with a number of the current debates that exist around the energy issue.
We need also to be doing far more in skills training. I am tired of government members and the minister hopping up and talking about what a great job they have done with skills training. If that is the best they can do, they should get out of the way and let someone do the job properly. There is an acute skills shortage in this country, across virtually all industries. It does not matter whether you talk about the traditional trades, tertiary qualified areas or even master’s and PhD areas. Health was mentioned before by one of the speakers. It does not matter whether you look at the GP shortage, the surgeon shortage or the number of trained nurses we have in our hospitals across the country—this is not something peculiar to one state or even to the public system; this is a problem, public and private, in every state of Australia.
There is a shortage of teachers in particular subject areas. Tradespeople are in heavy demand across all the traditional trades—plumbing, carpentry and metalwork. The manufacturing industry is crying out for investment in skills training. The mining industry is paying top dollar to get people, because they have the income rolling in—not because of anything the government did, I might add, but purely by the coincidence of China and India being out in the marketplace soaking up massive amounts of minerals and basic resources. We just happened to be lucky that we are one of the big suppliers. That is one of the causes of the windfall gain to start with. It was no brilliant strategy on the part of the government. They just happened to be in the right place at the right time. There is an acute shortage of skills in the mining sector. We do not even have enough qualified child-care workers. That is why a large number of child-care places remain empty. There are nearly 100,000 unallocated child-care places. These are places that are funded but do not have the trained people to do the work.
The government could have used these billions of dollars to have a better, fairer tax cut for ordinary Australians and those earning within the normal range of incomes. They could have done that and at the same time had billions left over to invest in those nation-building activities that would have provided us with long-term income-generating opportunities.
But, no, this government’s approach to these windfall gains is much like that of the former government of Nauru, who found themselves sitting on a big pile of phosphate that the world wanted to dig, so they sold it. They all became millionaires on paper. The trouble is they did not invest any of that money in anything that was going to generate a dollar down the track. We know the situation in Nauru now. Nauru is a nation state in dire peril of collapse. Why? Because it had a government that took windfall gains and did nothing about investing in the future. That is the Howard government’s approach to long-term planning. It is the same as that of the government of Nauru. The only thing that saves us from the fate of Nauru is that we have a few things going for us in this country other than the mines. But the philosophy is the same—a total absence of any long-term commitment or understanding of where these windfall gains should be going.
I want to make a comment also on the lack of investment this government makes in its own people. I mentioned skills training, but I want to talk about the government’s investment in tertiary education. When Labor left office in 1995 we were investing 1.35 per cent of gross domestic product in tertiary education. That was well above the OECD average, which was only one per cent. As a Labor government we prided ourselves on investing in the people of this nation and their skills to help build a better future. Immediately when we lost office the Howard government set about winding that back. A year after they came to office, that 1.35 per cent had dropped to 1.18 per cent. And so it happened year after year. In the most recent figures the government’s investment in tertiary education stands at 0.8 per cent—barely more than half that which they inherited from the former Labor government.
That is the approach the Howard government have taken to long-term planning and investment in their people, and it is in concrete terms; I am not talking in nominal figures. Government members get up and say: ‘In 1996, $1 million was spent by the Labor Party on something. Now we’re spending $2 million.’ Of course you are. Inflation produces that increase. That is what happens over time. I am not talking about nominal figures; I am talking about the real measurement—the percentage of gross domestic product. Unfortunately the Howard government, the Liberal and National parties, have shown scant regard for investing in the learning and skills of their own people.
It is a problem that they have exported to the business community. When Labor took office in 1983, business investment as a percentage of GDP was 0.25 per cent. We immediately set about building that up because we realised we did not just need government to invest in people, we needed business to invest. So we put in place a whole raft of schemes to promote that business investment. It grew steadily, so that when we were defeated in 1996 that 0.24 per cent of GDP had become 0.87 per cent—a massive increase in business investment in R&D.
What happened the year after we lost office? One year of John Howard and that 0.87 per cent had already dropped to 0.8 per cent. The year after, it dropped; the year after, it dropped again; and, the year after, it dropped again. In about 2001 someone in the government decided that they had actually been on the wrong horse for four or five years and they had better do something to try to lift that investment. So they started to put back in place some of the things that they destroyed. The trouble is, when you talk about research and development, it is not like a tap you turn on and off. You can close down a university laboratory next week if you want to but, if you want to set it up again, it takes years to get the trained, qualified people and it takes years to get the research back to where it was. So they have only just started to do that and they have now got themselves back to the point it was at when we left office, having destroyed the investment for the first half of their term in office.
But it is not just in business investment that you see that downturn. If you look at investment across all sectors in research and development and compare us to other countries, on the latest figures we are down at the bottom. We are below the OECD average. The OECD average of investment in research and development is now 2.26 per cent of GDP. In Australia the investment is 1.6 per cent. We are well below the OECD average. We manage to be just ahead of the Czech Republic. We actually do beat the Slovak Republic and Poland by a bit, but look at the countries that are above us. There are big countries of course, but look at other countries, whose populations are not dissimilar to our own. At the top of the list are Sweden and Finland, comparatively small countries but with high standards of living, high-tech industries and a wealthy population. It is no coincidence that they also happen to be at the top of the list in investment in R&D. They appreciate those things that Labor valued when we were in government and sought to raise.
That is the missed opportunity of this budget. That is what could have happened with the billions of dollars this government simply had fall upon it by happenstance, by the coincidence of being in this place when the commodities boom occurred. That is the great tragedy, not just of this budget; it is the tragedy for which Australians will pay a price. Unfortunately it will not just be us who will pay the price—it is not just the politics of this parliament—it is the price that our children are going to pay. Industries that they will want to go to will not be there because of this government’s short-sighted approach to politics and to economic management. Unless this government changes that tack, then we will see Australians continuing to lose those opportunities. We know that it will not and that is why at the next election the Australian people will get rid of it and install a Beazley Labor government.
Firstly, I would like to acknowledge those allocations in this budget which go directly, or are aimed directly, at assisting the people of the Northern Territory. The funds for health, education, roads, defence—the list goes on—are welcomed and thankfully received by all of us in the Northern Territory.
We are often reminded in the Northern Territory that our budget allocation per head is well in excess of the per capita allocation of those who live in the populous states of the south. That is the case with this budget, and rightly so. It does not matter how many times or how fast one says ‘horizontal fiscal equalisation’, there are still state premiers and national journalists who constantly refer bitterly to the truckloads, now trainloads, of dollars that pour into the Territory from the south. It has been happening since the Territory was the northern territory of South Australia and I have no doubt it will continue to cause unnecessary rancour among those who are uninformed or choose to ignore the necessities of a federation which espouses, as far as possible, to provide equal standards and opportunities for all Australians regardless of their location in this great continent of ours.
Members will have noticed in the past few weeks that the Territory administration has come under scrutiny for the way in which it has allocated the Commonwealth’s annual largesse, and this is not for the first time. In particular the assertion has been made, and hardly denied, that money that the Commonwealth intends to be spent on Aboriginal education and health is diverted instead to pleasure parks and grand waterfront developments in the Territory’s capital and that the motivation for this is to pork-barrel the swinging electorates of Darwin and Palmerston and thus ensure the return of the Labor government to Territory administration at future elections.
I would be the last person to stand up in defence of Labor government in the Northern Territory, or anywhere else for that matter, but these assertions have a familiar ring to them. The former CLP government stood accused of the same misallocation of funds over its quarter-century of Territory government. Its main accusers then were, perhaps not surprisingly, the same people who stand accused today—most particularly, the Labor Party’s Territory Chief Minister, Clare Martin, who also chooses to hold the Indigenous affairs portfolio as part of her responsibilities, despite the presence of several cabinet members with Aboriginal heritage and/or electorates. The Bulletin’s incisive observer of and reporter on Aboriginal issues, Paul Toohey, says:
Who, in the Northern Territory, would know she actually holds the Indigenous Affairs portfolio? Very few. Because Martin, carefully, deliberately, refuses to deal with Aborigines, let alone say the word. Does she visit communities? Hardly ever. Her view has been that Aborigines are a federal problem.
This brings to me what I see as the heart of the matter. Successive Territory administrations have stood accused of, at worst, discriminating against and, at best, ignoring their Aboriginal constituents. I remind the House that the Territory’s demographics are unique in Australia. Aborigines constitute some 33 per cent of the population. No state has an Aboriginal constituency in excess of five per cent, and a little over one per cent is usual.
This House seemed to take this into account more than 30 years ago, when it imposed upon the Territory a unique piece of legislation. It was unique in intention, unique in application and, I argue today, unique in consequence. I speak, of course, of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, which seeks to recognise and protect Aboriginal land rights. The act saw the establishment of land councils and the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. It set up a land claims process, established processes for land use proposals and, I emphasise, provided for the act’s prevailing power over all Northern Territory laws. I will say it again: the Aboriginal land rights act has prevailing power over all Northern Territory laws. The act further dictates that all decisions over Aboriginal land must be made by the relevant traditional Aboriginal owners in accordance with Aboriginal law.
It is ironic, you would have to agree, that today the Commonwealth government and the national media are calling for one law for all Australians, while we have on the books a law that specifically legislates for regional parliamentary laws to be overruled and applies a formula for decision making based on a system of law that has never been formally identified—and, indeed, is currently under the most severe scrutiny, as it has been invoked as justification for the bashing of Australian women and the rape of Australian children.
The member for Bennelong is one of, I think, three members in this House who were present when the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Ian Viner, introduced the bill in 1976. He may recall that the minister stated in his second reading of the bill his belief that there had been ‘a fundamental change in social thinking in Australia, recognising that within our community there are some people, the Aborigines, who live by a unique and distinct system of customary law’. Mr Viner said that Aboriginal ancestors left in each country certain vital powers that made that country fruitful and ensured a good life for people forever. He said, ‘An Aboriginal’s country, no matter how stricken a wilderness it may seem to others, is, to him, a Canaan.’
Tell that to the people of Wadeye, who live within the utopia that former Minister Viner and the Fraser government sought to create. And tell that too, to the Northern Territory’s Chief Minister who, understandably, in view of this act, believes that Aboriginal problems are a federal matter. It is understandable, because she heads a Territory parliament that cannot acquire Aboriginal land for public purposes. If she thought it desirable to build a school or a bigger police station at Wadeye, she could not, at least not without complex negotiations probably involving some trade-offs with the land councils.
Land councils in the Territory are unique powerbrokers, established not by the will or customary laws of Aborigines but by this same Commonwealth act. It has been a surprise to some that since the Labor government was elected in the Territory its long-held claim that it could work with the land councils has proven unfounded. The relationship between land councils and Labor has steadily deteriorated since the day that Clare Martin came to office. It should not be a surprise. This act has always placed Aboriginal and public interest at loggerheads. The acrimony that arises between Aboriginal and public interest, between land council and Territory government, is written into the act.
The Commonwealth, through this act, set up the dispute between the Territory government and the land councils that continues today. The courtroom is where government must argue its case for the public interest, to plan for future services and to provide water from catchment areas, pasture for cattle on the move, pipelines, powerlines, public parks, access for the enjoyment of beaches and rivers and to build schools, health clinics and police stations. Courtrooms have been the battlegrounds that seem to denote racial division in the Territory.
Today, no-one knows who owns schools, health centres or other community facilities on Aboriginal land. The land councils count such assets as having zero value as they are not their asset. Taxpayers, through their government, also have no proprietary interest as the buildings do not stand on public land. The same dilemma faces the Territory as it attempts to meet the challenge of providing public housing on Aboriginal land, one of the factors identified as being at the root of law and order problems in places like Wadeye.
I welcome the initiatives in this budget that seek to address Indigenous disadvantage in the Territory. I welcome the $3,300 million allocated to Indigenous concerns in this budget, but I anticipate—no, I warn—that little will be achieved while the Territory government can point out that more than 50 per cent of the Territory lies beyond its control while layers of Commonwealth, Territory and land council bureaucracies argue the toss and Aborigines remain confined within Ian Viner’s splendid isolation.
I acknowledge that in recent years successive federal ministers have recognised these difficulties. The former Indigenous affairs minister Philip Ruddock put an option on the table for the patriation of the land rights act to the Northern Territory government back in 2003. The Territory’s Chief Minister simply ignored the offer, probably in the belief that the land councils would go ape if she were even to acknowledge such a possibility and almost certainly believing that continued Commonwealth responsibility for the Aboriginal constituency was not such a bad thing. The next minister was organising some redrafting of the land rights act when she visited Wadeye and concluded that things were not as bad as she had been told. As Paul Toohey writes:
She came to the north and visited Wadeye, the Territory’s biggest and most troubled community, and declared all was well. She couldn’t see it either. She didn’t want to. Towns were cleaned up for her arrival and the neat, clean kids with big white teeth were presented to her for inspection.
The Prime Minister also stopped at Wadeye, and again the town swept the problems under the mat—so effectively, in fact, that in his address to the community barbecue, the Prime Minister congratulated the people of Wadeye on the new levels of school attendance and announced a package of some $2.7 million of practical assistance, including $2 million for broadband linkages, $243,000 for the school to help with the larger number of students now attending and $546,000 over four years for playgroups to help young families sort out some of the health problems of early childhood and general parenting problems.
The current minister has had a somewhat different experience. As Paul Toohey writes:
It was a blessing that the current minister, Mal Brough, turned up in Wadeye this month in the midst of a riot. He saw the truth of Wadeye for himself, and he saw the town camps of Alice Springs.
The national focus since the minister’s visit to Wadeye and Alice Springs has been on lawlessness and depravity at its worst. The issue of the application of two standards of law, taking into account traditional customs and beliefs, has been at its heart. But I would argue that, horrific as these crimes are, they are only the boils that erupt on a body that is festering internally, that is moribund because of the misguided and well-intentioned act of the Commonwealth parliament 30 years ago.
I agree with Paul Toohey, who writes that the current Northern Territory Chief Minister has comprehensively and deliberately failed to represent Aborigines of the north. She has been caught out; she has failed her four Aboriginal parliamentary colleagues and she has failed her entire Aboriginal constituency. She has no vision for the people who make up nearly a third of the territory’s population. But this act—this dated piece of Commonwealth legislation—is her excuse. It provides her, and every subsequent representative of the Territory, with an out: 33 per cent of the constituency is the responsibility of the Commonwealth or of the land councils and 50 per cent of the land is beyond Northern Territory government control. The Northern Territory government cannot even acquire the land for public purposes. How can it be blamed for the mess that it is in?
Further, the Aboriginal land rights act is fundamentally detrimental to the advancement of the very people it is supposed to protect. Again, I must quote Mr Toohey. I do so because he writes so closely to my own views that, were I to express these thoughts independently, I would certainly be accused by some of plagiarism. Mr Toohey writes:
To fear the influx of wider society is to fear being born. And the permit system—
again, established by the Commonwealth act—
works against the Aborigines who treasure it. It keeps people in, makes them think they are somehow a special part of Australia ... until the day comes when they can openly interact with white Australians—by opening caravan parks, fishing resorts, locally staffed guided tours of country, none of which happens in north Australia—the divide between black and white Australia will only increase.
… … …
Opening up those hidden worlds will go a long way towards changing some very un-normal parts of Australia.
For 27 years successive CLP governments in the Northern Territory sought to represent Indigenous Territorians and gain control of the Aboriginal land rights act. The Clare Martin Labor government has a completely different approach: they have no desire to take responsibility for land rights and no desire to govern Aboriginal Territorians. Clare Martin must be made to face up to this most fundamental element of government, and the time has come for the Commonwealth to impose this responsibility whether she likes it or not. If this government is really serious about addressing Aboriginal disadvantage in the Northern Territory then it must patriate the Aboriginal land rights act to the Northern Territory as a matter of urgency.
For 10 years the government has lauded its national security credentials. Successive ministers have been ever ready to use our troops as a backdrop for promotional photos—it creates a good political image. But managing our nation’s defence is much more than imagery. For the last five years Defence has had continuing qualifications of its accounts by the Auditor-General. For the last two years Defence has been in breach of the Financial Management and Accountability Act. The extent of the uncertainty relating to Defence’s accounts—according to the National Audit Office—was $6.8 billion last year and $7.4 billion the year before. These are not just technical issues about bean counting—the inadequacies of the department are affecting capability.
The more publicised programs which are in trouble are the Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopter, the Super Seasprite helicopter, the M113 armoured personnel carrier project and the frigate upgrade project. In addition, the Auditor-General has found failings in respect of a number of projects, including the amphibious transport ship project, the Bushranger vehicle project, major equipment acquisitions, management of the supply system, management of property and facilities, management of defence inventory and workforce planning. In the most recent finding in respect of explosive ordnance, released several weeks ago, the findings were damning. As ASPI says, pretty much the entire life cycle of some $2 billion worth of assets is not being managed as well as it should be. Extraordinarily, $1.4 billion of explosive ordnance was classified in the other than serviceable category. That is an outrage.
I can understand, as the minister has come to power, that he would want to distance himself from the administrative failings of his predecessor, but addressing the systematic mismanagement in the defence department requires more than simply initiating five inquiries and six reviews, that we have counted, over the last four months. As Neil James, the executive director of the respected Australian Defence Association, has said:
Any structure that needs such constant major review is fundamentally flawed.
The bottom line is that the Australian people are entitled to far more than the spin and regular misinformation that has become the trademark of the Defence public affairs unit. For instance, in this year’s budget papers, one of the government’s press releases stated that the Howard government had increased defence spending to 1.9 per cent of GDP, alleging that is considerably ahead of that spent by Labor. The reality is that, as a percentage of GDP, Labor spent significantly more than the current government. When the figures are calculated to the same methodology, under the Hawke and Keating governments defence spending reached a high watermark of 2.5 per cent of GDP and, on average, Labor spent 2.2 per cent of GDP on defence throughout its period in office, compared to an average of just 1.7 per cent under the current government.
Having made those points of criticism, we do recognise the continuation of the real growth in defence spending that has been decided and confirmed at three per cent over the next five years. We welcome this as being essential. In fact, it is the minimum that is required. As ASPI points out in its analysis of the 2006-07 budget, there has been a three per cent growth trend in defence spending since World War II—and, again, that is essential. However, the unfortunate reality is that, if projects continue to suffer from cost and time blow-outs as a result of the mismanagement that we have seen, then this amount, which equates to about $10 billion in extra funding over five years, will simply not be enough to do the task.
Again, as ASPI has pointed out in its analysis of the 2006-07 budget, the current piecemeal cycle of investment followed by bids for additional personnel and operating costs is no substitute for coherent, long-term planning. It goes on to say:
Put simply, there is not enough money in the budget to operate all the equipment currently being purchased ... It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars on new equipment unless it’s certain that there will be enough money to operate it.
This means that the government must immediately regain effective financial management of Defence’s huge $19.5 billion budget and limit cost blow-outs on major capability projects. If that is not addressed, as ASPI points out, we will simply be confronted, as the funds run out, with a situation of axing the next project in line.
For instance, Dr Robert Ayson of the Australian National University in a lecture on 23 May stated:
... such generous funding is unlikely to be sufficient to meet projected commitments. For example, it is not clear just how many Joint Strike Fighters will eventually be afforded because per unit costs of this aircraft are unlikely to respect current estimates.
As experts have advised, we need four squadrons of the Joint Strike Fighter to be effective. If it is the case that, as a result of mismanagement, we are unable to acquire a total of four squadrons, then our air superiority in the region will be significantly impeded and perhaps even lost.
But the real worry is that the government has not addressed what the Chief of the Defence Force has himself described as the No. 1 challenge facing the Australian Defence Force. That challenge is the ongoing failure to recruit and retain adequate numbers of military personnel. Instead, this defence budget overwhelmingly prioritises equipment over people. The three per cent real growth in spending will be worth about $750 million in this coming financial year alone, yet there is less than $50 million, or 6.7 per cent, allocated in the same period for measures to tackle recruitment and retention. Even if, to be fair, we are able to include some $45 million that is to be spent in the next 12 months on establishing a high readiness reserve, the total spent on the personnel shortfall is just $93 million, or about a tenth of the additional funding.
While expanding capital expenditure by some 20 per cent, the government is simultaneously projecting an immediate fall in the total number of our military personnel. Under the government’s Hardened and Networked Army initiative, the defence department will be required to recruit an additional 2,500 troops by 2010. Astonishingly, the budget papers forecast that the Army’s strength will actually decline by 39 personnel in the coming financial year. With 2010 only four years away, the decline in strength is far from a flying start to acquiring the numbers that we need.
Labor welcomes the establishment of the high readiness reserve, but the funds allocated for the Army Reserve under this budget thin out very quickly. For instance, the allocated $181.6 million is spread over four years and must improve salaries as well as establish the new high readiness reserve capability. Next year’s modest increase of $36 million in salaries and allowances for 19,250 reservists will be unlikely to penetrate the labour market to improve recruitment of reserves.
While the increase in defence spending has attracted headlines, the reality is it falls well short of tackling critical personnel issues. There remains a pressing need for much stronger investment in personnel. It is a shame that the government has not been more creative in this important area. Experts have suggested a number of reforms that could be made, including an alignment of defence workforce planning with workforce trends in the private sector. Such trends include increased flexibility and career mobility across an individual’s working life. The difficulty in transferring between categories within the individual services and between the services themselves is a disincentive to retention in this age of increased flexibility of employment. Gone are the gold watch days of static employment over the course of a person’s working life. This reality should be reflected in the way Defence manages its own workforce. There is a need to acknowledge the propensity of the modern workforce to shorter term engagements and the desire to obtain a greater and broader experience from a number of callings.
The defence minister would do well to implement reforms suggested by the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Peter Leahy. General Leahy has suggested a reduction in the overall number of big Army bases spread throughout the country. This would allow Defence families to be less subject to regular transfer moves, which can be quite destabilising for partners and their children. We believe the government should not only back General Leahy on this constructive suggestion but also closely examine further measures to reduce the hardship of military life. The long duration of overseas deployment could be reassessed in some circumstances as it is clearly a burden on a mother or a father to be away from home for sometimes up to six months at a time.
When I have met our troops and their families they have often expressed to me the wish for ease of access to child care, including babysitting facilities, particularly at a time when families are posted to new locations and have not as yet established connections to assist in minding the children when the parents are required or have the opportunity to go out together. The government should also explore building better links with training authorities and the private sector to ensure more accreditation is available for specialist skills learnt in our armed forces, as well as recognition of the acquired expertise in leadership and personnel management acquired by officers in our defence forces.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has conducted research showing that defence salaries have simply not kept pace with average weekly earnings. While rates of pay are only part of the more complex issue, this widening gap cannot be ignored; it must be addressed by all sides of politics. Further potential for defence workplace reform is available by looking at the way in which other nations have addressed problems of recruitment and retention. The Israelis, for instance, have for many years been operating a broad range of programs to address this problem, many of which are proving successful. While they have conscription in that country, it applies only for a limited time, and they have been successful in retaining the involvement of young men and women and, indeed, older men and women in the defence forces through a number of strategies. Several programs aim to reinvigorate lower socioeconomic sections of the community while tapping an untouched resource for the defence force. For instance it may be that, with some additional training, kids who perhaps have not achieved the literacy standard to satisfy defence admission could be the subject of some additional training to get them up to that standard.
Other Israeli defence force recruitment initiatives attempt to cure wider gender imbalances in skilled trades. In stark contrast, the Howard government’s 2006 budget abolished a $38.5 million scheme to encourage more women to take up training in the traditional trades. Tertiary studies programs are made available to the Israeli military personnel in a number of different formats. They are carefully designed to link in with a comprehensive set of career benefits which are targeted at personnel of different age brackets as their military careers develop and, ultimately, enhance their ability for lucrative employment in the private sector. These benefits are also designed with a broader view of developing social infrastructure, including the use of defence housing to reinvigorate struggling municipalities. The army neighbourhood scheme develops affordable, comfortable housing for military families in areas requiring urban renewal. Interest-free loans and mortgage assistance for such houses is available in exchange for six years of mandatory service. This would be an attractive proposition to many defence families in a highly expensive housing market, particularly in our major capital cities.
Unlike in Australia, the issue of technical qualification in Israel has been resolved through a scheme which gives military tradespeople the same qualifications as their civilian counterparts. This has created a demand for military tradespersons in the private sector. The military relationship with technical colleges in Australia could also be improved. In some countries the military have even developed their own fully accredited institutions to meet the special needs and simultaneously enhance skills that ultimately flow to the community. There are opportunities already in place through the vocational education and training schemes that many state governments are now implementing, where students at high school level can start undertaking trade courses in conjunction with private employers who provide outplacement opportunities. There is no reason, I believe, why the military could not be identified and certified as an appropriate employer provider for those purposes. It does not necessarily mean that a child will be compelled to accept military service in exchange for that education, but merely that if a child elected to pursue a trade and expressed interest in a military career then they would have the opportunity of obtaining that experience within our military. I believe there is no reason why those sorts of measures should not be further explored.
It has also been shown in the United States and the Israeli militaries, and obviously other militaries around the world, that there is considerable benefit in creating a feeling of constant advancement. Again, as an example, in Israel after six or seven years of military service the first university ‘rest’, as it is called, becomes available to career personnel. This allows them to undertake a degree with all the associated university benefits. Further intervals become available at different points in their career and all are pursued on full pay as a normal posting, and that is highly significant. Recruitment for the skilled trades is also initiated from the high school level. Students interested in leaving school early to pursue a technical trade have options available through the Israeli Defence Force. The Israeli Defence Force is affiliated with a number of technical colleges which it uses to qualify potential recruits in mechanics, electronics and other necessary trade qualifications. Again, these are models which could and should be pursued in Australia.
An appropriate balance must be reached between developing the Australian Defence Force’s hardware capability and recruiting and retaining its human capability. We are seeing with our deployment in East Timor that increasingly over the next decade the demands on our defence forces are going to be for troops, literally for footslogging troops. That is the basics of the law and order activities currently being engaged in in East Timor. The troops obviously have skills greater than the traditional footslogger, but, basically, we need soldiers in boots to perform that sort of activity. And in all likelihood we will have to do that in the coming decade in a number of countries in our region to assist them to address law and order issues—indeed, to prevent states from becoming failed states.
All experts recognise the threat to our security of having a failed state in our region. Not only do those states tend to become havens for criminal activity, such as the drug trade, but also potentially havens for terrorists to launch attacks from our backyard very much into our territory. So this going to be a crucial security issue in the next decade and it will only be addressed by having sufficient soldiers available to undertake the task. I believe our East Timor deployment over the next three months will cope, and cope admirably. If the deployment is longer than that I think real strains are going to show because of the inattention that has been given by the government to addressing the recruitment and retention crisis in our military.
In conclusion, I am reminded of a verse from the Navy recruiting advertisement which confirmed the need to emphasise the human rather the technological capabilities. The slogan developed was: ‘Today’s pride of the fleet is you’. The 2006 budget demonstrates that this government has forgotten that the pride of the fleet, or the squadron, or the battalion, is its people. Much more must be done to address the needs of our serving men and women and their families.
This budget, acclaimed as Peter Costello’s greatest budget, is the product of a strong economy, itself the consequence of 10 years of sound economic management. It has seen a record surplus, and all of the Labor Party’s debt finally repaid. Who would have imagined that Australia would become a debt-free nation, that the Commonwealth would be debt free? Taxation has been reduced. Income taxation has been reduced. Tax on superannuation has also been reduced dramatically and, just as importantly, simplified. In my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister with a responsibility for water policy, I was especially pleased to see the commitment of $500 million in the budget to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission.
The Prime Minister has often said that water is our greatest environmental challenge, and so it is. It is not only our greatest environmental challenge but also the one environmental challenge for which the solutions and answers are entirely in our own hands. But the Prime Minister does not just talk about these great challenges; he acts—and not just in this budget. In 2004 he led the governments of Australia into the National Water Initiative. All Australian governments today are committed to unprecedented reforms, which are the envy of the world, to secure our water future. He established the Australian government water fund, which has $2 billion over five years to fund water infrastructure. The fund will support large-scale projects like the piping project in the Wimmera-Mallee, where thousands of kilometres of open channels will be piped, saving more than 100 gigalitres of water which had hitherto been lost to evaporation and seepage. The fund will support large iconic projects like that one, as well as small community water grants for schools and local councils, where water conservation is taught in a practical way at the grassroots.
To date, 33 water conservation projects have been funded from the WaterSmart Australia fund, which is the largest part of the Australian government water fund, with $1,600 million committed to it. Those 33 water conservation projects involve $416 million of Commonwealth money, and more than $1 billion in resources—mostly from the public sector but with some contributions from the private sector—have been mobilised to support the conservation and more efficient management of our water. And now in the budget $500 million is committed, in one hit, to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. This is five times their annual expenditure in recent years. It is the biggest single financial commitment ever made to our most important river system.
Why is the Murray so important, and what will that $500 million do? The Murray-Darling Basin has only six per cent of Australia’s run-off, over a vast area covering Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. It is the lifeblood of many communities, large and small—including communities as large as Adelaide, all the towns on the Murray and all the communities on the Darling and its tributaries. Seventy-five per cent of our irrigated agriculture is in this one basin alone, and it produces 40 per cent of all of our agricultural output. The Murray-Darling Basin is an indispensable part of our economy, our history and our community, but it has been heavily taxed by the claims of agriculture. The ancient river and its tributaries have been regulated and dammed, both for irrigation and, originally, for navigation, and they are now regulated working rivers. These practices have had impacts on the quantity of water in the river, the timing of its availability, and the environment has, generally speaking, suffered due to what now appear to have been overallocations to the agricultural sector.
In 2005 there was a commitment in the Living Murray Business Plan to recover 500 gigalitres of water for the river. This was the first step of the Living Murray initiative, the aim of which is to restore and protect six iconic ecological sites, including the Barmah-Millewah red gum forests, the Hattah Lakes and the Murray mouth itself. Until recently, progress had been slow. The initial focus was on funding large infrastructure projects to save water which would otherwise have been lost to inefficiencies, and the water saved was to be placed on the environmental account. But it appeared only a few months ago that there was no prospect of meeting the 500-gigalitre target which the governments had agreed to reach by 2009. Only Victoria looked like meeting its target. The other two states were a long way off.
But in the last few months there have been some major changes in water policy and in the climate for water reform generally. Most importantly, the commitment of $500 million delivered in the Treasurer’s budget is a signal of the importance that the Howard government places on water conservation and water management. It will be split, with roughly $300 million going to works and measures along the river which had been postponed and put back due to lack of funds. This work is needed to repair infrastructure vital for the operation of the river and the environment which depends on it. That will now be done and done quickly. In addition, $200 million will be committed to supporting the Living Murray initiative and the acquisition of water.
But how are we going to acquire the water for the Living Murray target? There have been considerable concerns in rural communities about governments buying water. There are concerns about water being traded, indeed. The concern is that, if the government or governments buy water for the environment, it will reduce the pool of productive water in a community and, while the vendor of the water may get a financial return, all of the other businesses and interests that depend on the productivity of the agricultural sector in that community will suffer.
In Adelaide, in April, I proposed, on behalf of the Commonwealth, a new policy to acquire water for the Living Murray initiative—a new approach. Ten days ago that was endorsed by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. There will be a tender to purchase water from willing sellers, but it will be a tender with a difference: the water purchased will be water which has been made available from water efficiencies. The aim is to achieve two goals: to increase the amount of water that is available for the environmental objectives of the Living Murray initiative but at the same time ensure that we are promoting the more efficient use of water. Whether you subscribe to all of the forecasts of the scientists or not, very few people in rural Australia do not agree that we are heading into a hotter and drier future and that it is more likely that we will have less water in our future than more. So the efficient use and management of water will become more important over time, and, the sooner we can make those investments to use water efficiently, the better.
There are enormous inefficiencies in our use of water, and of course they are not just in rural Australia. Goulburn-Murray Water, who are one of the biggest water utilities in the Murray-Darling Basin, told me recently they estimated their losses from inefficient infrastructure to be as high as 30 per cent. That is about 900 gigalitres, which is around twice as much as Melbourne consumes in a year. The losses can be even greater where water is distributed through long, open channels. A grazier I know on the Lachlan River recently piped 180 kilometres of open channels and discovered that he had, through that old, seeping system, been losing 90 per cent of his water. He now has 2,000 megalitres he did not have before.
There are enormous savings from efficiencies but, just as there are savings at the level of big projects, which is what the Living Murray initiative has been targeting to date, so there are savings that can be achieved at the farm level. So we are aiming to get the money down to the farm level and encourage anyone who believes they can save water through efficient practices, better infrastructure, more efficient farming practices, to then have an opportunity to sell that water back for the environment through this tender.
At the same time, both South Australia and New South Wales, in particular, have shown a new energy to meet their obligations under the Living Murray initiative. South Australia, at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, presented proposals to acquire 35 gigalitres, thereby meeting its share, assuming that that water is placed on the eligible measures register, and New South Wales has proposed new water saving initiatives, including water purchases. There is, consequently, a new optimism that the Living Murray initiative target of 500 gigalitres by 2009 can be met. If it is met, it will in very large measure be due to the leadership shown by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer by making these funds available in this budget, because it showed a commitment, a determination and a preparedness to invest now for a more secure and sustainable water future.
Another key objective of the National Water Initiative is interstate water trading. The scheme of the National Water Initiative is elaborate, but in a simple way it can be seen as involving the restructuring of water entitlements so that the balance between consumption, mostly agricultural, and the environment is set at a sustainable level—granting those water entitlements property rights and then enabling those water rights to trade. This has the support of all Australian governments, both Labor and Liberal. But this is not at all a pious genuflection to the memory of Adam Smith; it is a vital tool to ensure that water is allocated to its highest and best use. To those who say, and many do, that we should not be growing rice or cotton in Australia, the answer is very simple: farmers themselves struggle to pick the right crops; do we really imagine governments could do any better? The answer is to give secure title to water, let it trade and allow the market to make the right choices. That is the scheme of the National Water Initiative and the policy of all Australian governments.
Until recently, there had been a failure to achieve a key water-trading objective of the National Water Initiative, and that was the enabling of interstate trade of permanent water entitlements across the borders of New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria. The National Water Initiative and the various governments had committed to achieving that by July 2005. Because of the failure to achieve that milestone, competition payments were suspended. There was a great deal of unhappiness and much finger pointing across the Murray. But now, only 10 days ago at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, the three states—New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia—which had been working together with support and leadership from the Commonwealth government through the COAG water trading group, have announced that they are committed to the commencement of trade under an interim tagged trading regime. The National Water Commission will be reviewing their progress towards a permanent trading arrangement by January 2007, which is the next milestone. The aim is that, if it can be achieved by then, the suspension of the competition payments would be reviewed.
There are many hurdles, not least of which is the vexed question of exit payments, which are the charges that irrigation cooperatives and irrigation companies place on the sale of water that is being sold out of their area. Do those exit payments reflect a reasonable estimate of the pro rata share of maintaining the infrastructure over the years ahead, or are they excessive? Are they a barrier to trade? Views differ, naturally enough. It is a controversial issue, and the states have requested the ACCC to investigate and form a view.
In summary, on the Murray in the course of this year, we have seen, thanks to the leadership of the federal government and the support from the budget, a massive injection of cash into the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to fund essential works and measures—the single biggest one-off commitment of funds to support our most important river system. We have seen the water acquisition program for the Living Murray initiative get back on track, with new funds and new policies endorsed by all governments. Interstate trading in water in the southern Murray-Darling Basin is not yet as concrete a reality as we would hope it will be shortly, but it is on the verge of happening. Having met with the state water ministers at the ministerial council in Melbourne recently, there seems to be a sense of common purpose to achieve this. All of that will ensure that our water future is more secure and sustainable.
There are many more challenges in the realm of water. At the core of them is the realisation that water is a national issue. It is perceived as a national issue by most Australians but every community and every locality is different. The water solutions for one town are very different to another because of differences in climate and differences in topography, geography and geology. It is national, but it is very local. Nonetheless, there is more that we can do to manage water on a national basis and to support each other in managing our water future. The policies and the directions are all there in the National Water Initiative. We need to continue to work towards uniform, standard methods of registering and recording water entitlements. We need to sweep away the barriers to trade, be they in the form of exit fees that are too high or, often, Dickensian bureaucratic processes for the transfer of the water entitlements.
We need to recognise in our cities that our water shortages are not a function of drought alone but a function of poor management and poor planning. We can afford to have, in our big cities especially, as much water as we wish to pay for. Even if you take the view that there are no more good dam sites, recycling and desalination offer unlimited potential for augmenting our water supplies in our cities. Urban water in our large cities is therefore not a finite resource in the way we used to imagine it was. Water can be manufactured. Shortages are more a consequence of planning errors than they are of climactic changes or water shortages.
But the days of cheap water are over—they are over in the cities; they are over in the country. The efficient use of water, the better management of water and the conservation of water will be increasingly the focus of all Australians committed to a secure and sustainable future for our country. Great civilisations and great empires have been built on the management of water. Consider the aqueducts of ancient Rome—11 aqueducts delivered 1,000 litres of water per person into Rome 2,000 years ago. When they were broken the city fell. Australia’s prosperity has been built on the management of water and our future prosperity will be sustained on its wise and efficient management in the future.
I enjoyed the contribution from the member for Wentworth to this debate on the appropriation bills. He makes some very good points. Some of those points are debatable, but he is right to focus his contribution on one of the most pressing matters facing this nation—that is, our critical water shortage. I thought he was verging on homily towards the end, but I suspect it is an issue about which he holds some passion. In this debate on the appropriation bills, I also want to make some reflections on the budget. I should start by saying this was a pretty good budget. It is a budget you would expect from a government awash with money, with full coffers thanks to an unexpected resources boom and a longer than expected resources boom. They have plenty of money to spend and indeed they did spend it.
How good a budget you would consider this would depend on your perspective. If you were a high-income earner, I suspect you would think it is a very good budget, with massive tax cuts going straight into your pocket. Politicians, like you and I, Mr Deputy Speaker, will not be too unhappy with this budget, which will probably involve a tax cut of between $3½ thousand and $4,000 annually. It is quite different from that to be expected by lower income earners. I should say that the distribution of the tax cuts this year is much fairer than last year. I am not necessarily absolutely happy with them, but Labor is prepared to accept them on the basis that at least the distribution is somewhat fairer.
Those who were looking towards the future in this budget will be the most disappointed. This budget took in all the proceeds of the resources boom, something which is a windfall to the government, not part of anything the government has done and not something the government can take credit for but a function of international economic circumstances—in particular, the high demand for our resources and our energy in China. The government has taken that money and returned it to people in the form of tax cuts. It would have been much better for the government to have taken the proceeds of the productivity gains that we have not had over the last 10 years and delivered those as tax cuts, to have returned to the taxpayer the dividends of those significant achievements over the last decade. But of course we have not had those achievements. The government has dropped the ball on productivity.
On average, during the period that Labor was in office, productivity hovered around 3½ per cent. Today it hovers between one and 1.5 per cent. As former Prime Minister Paul Keating is fond of saying, if you have five per cent growth and you have productivity running at 3½ per cent, that leaves only about 1½ per cent to be taken in the form of inflation. But, if you have growth of five per cent and you have productivity running at only one per cent, that leaves four per cent for inflation. That is where we find ourselves at the moment. That is why the Reserve Bank is constantly looking at increasing interest rates. That is why it increased interest rates last time around. The economy is still effectively running too fast, it is still too dependent on inflows of capital, and productivity is low. It is no wonder that the Reserve Bank governor is concerned.
If you were looking at this budget for your children, you would ask yourself whether this was a wise budget—whether it was right to grab the proceeds of that resources boom and splash them straight back into Australian consumption, or whether it would have been better to draw those goodies out of the productivity grab that we did not have and, just as importantly, whether it would have been better to invest that money in a productive capacity or bank some of that money in the form of superannuation savings. That does not add, of course, to growth. If you were one of those people, you would be a bit concerned.
You would also be a bit concerned if you had kids, because the government simply dropped the ball on training in this budget. It is a mystery to me why a government being called upon to do so by so many economic think tanks and peak body organisations did not see fit to make a significant investment in one of the most pressing issues facing this nation—the very thing doing the most to hold back our productive capacity—and that is our skills shortage. Why would the government not take some of those proceeds and reinvest them in that area? It is a mystery to me, and I know that people who look at this, particularly those who will not get much more than $10 in their pockets, will think: ‘Am I better off with the $10 in my pocket or would I and my family have been better off if they had just kept the $10 and invested it in the future of my children?’ I think if you polled this issue, you would get an overwhelming response that it would have been better invested in our children.
But, if we had had productivity gains over the last 10 years at the rate we enjoyed in the decade up to about 1995, we could have done both things. I often become amused at this argument about whether we should be investing in infrastructure or investing in tax cuts. If we get the formula right, by way of dynamic gains, we can have both—but the government has not got that balance right in this budget. I think people are starting to understand that, and that has been reflected in the opinion polls.
If your main focus was on superannuation you might be happy or you might be unhappy. You would probably be pretty happy if you were approaching 60 or if you are already 60—you are going to get a huge tax break, the details of which we still have not been given; there was nothing in the budget. We have it out there as a proposal but people around that age group are right to be fairly excited at their prospects. The small business people approaching retirement who might have wanted to invest some of their capital into super would have a different view because of the talk of caps being imposed on their ability to do so. So what you think of this budget depends on where you stand, and it does not surprise me that there is not a universal jumping for joy as a result. But with such a windfall, with such a surplus and with such a capacity there could have been jumping for joy all round if only the government had got the balance right.
I want to take the 12 or so minutes left to me to raise some issues from my electorate. The first issue relates to the Investing in Our Schools program. Tomorrow on the Notice Paper will appear some questions in my name about the distribution of these funds, and whether they have been distributed equitably and fairly. I am not suggesting that they have not been, but I want some answers because I have had some experiences in my electorate which suggest that it might not have been done on a fair basis. I hope to get some answers from the minister as a result of those questions about the distribution in the five electorates across the Hunter region, about whether the criteria have been applied stringently and, of course, about whether there has been an equal distribution between public and independent schools.
In particular I want to raise the issue of Cessnock West Public School, in my hometown of Cessnock, which applied under the second round of applications in August 2005 for a security fence to surround the school. The cost of the security fence was some $143,000. This is a critical issue for the school because it is in a tough area and it has been beset by vandalism—the school library was burned down and had to be replaced at a substantial cost and, unfortunately, the school canteen was badly vandalised and had to be closed down for a period of time while repairs were done and in the process some asbestos was removed.
I understand, thanks to some of the members of the P&C, that the principal was told unofficially by the state Department of Education and Training that the application had been approved. On Wednesday, 3 May 2006—the day after the approved schools and announced projects were published on the website—the principal was phoned by someone called Lynne from Investing in Our Schools to say that the application has been approved but they had run out of money. Mr Deputy Speaker, it had been approved but they had run out of money. There are two points to be made about that. One is that the security fencing and the difficulties of the school in the past I would have thought made it a perfect, snug fit with the objectives of the scheme. But it is extraordinary to suggest that the school had its hopes raised by oral advice that it had been successful in its funding application only to be told that the department had run out of money.
I have put these questions on the Notice Paper but I can understand why the school P&C and the school staff are distressed. I welcome the funding that I have received in my electorate under this program for both public and independent schools, and I am not going to begrudge any school in my electorate getting some money potentially at the expense of another school. But what I want to know is that the criteria are being applied fairly, that the schools most in need are getting the money and that there is a reasonable proportional distribution of funds going to both public and independent schools. If the minister can show me that that is the case I will retreat happily, and I will simply have to explain to Cessnock West Public School that they will just have to make another attempt under the next funding round. But you can understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, why they would be surprised at their unsuccessful attempt to secure this money.
I want to quickly give a plug for the Hunter Regional Tourism Organisation, which is currently applying for funding under the Australian Tourism Development Program. The Hunter Regional Tourism Organisation is a fantastic body that has identified the fact that Hunter tourism is at its crossroads and parochialism was at the forefront of tourism planning in the Hunter region, when indeed parochialism should be set aside for a products based approach to our marketing. The organisation has done a fantastic job over recent times, led by its chief executive officer, Andrew Fletcher. It has developed a Hunter plan—a marketing and strategic plan for the Hunter—which takes in the needs of the whole region and it has applied for funding under the Australian Tourism Development Program. I will be writing to the minister, urging the minister to look kindly upon that application.
There were many things in my electorate and region that unfortunately missed out in the budget. I will never understand why the Howard government will not give some funding for Energy Australia Stadium—home of the Newcastle Knights and the Newcastle Jets. The Treasurer, in particular, and the Prime Minister keep telling us that they cannot give money to Energy Australia Stadium as it is effectively a state concern. Lo and behold, though, since the first time the Prime Minister made that statement, they have given millions of dollars to the Dragons, millions of dollars to the Sharks, millions of dollars to the Panthers and millions of dollars to the AFL club Western Bulldogs—but they cannot give the poor old Newcastle Knights some money.
That is notwithstanding the fact that we have modelling from the University of Newcastle that shows that this is not just a sporting arena—this is a key economic driver in the Hunter region. The rugby league team, at least—just setting aside the soccer team for the moment—attracts more than 30,000 people to every home game. Think of the jobs it creates and the knock-on effects amongst the community. If we had a fully completed stadium we could have a Super 14 team—it would be 15 in those circumstances, but we could. We have missed out on opportunities in the past. When the Rugby World Cup was in Australia we could have had a game at Energy Australia Stadium if only the stadium had been up to standard.
The state government has put about $35 million into the project. Why won’t John Howard make a contribution? Why won’t the federal government make a contribution to Energy Australia Stadium in the same way it has made a contribution to the rest of those stadiums? Is it because the Hunter electorates so faithfully and so regularly vote Labor? Surely not. Surely the Prime Minister would not be punishing people for making that democratic choice. So I appeal to the Prime Minister. I am sure that there is a little hollow log in the budget somewhere. We know how the budget documents work—rabbits can be pulled out of the hat. I appeal to the Prime Minister to reconsider the plight of the Newcastle Knights, the Jets and the other users of that stadium and to have a go.
The F3 link is a 16-kilometre stretch of road between the northern end of the F3 Freeway and the New England Highway just north of Branxton. It is critically needed in the Hunter. I have been fighting for the project for some 17 years. Maybe that makes me an ineffective first councillor and now member, but this is something critical to the region. It has the unanimous support of all the region’s mayors, and all the peak industry bodies nominate it as the No. 1 infrastructure project for the region, but the government will not fund it. When I started the campaign it was worth about $180 million. It is now worth close to half a billion dollars. So every year it gets put off it becomes more expensive.
What is the government doing? It keeps dribbling small amounts of money into the project for preconstruction costs—an obvious acknowledgment that it is an absolute must for the region—but it will not deliver the big bang, the big bucks. Very generously, I thought, I publicly told the minister, Minister Jim Lloyd, ‘If you want to talk about alternative funding models’—and I suppose that is code for a toll, if we are being honest with ourselves—‘talk about them publicly and I will not criticise you, because I would rather have an F3 link with a toll than no F3 link at all.’ Maybe it can be constructed it in a way that picks up traffic travelling through the region but does not pick up intraregional traffic—so if you are travelling from Singleton to Newcastle and you want to jump on the link road maybe you would be within the confines of the area where you are not exposed to the toll.
So please, Minister Lloyd, let us have the public conversation—let us hear what the people of the region think. Do they want and need this thing so badly that they are prepared to wear a toll? Let us have that conversation. Up until now he has not been prepared to do so.
The University of Newcastle did not get any restoration of its regional status, which is costing it a bucket of money and disadvantaging the region. The GP crisis is a big issue. We want to attract young people to our medical school. We cannot get regional assistance. That was another disappointment in the budget.
I turn now to the collapse of the Bay Building group. This is a consolidation of four companies in the Hunter that some months ago went belly-up, leaving creditors owed something to the tune of $35 million. Some of them were secured—some bank and non-bank financial institutions—and they will be okay, of course, as honourable members would understand. But the majority of them were unsecured creditors, suppliers to those four entities which were effectively working in the construction and property game. Some of those businesses have already gone bust as a result of the collapse of Bay Building. They have fallen under the weight of their incapacity to secure the money that was owed to them.
This time around I am not going to criticise the government or ASIC. I am probably not even going to criticise the Corporations Law. We know how the Corporations Law works. We understand that we have to have corporate entities able to shield themselves from attacks on the personal property of the directors. If we did not have that sort of protection in this country we would not have much investment at all. We all understand that. But now and again a case comes along where it really is rotten. You really do ask about society when you have people who knowingly default on the money owed to the people who have worked so hard, who have put their living into and shown such faith in the directors of that company by doing work on credit.
We knew we were in trouble on this one when the administrator moved in and discovered the mainframe computer had been stolen, so there were no accounting records. We knew we were really in trouble when we discovered very early on that there were related entity loans—that is, loans between the four entities in the group.
I want to pay tribute to the administrator, Jonathan McLeod. There was suspicion of him on the part of the unsecured creditors. He was appointed from Brisbane; he was an outsider. And there was some concern, at least on the part of a small section of the unsecured creditors, that he might have been a bit of a puppet of the directors. I think Jonathan McLeod has done a good job. He has raised with ASIC a number of breaches of the Corporations Law. He has been able to discover that many of the inter-related loans were bogus, and therefore the directors’ attempts to use the nature of the debt related loan to use proxy votes at creditors meetings were indeed bogus themselves. And I want to say that ASIC has done a good thing by confirming its willingness to contribute $20,000 towards the prosecution of those directors.
As is, sadly, too often the case, there is no money left in the cookie jar. These unsecured creditors are not going to get their money back, and that is very sad for them and their families, particularly those who have already gone under. Some will bat on; some will not be able to. But they want justice. I appeal to ASIC tonight to use all the power available to them to lock these guys up. (Time expired)
I wish to talk to the chamber tonight, in this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007 and related bills, about some of the areas of responsibility that I have as the Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing, in particular to Tony Abbott and, less so, to Senator Santo Santoro, who is the Minister for Ageing.
One of the areas for which I have particular responsibility is mental health. I am delighted that in this budget a $1.9 billion package was announced for spending in the area of mental health. I would like to range across that topic tonight in this debate, and also to talk about some of the areas of change in the budget to do with drugs, suicide, asthma and the trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency agreement that we are coming to with New Zealand.
The issue of mental health has been a major issue for some time in Australia, since the deinstitutionalisation of the mentally ill starting in the 1960s and 1970s. Over the last 10 years in particular, mental health has become an ever-present issue for us as members of parliament—I have found this as a lower house member, and I am sure the House would agree—and, more importantly, it is a major issue in the electorate and the community, particularly for the families of those with mental illness. There seems to be a dramatic dearth of facilities and services available to the mentally ill in the community. Part of the agreement the states had when they decided to deinstitutionalise was that they would put money into community support. That did not eventuate and, tragically, I think many of the states saw the denuding of mental health facilities and services as a way of saving money, which they did. To put that in perspective, in the early 1960s, when the population of the country was 10 million, there were 30,000 acute beds available for the mentally ill; today, in 2006, less than 4,000 beds are available and yet we have 20 million people. That puts in some perspective the incredible strain on the services that are available for the mentally ill when we have double the population. So it is no surprise that in the areas of homelessness and crime, one of the trends is that people with a mental illness commit many of the crimes and are homeless. They need help and support from a health perspective rather than simply being left on the streets, as they have been in the last 10 to 20 years.
It is not a traditional area of responsibility of the Commonwealth; it is a responsibility of the states. After a great deal of debate and discussion in this country over the last few years, it has become quite obvious that the states have not stepped up to the plate, no matter how much political pressure has been applied to them. As a consequence, the Prime Minister decided that he would step forward and put $1.9 billion of Commonwealth spending on the table and ask the states to match that spending. The area of spending that the Commonwealth will be responsible for is more primary health and clinical services and some of things that we traditionally fund through Medicare. The states are responsible for acute hospital beds, prisons, crisis services and emergency services—the areas that they have been traditionally responsible for. This package does not delve into their areas, but it tries to do the Commonwealth’s part of mental health well and then calls on the states to do their part of mental health well. We are not going to take over their areas of responsibility but nor are we going to let them off the hook by simply funding, through shared agreements, areas that we know they should be doing. We are going to do our areas well and expect the states to do their areas well, which would be a nice change.
We are going to put a substantial amount of funding into mental health in four broad areas. There will be more health services in the community through supporting new Medicare benefit schedule items that will help psychiatrists and GPs have closer working relationships with psychologists. They will be able to refer to those psychologists patients who are better serviced by a psychologist than a psychiatrist. This will give psychiatrists more time to free up their books to see those patients who need to be seen by a psychiatrist. It will mean that GPs will have another option than simply referring to a psychiatrist a patient who is better seen by a psychologist. And it will better use the services of psychologists who, in the opinion of the government, have been underutilised in recent years.
There will be new non-clinical and respite services for people with mental illness, particularly provided by the non-government organisations. This will help families, carers and those with a mental illness living in the community in particular. There is a substantial investment in the mental health workforce and there will be new programs of community awareness, particularly in relation to drugs like cannabis. We are now discovering more and more that it has an incredibly deleterious effect on people’s brains, yet it has been treated in many respects as a substitute for alcohol in some communities over the years.
I will flesh out some of these measures. From November this year, the MBS items will be restructured to allow psychiatrists and GPs to refer patients to particular types of psychologists—those who have done necessary training—to be taken care of. This will cost $538 million, so it is the largest and most substantial item in the package. There will be an extra $51.7 million for rural and remote areas to ensure that there is employment of mental health nurses and that these new arrangements for GPs and psychiatrists do not bypass rural and remote areas but get to everybody in the community. There will be the creation of specialist mental health nurses in psychiatry and GP practices, costing $191.6 million, and this will dramatically reduce the burden on GP and psychiatry practices, as they will be able to employ mental health nurses to help with the day-to-day management of their clients’ needs. It is a substantial change and I think is extremely well received by the industry. It does mean the government needs to make a commitment to increasing the workforce in mental health, and for that reason we are spending money on creating 420 new specialist mental health nurses and 200 more places for clinical psychologists from next year.
In new non-clinical and respite services, there will be new funding for drug and alcohol treatment services—$73.9 million from 1 July this year. That will largely go to non-government organisations, many of which are already operating rehabilitation services, crisis care and emergency services for the mentally ill in the community. This is a substantial injection of funds for many of the organisations, which put together what resources they have and use what trained staff and volunteers they have to run services which could be better and more comprehensively run with a substantial injection of Commonwealth funds. So that is what we are doing in this package.
There will be more funding for telephone counselling and web based activities for those people who try and self-help. This will be particularly useful for teenagers who will not necessarily speak to their parents, their GPs or even their friends about concerns they might have about their mental health but are likely to access web based services and self-help. There are some very good ones that are now operating in Australia, and the funding of $56.9 million under this package from 1 July this year will support Lifeline and the Kids Help Line specifically and also web based services.
We are also expanding the National Suicide Prevention Strategy by $62 million over the next five years. To put that into perspective, over the last 10 years, the Commonwealth has spent $10 million on national suicide prevention, so this is a dramatic increase in support for the reduction of suicide in this country. Even that $10 million has made a difference to the number of suicides in Australia, which I will get to later on in this speech on the appropriation bills.
Nine hundred new personal helpers and mentors will be rolled out as part of this package to care for people in their own homes and to give people support in day-to-day living and in accessing services, such as accommodation, Centrelink services and, ambitiously—maybe some would say too ambitiously—Job Network services down the track. We are also increasing the number of places in the Personal Support Program to help people return to or stay in employment, and we are going to put $46 million into non-government services in particular to help people stay in their own homes, conduct normal lives, cook, do domestic chores—things that everybody else takes for granted—and enjoy more social interaction with the community around them. In many respects, we are doing the things that the states promised to do but never delivered on as part of deinstitutionalisation.
For young people, we are expanding the Youth Pathways project by 8,500 places, which will help young people with mental illness to stay in school and to address issues at school rather than be lost to the system. We are also putting $28 million into new programs to help parents, local communities, teachers and principals identify and respond to children at risk of mental illness.
One of the Prime Minister’s pet aspects of this package is $200 million for new respite places for carers. Too often parent and grandparent carers are stoically struggling to look after their children or grandchildren with mental illness. We are not talking necessarily about teenagers; we are talking often about adult children in their 50s and 60s being looked after by parents in their 70s and 80s and beyond. It is a tragic situation. We have all seen the stories in the newspapers of such families. One I particularly remember in Sydney was of a Chinese-Australian who took his own life and that of his child because he did not believe that his child would be looked after when he was gone. A lack of respite services provided by the states means that there is very little support for carers of people with a mental illness. This $200 million will go some way to creating 650 new respite services for perhaps a day, a few days and maybe a week to provide opportunities to recharge the batteries of carers.
There is $20 million being put into the training of front-line workers in Indigenous communities for the early assessment of mental illness and the opportunity to get Indigenous people into mental health services very early in the piece. This will train 850 Aboriginal health workers and 350 transport and administrative workers in Aboriginal communities. It will fund 25 new scholarships and 10 direct mental health workers.
I have talked about the increase in the mental health workforce. We are providing $21 million for researching the link between cannabis and mental illness and to run education programs to expose the risks that people put themselves in by using cannabis. There is the potential of exacerbating a mental illness that might be genetic but not obvious or in fact causing schizophrenia, which has been linked with cannabis very clearly through the research. Finally, we are increasing funding to Mental Health Council of Australia by $1 million over the next five years so that they can continue to monitor the work that is being done and advocate on behalf of the mentally ill.
One of my other areas of responsibility is illicit drugs. I am pleased to say that we announced $38.9 million in the budget for combating emerging trends in drug use. I am sure the shadow minister for health will be pleased about this, because while we are having great success with respect to the use of cannabis and heroin in this country, the use of illicit drugs like ice and ecstasy—psychostimulants—is growing. It is an area that we obviously need to take a particular interest in. So about $40 million will go some way to helping front-line workers research the use of these drugs to try to combat the scourge that they are, particularly to young people. It will also help fund the continuing national drugs education campaign.
A new aspect of the budget is $19.8 million for university counsellors on university campuses to address drug issues and alcohol misuse at the university campus level. This gives counsellors access to many hundreds of thousands of undergraduate and postgraduate students for the early prevention of the abuse of drugs and alcohol and where possible to identify mental illness at an early stage so it can be treated. We are also establishing a National Cannabis Control and Prevention Centre for $14½ million to do a whole raft of tasks—to coordinate research, to coordinate campaigns and to provide a focus particularly for highlighting the links between cannabis and mental illness and to shine a light on cannabis in a way that has not been done in the past.
I have already talked about the substantial increase in funding for suicide prevention in the budget. Although every suicide is a great tragedy, over the last 10 years there has been a quite dramatic drop in the number of suicides in this country. The rate has dropped by 23 per cent since 1997, when the number of registered suicides was 2,720. In 2004, there were 2,098 suicides registered. That is a dramatic drop in the number of suicides in Australia. Particularly amongst young people the statistics are very encouraging. We have obviously particularly targeted young people as part of the National Suicide Prevention Strategy. In 1997, youth suicide peaked at 509 deaths. In 2004, that dropped to 265 deaths. It almost halved in that period of time. I am sure the issue of suicide prevention is a bipartisan one in politics in Australia. All sides would welcome the obvious impact that the government’s strategy is having on reducing suicide.
There are three other areas of my portfolio responsibilities that I would like to touch on briefly. The national priority of dealing with asthma is having some impact after some years of putting resources into trying to reduce the prevalence of asthma. The death rate attributable to asthma has significantly declined since its peak in 1989. In 1989 there were 736 deaths from asthma and in 2004 there were 311 deaths attributable to asthma. When government turns its attention dramatically to an area, puts resources into it, puts together a plan and work with GPs, schools and others to roll out programs, it can have an impact. To have more than halved the number of deaths attributable to asthma is a great achievement, and that has occurred under both Labor and Liberal governments.
As part of the budget, we also pledged $5 million to a new industry project called DrinkWise. As part of the alcohol industry’s attempt to reduce the abuse of alcohol, they have established with the community an organisation called DrinkWise, and we have pledged $5 million to DrinkWise. People involved in alcohol are part of the board of DrinkWise—Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia, or DSICA; the Winemakers Federation; the Australian Associated Brewers; and companies like Lion Nathan. The board is made up of representatives of both the alcohol industry and the community. People such as John Saunders, Peter McCarthy, John Dwyer, Father Chris Riley, and Trish Worth, the former member for Adelaide, are members of the board of DrinkWise. It is a genuine attempt by the alcohol industry to address concerns and to make a difference with respect to the abuse of alcohol in the community. I welcome that, and I am delighted to have been able to deliver a substantial injection of funds into that organisation to give it an opportunity to start making a real difference in the community.
Finally, one other area of responsibility I have as the parliamentary secretary is the trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency agreement with New Zealand. I am happy to say that we are making great progress in bringing the TGA in Australia and Medsafe in New Zealand together to form the first trans-Tasman regulatory agency. I am very confident that it will be up and running by September 2007, or the second half of 2007. We have very recently publicised the rules that would go with such a joint regulatory agency for industry consultation. Industry consultation is very important as part of this process, because it will be up to the industry to implement the quite complicated arrangements for a trans-Tasman regulatory agency. It will be a template for arrangements for other regulatory agencies of its kind between New Zealand and Australia. I am delighted that Annette King, the New Zealand Minister of State Services, and I have been able to continue what has at times been a tricky negotiation process but one that does seem to be reaching an important period of fruition. I am sure the industry and consumers will be the better for it. I thank the chamber.
I rise to speak today on the appropriation bills for the 2006-07 budget. The budget will appropriate $42 billion to the Department of Health and Ageing, with significant amounts going to the roll-out of commitments associated with the Council of Australian Governments health agenda announced earlier this year. There are also allocations related to the Howard government’s pre-announced changes to the private health insurance system and the sell-off of Medibank Private.
Last year’s budget administered a $1.3 billion cut to health. On the surface this budget appears different, with a new amount of $3.2 billion allocated across the forward estimates. However, if you scratch the surface we can reveal that this budget confirms what is already well known to those who work in the sector and those who rely on the health system to get well and to stay well. Scratching beneath the surface of this year’s health budget reveals that although we are three years on in Minister Abbott’s tenure in the Health and Ageing portfolio, nothing has changed. Sadly, at a time when Australia is economically well placed to rebuild our health system, the budget again is a montage of preannounced measures, tangential agendas and piecemeal policies which add to the creaking mass of programs and items that make up our health system.
The budget confirms one thing and that is certainly this: over 82 per cent of the budget’s health measures are being driven and delivered by someone other than the minister for health, Tony Abbott. Sixty-two per cent of the total health budget is allocated to measures driven by the Council of Australian Governments—that is, to the additional health budget—and we know that the Council of Australian Governments has dragged the Commonwealth kicking and screaming to the health reform agenda table. Twenty per cent of the total new health budget is allocated to measures driven by the sale of Medibank Private, which has been the responsibility of the minister for finance ever since the Howard government realised that it was more important to fatten it up for sale than use it to deliver a more competitive and value-for-money private health insurance product.
You are probably wondering what the minister for health, Tony Abbott, does with all his time. I have been wondering that too, so I was happy to find out recently, with the help of his department, what the minister actually does do with his time as health minister. Recently, information received through a freedom of information request from the department of health confirmed what we already knew about this minister. He sees his job not as managing the health system but as managing the way his management of the health system is perceived.
In August 2003 the minister’s department commissioned the Wallis Group to undertake a series of surveys of the general public on the health system. Another consulting company, Campbell Research and Consulting, were involved in the preparation of the survey which took almost 18 months to complete and included development, approval, testing on focus groups and ‘cognitive testing workshops’. The first survey was not conducted until February 2005 and there were 10 surveys in all, from February to November 2005.
Some might argue: isn’t it a valid use of resources for a minister to conduct a survey of perceptions of the management of his portfolio if it can be used to make the system better? This might be true if the survey polled regular users of the health system, particularly in areas that are not already covered by the department’s own data collecting agency or the government’s own official source of statistics. But this survey asked about things like their access to services and doctors, which is already covered by the minister’s own departmental statistics on Medicare, his portfolio agency, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s data releases, the government’s own ABS, and labour market statistics from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.
The survey asked about the use of private health insurance and hospitals which, again, is already covered by the minister’s own portfolio agencies, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Private Health Insurance Administration Council and the government’s own ABS. The survey asked questions about the PBS—again covered by official sources from the department’s Medicare data and available from Medicare Australia’s website for free.
I am not so sure that the minister or his department were too interested in finding out the facts in any case. On close examination of the survey’s sample population we can reveal that the department explicitly excluded the frail aged and those who are too ill. Can you believe that from a survey on health? The sample also excluded most people who were from a non-English-speaking background. In the first month of the survey alone this had the effect of excluding 300 potential respondents who would undoubtedly have provided a more diverse range of views on their recent experiences with the health system.
How much did this exercise cost the health budget? Not only did it employ and divert valuable departmental resources over a period of almost three years; it cost $1.2 million, with this year’s annual departmental report undoubtedly set to disclose further information on consultancies employed to manage this process. The only point of this research was to assist with the minister’s spin doctoring. This is a shameful waste of time and resources. This is all about the image of the Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, and nothing to do with Australia’s health system.
The 2006-07 budget has confirmed the sale of Australia’s biggest not-for-profit private health insurance fund, Medibank Private. However, the budget fails to disclose how the sale will occur, whether this sale will be by trade sale or float and how the sale will impact on members of Medibank Private. The budget allocates $20 million to the Department of Finance and Administration to manage the sale of Medibank Private in this financial year. The fact that the sale costs are budgeted in this financial year confirms that the Howard government is prepared to sell off Medibank Private at any price. Scheduling the sale in this financial year will see Medibank competing against other major privatisations such as those of Telstra and the Snowy Hydro. Medibank Private will also be sold despite concerns about competition and that the sale will lead to higher private health insurance premiums.
With repeated premium increases well above CPI, private health insurers are failing to offer value-for-money products, and the situation may get even worse after the sale of Medibank Private. Selling Medibank Private will not guarantee greater competition. If Medibank Private is sold as one entity then there will be exactly the same number of private health insurers in the market as there was before the sale. If Medibank Private is bought by one of the bigger for-profit private health insurers then this will shrink the number of players in the market. If the trade sale sees the fund split up and sold in pieces then that too will shrink the number of players in the market.
Labor is opposed to this sale. Labor believes there is a role for a public, not-for-profit health insurer that can deliver quality and competing products, with its contributing members as the company’s main focus. Labor also believes that the Howard government owes it to the Australian people and, in particular, Medibank Private members to answer the following questions. How will the sale be structured? How will the sale affect existing members? How will existing members be reassured that premiums will not rise if Medibank Private becomes a for-profit fund by more than they would have had it remained as a not-for-profit fund? How will existing members be reassured that existing policies and claims will be honoured in the same way as they are currently? Does the cost of the sale include legal advice about whether the sale should be structured to return benefits to members? Does the cost of the sale include the legal costs of defending a class action from members whose contributions have built up the fund?
Labor is also concerned that additional funding for medical research announced as part of the sale of Medibank Private will be conditional on the sale of Medibank Private. In Budget Paper No. 2 there is a $500 million commitment over four years for health and medical research and a $170 million commitment over nine years for research fellowships. However, each measure has the following caveat:
This commitment follows the Government’s announcement ... to sell Medibank Private Limited ...
If medical research is an investment that will bear fruit for technological and health advancements and deliver dividends to our economy, it should not be linked to the sale of an asset, particularly when around 64 per cent of Australians are completely opposed to the sale of Medibank Private. The Howard government and indeed the finance and health ministers have yet to explain whether delivering any of the new money for medical research is contingent on the sale of Medibank Private.
The Minister for Health and Ageing has also tried to bury a series of health cutbacks in the budget paper. Under the boasts of increased health spending lie cutbacks which will hurt average Australian families. The biggest cut is a cut of $260 million to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The budget refers to the cut as a ‘parameter variation’, but this means that budget estimates on PBS spending have been cut because fewer sick Australians are filling prescriptions than was originally expected. Whilst the government has tried to use a series of explanations for this fact—including most recently, and ridiculously, a claim that public holidays in the reporting period affected the statistics—it has provided no real explanation as to why there are fewer sick Australians filling prescriptions than was originally expected.
This continues a long series of cuts to the health budget, including $1.3 billion from the PBS last year and $500 million from Tony Abbott’s ‘rock solid, ironclad’ Medicare safety net. The government’s attacks on the PBS have made essential medicines increasingly unaffordable for many sick Australians. As a consequence, we can expect more hospital admissions and greater health care costs in the future. Despite claims by the Treasurer that the cost of the PBS was skyrocketing and urgently had to be reined in, the growth rate of the PBS has dropped below two per cent. Official government data shows that, over the 2005-06 financial year to date, PBS spending has grown by just 1.6 per cent.
The budget also makes cuts to the government’s 2004 so-called Strengthening Medicare program, which in the run-up to the election campaign was touted with an advertising campaign which cost $20 million. Neither the workforce measures nor the bulk-billing incentive measures for concession card holders and children, which were key aspects of Strengthening Medicare, have been funded beyond 2009. This proves that Strengthening Medicare was nothing more than a pre-election con, just like Tony Abbott’s ‘rock solid, ironclad’ guarantee about the Medicare safety net.
Other cuts include $1.5 million ripped out of the More Doctors for Outer Metropolitan Areas measure and $6 million ripped out of the Better Access to Radiation Oncology program. The Treasurer and the health minister want us to believe that their brutal PBS cuts are necessary if new medicines are to be listed on the PBS. More than two months ago, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee approved two new long-lasting insulins for PBS listing, Lantis and Levemir. Despite the enormous benefits these medicines will provide to diabetics, the minister is yet to take them to cabinet for final sign-off.
More than 15 months ago, the PBAC approved Enbrel for the treatment of small groups of patients with crippling psoriatic arthritis. Again, the minister is yet to take this to cabinet. Women with breast cancer are waiting anxiously to see whether the PBAC will approve Herceptin at its July meeting, but they might wait even longer for the minister to ensure this drug is listed on the PBS. There is also evidence that for two years the minister for health has been sitting on recommendations by an expert subcommittee of the PBAC for expanded PBS access to cholesterol-lowering drugs, particularly for people with diabetes. These drugs are now off patent. Expanding their PBS listing would be very affordable and would have massive health benefits in preventing heart disease.
The minister’s failure to respond to this expert advice has frustrated doctors to the extent that 17 top specialists have personally written to the minister to urge him to act within his ministerial responsibilities in a timely manner so that those patients whose health and finances suffer because their medicines are not listed on the PBS are not unduly affected by his incompetence. But the minister has form on failing to respond to expert recommendations, as his rejection of the ATAGI recommendations for childhood vaccines for pneumococcal disease, chickenpox and polio showed.
Minister Abbott should stop playing politics with the PBS and do his job, so that the PBS continues to provide affordable medicines to those who want to manage their chronic conditions so that they can get on with their work and their family commitments. What on earth could be more important than that? The minister for health should be concentrating on fixing our health system and building the health system of the future, a health system which will be prepared for an ageing population. This budget could have delivered so much and it has simply failed to do so.
It certainly should have delivered after-hours medical services to take pressure off emergency departments. Right around the country, particularly in outer suburban and in regional areas, emergency departments are under pressure night after night because there is nowhere else for people to go if they have a health problem outside ordinary hours. This has been driven by the medical workforce crisis that the Howard government has exacerbated with its early cutbacks to medical training. It is a problem created by the Howard government and it is a problem that should be fixed by the Howard government. Of course, it remains unfixed.
This budget should have reinstated the Commonwealth Dental Scheme, to get the 650,000 Australians waiting an average of two years for dental care off waiting lists. Before we hear any absurd claims that this is not a Commonwealth responsibility, pick up a copy of the Australian Constitution. And, before we hear any absurd claims that this is the fault of state Labor governments, recognise that every state Labor government has expanded investment in dental schemes. This budget should have redesigned and invested in our medical workforce supply and distribution systems, and it should have reformed the relationship between the Commonwealth and state governments to reduce waste, stop buck-passing and end blame-shifting in our health system.
Access Economics has supported Labor’s view that Tony Abbott has failed to deliver an agenda for the future of the Australian health system and has squandered an opportunity to build a reformed health system with a focus on prevention and early intervention which would meet the needs of average Australian families. An Access Economics report describes the Howard government as ‘slow moving’ and explains that the government has ‘passed up opportunities to improve health outcomes’ and is ‘ducking’ areas like obesity and increasing pressures on public hospitals.
In conclusion: in respect of health, the 2006-07 budget is full of hidden cuts and simply squanders the opportunity to fundamentally reform our health system and invest in creating a much better health system for the future.
Last year we welcomed and passed a budget which delivered on over 10 years of strong economic management. Importantly, the 2004-05 budget delivered on our 2004 election commitments. Last year we fulfilled our promises, while this year we are delivering the fruits of the coalition government’s strong economic management and securing our future. This year, billions of dollars in tax cuts over the next four years and additional benefits for carers, seniors and families in our communities are the dividends of the coalition government’s strong economic performance. Major reforms to income tax and superannuation, bonus payments for families, carers and seniors and increased investment in our roads will help to continue Australia’s growth and prosperity.
Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for being parochial, but I believe it is also important to put this budget into the context of what it will mean for my electorate. Members may be aware that, as a result of the Hawke and Keating Labor governments, in 1996 unemployment in my electorate of Braddon, which encompasses north-west Tasmania, was around 11 per cent. The outlook was bleak and clouded and the region was stagnant, with our young people moving away to find employment. Now unemployment is around six to seven per cent. There is a skills shortage. Our young people have a future, with business development and sound economic growth.
I have said before that regional Australia is the first to feel the effects of an economic downturn and the last to recover. Tasmania, and in particular the north-west coast, was hit hard by the economic mismanagement of the previous government. ‘The recession we had to have’, high unemployment and high interest rates left not only my electorate but regional Australia reeling.
Over the past 10 years, the Howard government has turned around the national economy, and gradually regional Australia has begun to show the benefits. Direct assistance in the form of such programs as Sustainable Regions, though much maligned by those on the other side of this House, has provided added impetus for jobs growth where it is most needed. In the last few months I have had the privilege of announcing funding projects which are creating many new jobs in my region. For example, who would have thought, 10 years ago, that a milk cooperative in Burnie, Tasmania, would have the confidence to diversify into premium aged single malt whisky? But they have.
Whisky Tasmania, a subsidiary of Betta Milk, will soon be releasing the first bottles of what I am sure will become known as Australia’s finest whisky. And I am proud to say that the coalition government has been there to assist, providing more than $800,000 through Regional Partnerships and the Sustainable Regions Program. This funding is assisting Whisky Tasmania to get its product out on the shelves sooner and to open a visitor interpretation centre, which I am sure will become a major new tourist attraction. But, most importantly, the funding is expected to help create more than 20 new jobs—and they are full-time jobs. This project demonstrates much about the north-west of Tasmania and about how the coalition government is working to assist and develop regional Australia.
The benefits of strong economic growth, low interest rates and low unemployment have filtered down from the national level into our regions. In addition, the coalition has provided direct assistance to help our regions get back on their feet. In north-west Tasmania, we are seeing the benefits of the up to $12 million committed to our region under the Sustainable Regions Program. Myriad projects have been approved totalling well over $11 million, and they are already delivering results in the community, including world-class research and development in the agriculture and fishing sectors.
This year’s budget will continue to build on the coalition government’s achievements for regional Australia over the past decade. I believe the income tax cuts in my electorate will inject another $25 million into the local community in the next year alone. Based on north-west Tasmania’s average taxable income of $35,000, the tax cuts will deliver $25 million, if not more, in savings in the coming year for our region’s more than 38,000 taxpayers. This is admittedly an estimate but, if anything, it is a conservative estimate. If we base our estimate on population share then the real value of these tax cuts to the north-west community could well be much higher. Low-income owners, of whom there are many in my electorate, will particularly benefit, with a saving of some $1,011 a year, or almost $39 a fortnight, for those on an average annual wage of $25,000, thanks to a 27.8 per cent cut in the effective tax rate.
Families, seniors and carers will all benefit. Figures provided by the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs illustrate that the 2006 budget will deliver for thousands of north-west families, carers and seniors. Some 2,400 north-west Tasmanian families with three or more children are expected to benefit through the extension of the large family supplement. Those who care for others will also benefit from the one-off bonus payment due to be paid by the end of next month. The around 800 recipients of the carer payment will also receive a $1,000 bonus, while the 2,001 recipients of the carer allowance in my electorate will receive $600.
As many as 100 north-west farmers who have lived on their properties for 20 years or more will benefit substantially from the removal of their farms from the pension assets test. This means that they will not be forced to sell their farms to receive the age pension when they retire. I know this measure will be enthusiastically welcomed by many in the north-west community, given our ageing rural population, but also throughout regional and rural Australia.
Older Australians will also benefit, with approximately 12,000 seniors in my electorate expected to benefit from a one-off bonus payment of $102.80 to recipients of the utilities and seniors concessions allowances. Around 1,900 families will also benefit, with an average increase of $9.60 a fortnight due to the change in the family tax benefit part A threshold. These figures confirm the strength of the coalition government’s support for families, carers and seniors.
At the same time as putting money back into the pockets of north-west Tasmanians, this budget will deliver better and safer local roads throughout our region. Members may be interested to know that Tasmania is the only state where the Australian government spends more on road infrastructure than the state government. Given the enormous windfall that the Tasmanian Labor government is pocketing in GST revenue, this illustrates their mismanagement of road infrastructure. Tasmania once led the nation on road safety but, sadly, today we are followers. Not only is our state government stale on new road safety initiatives, it is also ignoring its responsibilities for maintaining safe modern roads, and one struggles to comprehend where we might be without the federal government’s assistance. In contrast to the state government, the Australian government is to provide a massive boost through the 2006 budget for road infrastructure. In my electorate another $18 million has been allocated in this year’s budget for duplication of the last 5.5-kilometre section of the Bass Highway between Burnie and Devonport. Work on stage 2 of the more than $70 million project which involves the construction of a second bridge over the Leven River is expected to start in August.
Municipalities with large local road networks are big winners from this budget. In Tasmania local councils will receive an additional $10 million in Roads to Recovery funding for the remainder of this financial year, a sum equal to that allocated for the coming year. Almost $4½ million has been allocated to the seven local councils in Braddon under the Roads to Recovery program, twice the amount provided in last year’s budget. The government not only will maintain funding under Roads to Recovery to assist our councils to upgrade their local roads but will also deliver supplementary funding equal to their annual allocations. This is a major win for local councils and will assist in the maintenance and upgrading of country roads throughout the north-west.
Roads to Recovery is one of the Australian government’s most successful programs because the councils determine the priorities and the Howard government provides funding to assist with this work. The extra funding provided in the budget will allow north-west councils to carry out works on roads which otherwise may not have been attended to for at least another year, if at all. I know that our local councils will be excited by the bonus funding and I am sure that it will assist to deliver safer roads across the coast. The great success of this program is that the funds are invested directly by the councils. There is no state government bureaucracy to contend with. The councils decide on their priority projects and get on with the job.
Roads to Recovery funding was in addition to the almost $1.7 billion provided to local councils by the Liberal government through general purpose and local road grants. For 2006-07 Tasmanian councils will share in some $27.6 million in general purpose and $27.3 million in local roads funding, a 3.3 per cent increase over the current year. North-west councils will also be able to continue to apply for funding under the AusLink black spot program for urgent safety improvements on roads where there has been a history of accidents. Through Roads to Recovery, local road grants and the black spot program, the Australian Liberal government is helping local councils deliver safer roads throughout the region.
The Burnie and Devonport airports will also be among the beneficiaries of the great economic recovery that this government has been able to achieve, with the five regional airports sharing in $1½ million to improve security. While this additional funding has been widely welcomed, it has not stopped Labor from misleading the public, particularly in my electorate, over airport security. Labor has tried for some time to mislead the north-west community into believing that the Australian government funds the provision of passenger screening at our major airports. The truth is that in all the major airports where passenger screening is required it is the owners of those airports that are responsible for this security measure and, presumably, they pass on the cost to airlines which then pass it on to passengers. All airports operating jet aircraft are required by legislation to provide passenger screening. Labor wants us to extend this requirement to the more than 150 non-jet airports around Australia, including Burnie and Devonport, despite the fact that a security assessment has found this to be unwarranted. If Labor had its way the cost would be carried by the airport owners, who would then pass it on to the airlines and ultimately onto passengers through higher fares. This would have the potential of undermining the viability of both the Burnie and the Devonport airports and, indeed, many regional airports around Australia and would have immense ramifications for regional Australia.
The Australian government is also taking major steps to address skill shortages in Australia. With the announcement of 25 new Australian technical colleges around the country, the government is creating a new way of skills based learning. These new colleges are about taking industry to education—a direct contrast to the old method of taking education to industry. This new method of skills based training will put industry in control of the skills that apprentices will learn, so that a graduating qualified tradesperson will have up-to-date skills which are relevant to their industry. I am proud to be able to say that there will be a campus in Burnie in north-west Tasmania. Through this college we will be able to provide industry led training to give our young people the skills that are needed for local industry.
I fought hard for a campus of the Australian Technical College Northern Tasmania to be located in the north-west, because this region is one of Tasmania’s major industry hubs. With major engineering, manufacturing and construction industries located in north-west Tasmania, skills based training is paramount to the growth of such industries. The Australian technical colleges will bring together the know-how of industry, the experience of local training providers and the expertise of educators to help meet skill shortages. In addition to completing years 11 and 12 school studies, students at the colleges will learn a trade and will be well advanced in their apprenticeship by the end of year 12. This will be a great step forward in skills based learning for Australia’s industries and their future growth.
The strength of the Australian economy over the past 10 years can be identified by: record low unemployment with the creation of some 1.7 million new jobs over the past 10 years; record low interest rates, which have enabled more and more families to purchase their own homes and businesses to expand, grow and develop; an increase in real wages of over 16 per cent, which is a dramatic comparison with the 1.2 per cent real wages growth under 13 years of the Hawke and Keating Labor governments; and a steady inflation rate of around two to three per cent, which has allowed price increases to be kept low and businesses to get on with the job of investing in capital projects.
As per the figures from the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics report, the gap between the nation’s rich and poor has narrowed as a result of the Australian government’s family tax benefits. This report found that the mean weekly incomes of low-income earners grew faster than those of middle- and high-income groups over the past 10 years. The mean weekly income of low-income earners rose some 22 per cent between 1994-95 and 2003-04, while the weekly wages of high-income earners rose by 19.3 per cent. The closing of this gap indicates that government policy is supporting and lifting low-income earners to a higher standard of living.
From 1 July 2006, the increase in income tax thresholds will be: the 15c rate up to $25,000, the 30c rate up to $75,000, the 40c rate up to $150,000, and the 45c rate for income over $150,000. Across these estimates, more than 80 per cent of taxpayers will now have a top marginal tax rate of only 30 per cent. Only two per cent of taxpayers will be affected by the top marginal tax rate from 1 July 2006.
These figures speak for themselves. The latest budget is projected to have a surplus of some $8.9 billion for 2005-06, with estimated continued surpluses of some $7.9 billion in 2006-07, $8.5 billion in 2007-08, and $9.3 billion in 2008-09. Australia is now a world leader in economic management—a stark contrast to the financial predicament Australia was in some 10 years ago, when we had a record number of bankruptcies and families losing their homes because of extraordinarily high interest rates.
In summary: what a difference between two eras. Through the 1980s and early 1990s under the Hawke and Keating Labor governments, we had doom and gloom, record high unemployment, record high interest rates, high inflation, a $96 billion debt and a country suffering from gross mismanagement. One should reflect and compare that era to the last 10 years of the Liberal-National coalition government, which has seen prosperity, record low unemployment, the lowest interest rates in decades, low inflation and Labor’s $96 billion debt paid off. The country has weathered the Asian financial meltdown, the burst of the information technology bubble and the instability of the Middle East. Australia is our lucky country and we as Australians have much to look forward to under a Liberal-National coalition government.
In dealing with the appropriation bills, I want to compliment the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs for some decisions he has taken since coming into the portfolio and for his preparedness to review previous attitudes and venture where some previous government ministers dared not go. I appreciate his recognition of and support for the great work done by Jim Bourke and his team on Operation Aussies Home. I also appreciate his support for the veterans of Rwanda. I also think the setting aside of funds in the budget, as per the request I put to the minister earlier this year in the parliament, to help Vietnam veterans commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan is a worthy initiative. It remains to be seen, however, how these funds will be spent.
I also want to express my appreciation to the ALP spokesman on veterans affairs, Alan Griffin. Alan has been like a breath of fresh air in the portfolio area and he has picked up the issues quickly. Indeed, he led on the Rwanda issue and placed the government in a position where it had no option but to follow and to recognise service in Rwanda. So I say: well done to the ALP spokesperson on veterans affairs—well done, Alan. I encourage Alan in his duties as shadow minister and place on the record my support for the work he is doing. I also recognise that we have a long way to go and a lot of work to do if we are going to rebuild the support and trust of the veteran community. The ALP recognise this and we are keen to get on with the job. The government also have a long way to go, but I doubt that they recognise this. They still seem to me to take the veteran community for granted.
I want to refer to some budget comments which have come from within the veteran community. The first of these comes from the Vietnam Veterans Federation under the heading ‘Here is the great disappointment, the great failure of the 2006 federal budget’. In their dot points, they say:
None of the long standing, substantial injustices suffered by the war veteran community was addressed.
No acknowledgment that the TPI pension has lost over $80 in value since 1997 when the government omitted to reindex the TPI in the same way it reindexed the Age, Service and war widows. No move either to reindex the whole of the TPI pension to stop it continuing to lose value compared with community incomes.
No move to solve the cyclical hiatus of General Practitioners and Medical Specialists refusing to accept the Gold Card.
No mention of funds to conduct the health study on the sons and daughters of Vietnam veterans despite the Minister having received a scientific report confirming its feasibility.
No move, either, to remove the age limit of 36 for the sons and daughters of Vietnam veterans seeking counselling at the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service.
No move to change the immoral practice of forcing war veterans to financially contribute to the treatment of their war caused disabilities through the continually increasing pharmaceutical co-payments.
No move, either, to stem the declining value, compared with community incomes, of veterans’ military superannuation (DFRDB etc). So many veterans retiring as they did from the Services at young ages, watch their standard of living slide further and further behind that of the general community.
In summary, the 2006 Federal Budget has badly failed war veterans and their families.
It is signed by Tim McCombe. Tim is the President of the Vietnam Veterans Federation and is a Vietnam veteran. The other issue I want to refer to in the same vein is a media release put out immediately post the 2006 Costello budget. It is under the heading ‘The Howard government budget 2006 has forgotten TPI veterans’ and it says:
While the Howard Government continues to produce record budget surpluses their mean spirited attitude towards veteran’s remains. Through an unfair indexation system not experienced by other government pensions, TPI veterans have lost $80 per fortnight in the last 6 years. Unlike other pensioners, TPI’s will see their compensation for loss of income due to their service related disabilities continue to be eroded and result in a lowering of the standard of living for them and their families.
Veteran’s advocates across Australia are complaining of a tightening up of the granting of disability pensions by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs. On the Government’s own figures there has been a reduction of 8% in the number of disability pension increases across Australia in the last four years. This at a time when veterans are getting older and sicker. The day to day experience of many veterans reflects a Government, a Department and a Repatriation system that is becoming increasingly tighter and failing to meet the needs of veterans and their families. At the same time we have a government continuously prepared to put servicemen and women in harms way but turn its back on them when they need help as a result of their service.
The dissatisfaction of the ex-service community with the Howard Government has been apparent for some years. In 2001 and 2003 there were peaceful demonstrations by veterans outside parliament house—something unheard of in the past. There has been hundreds of letters and submissions sent to government only to be ignored. An organization has been formed of the Partners of veterans because they have not been listened to. The Clarke Review of veteran’s entitlements attracted over 3000 submissions and again they were ignored. ... On ANZAC Day we had groups of frustrated veterans marching wearing orange ribbons as a sign of their frustration with the Howard Government. Even though the TPI Federation has 15,000 members consisting of the country’s most disabled veterans, the office of the PM refuses to speak to me.
The TPI Federation is now continuously under pressure from sick veterans to organize another major protest rally against the government. Prime Minister John Howard should be ashamed of his Government’s handling of veterans issues. Veterans and their families are simply not important to the Government.
Those two critiques of the budget do give some reflection of the frustration and anger that is building in the veteran community, particularly in the ranks of the TPI veterans, many of whom are indeed needy and many of whom are simply watching their standard of living shrink in comparison with that of the rest of the community.
I have a very high regard for the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the TPI Federation for the work that they do. I do not agree with all that they pursue or all of their policy positions. However, I recognise that they are fearless in their pursuit of veterans’ issues and that they put the welfare of their members first. They are not afraid to take on ministers—or, indeed, shadow ministers, for that matter—when they reckon that that minister is wrong. However, it is disappointing that the Prime Minister refuses to meet with the national president of the TPI association. There are many in the veteran community who feel that if the national president had been a brigadier, colonel or some other high rank he would have had no problem getting in to see the Prime Minister. But of course the national president of the TPI association was a warrant officer. I would hope that that suggestion is not true but, as I said, it is a disappointment that the national president of the TPI association cannot get a meeting with our Prime Minister.
The other issue that I want to turn to relates to the recent announcement of the ADF medal—an issue which has been going on ever since the announcement of the national service medal some years ago. I want to quote a letter that I have received from a squadron leader—a letter which he has also written to the minister. I do not intend to quote all of it, but I do intend to quote some of it, because it really reflects the high volume of correspondence that is coming across my desk and the desks of other members of parliament and it reflects some of the issues that are generating some bitterness within the current and former serving veteran community. This former squadron leader says:
As an ex veteran who has served in both the Regular Army and the RAAF I am very concerned about the changes recently made to the criteria for the issue of the Australian Defence Medal (ADM) that now allows National Servicemen to also be eligible for this medal without having to have completed a period of Voluntary Service that was applicable at the time.
… … …
The ADM was initially proposed in 2004 and was to be for Volunteers only. The original medal sample had printed on it ‘For Volunteer Service’ and the criteria was for Regular Volunteers and service was to be no less than six years.
The criteria for the ADM was changed in 2006 following complaints raised in regards to periods of enlistment that Volunteers could initially sign on for and to cater for personnel discharged on medical grounds, died whilst serving or were discharged due to Government policies at the time (e.g. servicewomen who married whilst still serving in the armed forces).
The things mentioned in the last paragraph were part of the ALP policy right from the word go. We recognise those things because of the very involved consultation that we had with the veteran community. I was very pleased when the government, I think under Minister Brough, adopted those ALP policy positions and put them into their amended policy. However, the policy was amended even further, but I will come to that shortly.
This squadron leader says in his letter to the current minister:
I would appreciate if you can answer the following questions:
I think that is a fair question.
I think that is a fair question.
Finally:
He goes on to say:
I look forward to your comments and an early reply.
I hope that the minister will respond to that letter. I and the ALP welcome any recognition for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force. We are disappointed that, while the government accepted much of our policy in relation to the issues I have already mentioned, they did not adopt our whole policy. Since the most recent criteria for the ADM were announced and since the rush to get medals into the community around Anzac Day, there has been much complaint. Indeed, there has been bitter complaint about the policy and the change that the government made to its amended criteria without any apparent consultation with the broader veteran community.
I do not want to see the veteran community tear itself apart over these criteria. During the Vietnam era, national servicemen and regulars worked together, supported each other and were as one. I say this to the veteran community: we must stay as one. I would encourage anyone eligible for the medal to apply for it and to wear it with pride. I certainly understand the angst particularly surrounding the awarding of the medal to three- and six-month national servicemen of the fifties and sixties, when today the serving infantry have to complete four years to be eligible for that same medal. I might say that that is four years of fairly heavy operational service, if the current tempo continues. You can see the differences in criteria in terms of length of service, and you can understand why there is some bitterness over this decision. But, as I said, the veteran community of national servicemen and regulars served as one; we should stay as one.
The government have made their decision, and it appears to me that we are now stuck with it. I do not see how it could be changed retrospectively perhaps a couple of years down the track. What is still required, however, is distinct recognition of volunteer service within the Australian defence forces. I can assure the veteran community that the ALP will be consulting with them in the near future to ensure that their voice is heard on the issue. It may well be that what we need to do is look at the idea of a clasp which recognises volunteer service and which could be worn on the most recent ADF medal. National servicemen certainly have their commemoration medal. They are recognised. It was a good move. It was a move supported by the opposition of the day. But there is without doubt a need to now end the division within the veteran community and ensure that, quite distinctively, volunteer service is recognised.
I say this in conclusion. Setting aside the issue of the criteria, there are still big problems being experienced by people putting in for the medal. I am in receipt of a letter from the Injured Service Persons Association, which points out a number of anomalies within the process of these medals being applied for and being either awarded or rejected. They have set out a number of examples where the same sorts of people have applied for the medal and one has been rejected and another has been accepted. This sort of stuff just cannot continue. When it came to medals, we used to be able to laugh at the Yanks. But we in Australia can no longer laugh at the Americans, because we have our own problems with our medals and they are problems that need to be sorted out and rectified. The sooner that is done, the better off and more harmonious the veteran community will be.
I take this opportunity to discuss a number of issues on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007 and cognate bills. I commence this by saying that the 2006-07 budget has once again been well received by the Australian public, particularly by those in the electorate of Hume—which I represent. Of course, the majority of punters have welcomed the additional tax relief provided for in this budget, which delivers $36.7 billion back into the hands of hardworking Australians. I will read for the House part of the front page story which appeared in one of the Hume electorate’s local newspapers on 12 May 2006:
As a boy, East Bowral resident Simon Unwin remembers Federal Budgets as a time when the adults groaned about increases in taxes on various items.
These days, Budgets can be somewhat more positive, and Mr Unwin likes the look of Federal Budget 2006 in terms of income tax cuts.
Mr Unwin and his wife Jacqui live in East Bowral with their four children—Alyss, 13, Jessica, 11, Chelsea, 8 and Zachary, 4—so are slightly above the Federal Government’s new definition of a “large family”, reduced from four to three children.
Simon works as an engineer earning between $70,000 and $80,000 a year and Mrs Unwin is a stay-at-home mum.
Based on the Federal Government’s Budget, Mr Unwin will have $44 to $52 more in his pocket each week.
While the Unwins won’t be receiving anything extra in terms of family benefits, they’re happy with the extra cash they’ll have from tax cuts and are confident they’ll come out ahead, even with a mortgage and petrol costs.
“We’ve got a little bit more than we did and, even if we’re using it, we still have that little extra to use,” Mrs Unwin said.
“If we hadn’t got anything, it would have been harder.”
That really is the crux of it. Through its strong economic management, the Howard government has been able to give something back yet again to the Australian taxpayer. I take this opportunity to compliment not only the Prime Minister but, more importantly, the Treasurer not only for being able to deliver nine surpluses in the 10-year period of the Howard government but also for the magnificent work that they have done on behalf of taxpayers by paying out the $96 billion debt that the government inherited when it came into government in 1996. That has relieved the taxpayers of this country of the $6 billion in interest that was required to be paid each year on that debt. That $6 billion has now been freed up to be used in a very constructive way for the relief of various items centred around taxes. Of course, we will always have those who say it is never enough, but it is tax relief at a level which is affordable and sustainable. I am pleased we have been able to deliver it and deliver it responsibly.
I am also pleased we have been able to offer a helping hand to a group of people often neglected—our independent retirees. These are people who have worked hard their whole lives and saved so that they could ensure that they would not be a burden on taxpayers in their twilight years. The superannuation changes contained in this budget have been applauded by groups, including the Association of Independent Retirees. President of the Southern Highlands branch in the electorate of Hume, Sheila Ring, described the changes as ‘super’. She would not be alone in doing so. These changes will dramatically simplify superannuation and improve the retirement incomes of the more than 10 million Australians with superannuation accounts.
Another group I know that is very pleased with the 2006 budget is older Australians living on the land. The decision to amend the pension assets test for rural land-holders has been widely welcomed by farmers and rural residents in Hume. Many are eager to see full details of the changes, which come into effect in the new year. I must thank the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for his interest in this matter—a matter I have been raising with a number of my parliamentary colleagues, including the member for Gilmore, who sits in this place tonight, and with this government now for some two years. How we as a government could have allowed such imbalance to occur between home owners in our cities and those on the land is unfathomable.
It has concerned me for a number of years now that pensioners in rural areas were not treated in the same way as those in built-up areas when it comes to the age pension. For example, a person living in a $600,000 house in Mittagong has always been able to claim the pension because their home is exempt from the assets test. People living on rural acres, however, have only ever been exempted from the value of their home and the surrounding five acres, meaning many people have been forced to subdivide or to sell. This comes at a time in their lives when other stresses, such as their own health or caring responsibilities, are already present. It is an added burden our seniors do not need.
Also to benefit seniors, the government will provide $134.2 million over four years to continue capital assistance to aged care providers in rural and remote areas. The funding will and has facilitated the building, rebuilding, upgrading and extension of residential aged care infrastructure in rural and remote Australia to ensure these facilities conform to building and care standards. I know providers in the Hume electorate are already assessing their eligibility for this new funding.
For older people who do not have access to appropriate aged care, the government will provide $152.7 million over five years to improve care for older patients in public hospitals by enhancing in-patient services and the transition to appropriate long-term care, avoiding readmission to hospital and improving care services when people stay long term in smaller rural hospitals. Again, this is a measure which will have a very real impact on constituents in the Hume electorate.
Another budget announcement which has been highly praised in my electorate—and it is something I have been working to achieve since my days as a state member—is the decision for this government to fund the preliminary stages of the duplication of the Barton Highway between Canberra and Murrumbateman, including the Murrumbateman bypass. I am very pleased about that because I have always maintained that, as far as road funding is concerned, we should concentrate our efforts as governments on the issue at hand—road safety and the reduction of the deaths and mutilation on our roads and, more importantly, the sadness that those deaths and injuries bring to many families.
I had been frustrated, I must admit, since 1988 because I had not been able to convince members of this government, through former transport ministers, of the need for this funding. It was frustrating for me because political games were being played. Those political games have been played not only in relation to the Murrumbateman bypass but also in relation to the Hume Highway, so I was very pleased to see that huge package of $800 million going to the Hume Highway. I can recall that just after the 2001 election I made some critical comment about the need for us to put aside the politics of expediency and concentrate on the needs. It did not matter whether the roads that needed funding in the interests of saving people’s lives were in the electorates of Labor, Liberal, National or Independent members. If the need was there, we should have funded them.
It was frustrating from my point of view—after some 10½ years in the state parliament of New South Wales—to come into the federal parliament and make those comments about the Coolac bypass, the duplication of the Sheahan Bridge on the Hume Highway at Gundagai, the Tarcutta truck stop and the Hume Highway between Tarcutta and the Victorian border, and be told by a then staffer of one of the ministers of transport that I should not be making public comment about that and making policy on the run. I will not say in this House what I told that particular staffer. Members who have concerns about the deaths of people on roads should not be in a position where people can even attempt to gag them for saying what is publicly and painfully obvious.
The allocation of $20 million for the Murrumbateman bypass and the duplication of the Barton Highway will include $2 million next financial year for the completion of planning and design and the progression of property purchases. The construction of this road, which will of course require further significant AusLink funding once planning and land acquisition is complete, will go a long way to improving road safety in the Murrumbateman area and streamline access to Canberra for the many hundreds who commute to the city from Yass and the surrounding region each day. When this funding was announced, comments by the Yass shire’s mayor, Nic Carmody, on the front page of the Yass newspaper summed up people’s reaction to the news: ‘Finally, the Murrumbateman bypass is reborn.’
I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, Jim Lloyd, for his assistance in resurrecting the Murrumbateman bypass and Barton Highway issue and also the Prime Minister’s office, who have been willing to accept my repeated representations on this matter. I only hope we can now progress this project as quickly and with as little hindrance as possible through the community consultation and planning stages. Road safety is far too important for this project to be delayed any longer.
And, of course, I welcome the allocation of funding in this budget to provide a fairer child support system that is more transparent for both parents, places a greater emphasis on shared parental responsibility and is focused on the needs and costs of children. As members would know, I have been lobbying long and hard for these changes to child support, which will receive $877 million over five years. Most pleasing of all—perhaps even over and above the much awaited changes to the child support formula—is the fact that the package includes $146.6 million over five years to improve service standards and undertake significant cultural change at the Child Support Agency. I live in hope. At the end of the day, ironing out the anti-male bias which exists at the CSA will be one of the most fundamental changes undertaken. I do not make any apologies for saying that, because my records show that what I have just said is a matter of fact. I know families all over Australia are celebrating this package and looking forward to its full implementation.
In other areas this budget has also provided a real boost for the constituents of Hume. The announcement of 400 additional medical school places, putting more doctors into rural areas, is a budget measure vital to the long-term future of rural communities. This initiative is just part of new funding of $268.8 million over four years for an extra 2,020 new Australian government supported places in health disciplines, including nursing, clinical psychology and mental health nursing. It is a fact that we have a rapidly ageing medical workforce in regional areas, and it has concerned me for some time how we, as a government, could address that problem. This budget provides more than $60 million in extra funding over four years for an additional 400 places for first year medical students in Australian universities, many of whom will be bonded to rural areas. In communities such as Young in the Hume electorate, which suffers a critical shortage of skilled medical professionals, particularly GPs, this news has been warmly welcomed.
Still on education: I was reading the other day in a local newspaper the answers of three young people to the question: ‘How can more young people be encouraged to take up apprenticeships?’ Their answers were: ‘Make more apprenticeships available,’ ‘Up the pay a bit,’ and ‘The jobs need to be something where people can go in and actually do something, rather than just sit back and watch.’ I am very pleased that the Howard government is doing just that. We now have record numbers of young people in new apprenticeships, with almost 400,000 Australians in training, compared with 143,700 in December 1995. The New Apprenticeships Incentives Program provides a range of incentives to encourage employers to take on and retain new apprentices, as well as personal assistance incentives for new apprentices. Now we will provide $10.6 million over four years to extend the New Apprenticeships Incentives Program to new apprentices—and their employers—who are undertaking training in diploma or advanced diploma qualifications which are an entry level requirement for an occupation.
Employers of new apprentices in select diploma and advanced diploma apprenticeships will be eligible for a payment of $4,000 per new apprentice from 1 July 2006. Over the next four years up to 10,600 more employers of new apprentices will be eligible for the incentives for these higher level qualifications. We are also improving the situation for apprentices with funding of $53.5 million for national reforms in vocational and technical education to address the barriers to people taking up training opportunities, and to assist them to move into employment. It will also support a national approach to apprenticeships and alleviate skills gaps in the economy.
I am also pleased to see an additional $77.2 million allocated to the Regional Partnerships program in 2006-07. Regional Partnerships has already helped many hundreds of communities Australia-wide to strengthen growth and opportunities, to improve access to services, to create employment and to adjust during times of major change. This is particularly so in the regional areas, in the very severely drought affected rural areas of New South Wales and, in particular, the Hume electorate, where I am the representative.
It is heartbreaking to see the effect that this prolonged drought, the worst drought seen in a hundred years, has had on families and communities. I can say to you that the Regional Partnerships grants that have been allocated to communities to help them stimulate employment and attract visitors to their area combined with the water grants that have been made out there to allow people to sink bores and assist the community to continue offering sporting facilities in many of those areas have been welcomed with open arms by all of the rural communities that I represent. I know that those communities in the Hume electorate who have already received the funding are thankful for the leg-up it has provided. I look forward to working with communities in Hume and with their area consultative committees to put forward more projects eligible for support under the expanded program.
In closing, I want to say that in my lifetime this has probably been the most significant and the most beneficial budget that I have seen from any Treasurer, be it at state or federal level. It is very pleasing from my point of view to know that, because of the significant responsible management of the Howard government and the Treasurer, Peter Costello, we can look forward to more surpluses in the next two or three years and beyond. I think that the Australian public will understand that those surpluses have been as a result of the hard decisions that have been made by this Howard government and they will respond in the most appropriate way at the next election. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make these comments in this debate tonight.
I would like to take this opportunity on the appropriations bills to raise a number of issues. All of them are of interest to my electorate but one of particular interest is access to telecommunications, especially broadband access. I would like to spend quite a bit of time on that because it is an issue that is increasingly becoming a problem, despite my holding an inner-city seat in Melbourne. You might be surprised to know that, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, since you come from a regional area, but it is a very real issue for my electorate too. We often talk about the problems with broadband access and telecommunications and the digital divide being an issue just for regional Australia but, as you will see when I make my comments, this is actually a very real issue even for people that are only a few kilometres from the CBD. I would also like to touch on two issues of particular interest to my portfolio area, as the shadow Attorney-General, that relate to community legal centres and family relationships centres, and I will do that later.
I was very disappointed that in this budget there was no money at all dealing with expanding access to broadband internet across the country. There is no new money in this year’s budget for broadband technology that would link Australia to the rest of the world at the click of a button, no new money for broadband infrastructure that would place Australia at the cutting edge of developing information and telecommunications technologies and no new money for broadband infrastructure that would open up educational opportunities for our children. These things are of great concern to me, particularly the restrictions we might be placing on our children. Increasingly, the need for information and the internet as a research tool is becoming part of everyday schooling, but it is not yet part of everyday home access and facilities. It did not surprise me that there is not anything in the budget for this sort of change, because the tired old Howard government does not seem to be that interested in fresh ideas for Australia’s future. The government has failed to recognise the potential applications and uses for broadband technology and has left Australia lagging behind while our international competitors pass us by. Given the well-established significant social and educational benefits of home computer use and internet access, the neglect of broadband infrastructure is holding us back.
Recent overseas studies have shown that the presence of computers and internet use at home are strongly and positively associated with the academic outcomes of schoolchildren, particularly children from disadvantaged backgrounds. I think the Telstra ad that we see on television at the moment puts it quite well. A father is talking to his child. When the child asks about the Great Wall of China and why it was built, the father, a little bit flummoxed, says that he thinks it was built by ‘Emperor Nasi Goreng’ to keep the rabbits out. I think all of us can relate to that. The fear we have that, without the benefits of access to new and emerging telecommunications, we do not have the answers to questions that seem to be at everybody else’s fingertips is very real. We need to make sure that that father or anyone else in the community who is trying to help their child learn how to find out information, how to do research and how to get answers to questions will actually to be able to do so through the use of this modern technology that puts such a vast range of information at our fingertips.
Unfortunately, my electorate remains one of the most disadvantaged in metropolitan Melbourne in its telecommunications services. We know that access to information technology is critical in this day and age, and the lack of telecommunications infrastructure throughout Australia just serves to compound this disadvantage. We could be using broadband for interactive tutoring or internet training programs to close the digital divide. Instead, the government’s neglect has widened that divide. Business could be using broadband to process payments, maintain complex intranets, place or make orders overseas and save the hours wasted waiting for documents to download.
Broadband has amazing implications for the way Australia does business and engages with the rest of the world. Our geographic isolation means nothing when we can hold five meetings all over the world in one day via videoconferencing or download the latest DVD from America. Broadband holds great potential. It has already given us voice over internet protocol, which, if you can get effective broadband, makes STD calls obsolete. These kinds of innovative technologies could be developed in an Australian market if we had the infrastructure to support them. But, because of the Howard government’s self-serving preoccupation with selling Telstra, we do not.
The speed and price of broadband in Australia just does not stack up to what is available in comparable countries in the rest of the world. In Canada, the entry-level retail broadband plan is cheaper and offers six times the speed and 30 times the free monthly download capacity of an equivalent product in Australia. Clearly, the roll-out of broadband technology in this country is patchy at best, and that is not just in the bush. Without real government leadership on this issue, Australia will continue to be left behind countries like Canada or Korea, which has almost double the number of broadband subscribers per 100 people that Australia does.
In my inner-city electorate of Gellibrand, we have significant black spots in our broadband internet services. In suburbs that are less than 20 kilometres from the CBD, a number of houses and businesses cannot get broadband internet access at all. Altona, which is only 16 kilometres from the CBD, is clearly not rural, regional or the bush. It is part of the inner city of Melbourne. But the National Party tells us that the problems with the telecommunications services only happen in the bush. As a result, Gellibrand will not get a look in for the coalition’s $2 billion slush fund from the sale of Telstra. Particularly worrying to me is the fact that a number of small businesses, particularly in the industrialised parts of the Altona and Altona Meadows regions, cannot get access to broadband for their businesses. Numerous studies have shown us that the productivity gains to business of broadband internet are significant. How many wasted hours are spent in waiting for the new webpage to upload with a dial-up connection or in posting off invoices that could be sent by email in a second? It is businesses in my electorate that are suffering because of the lack of these services.
People in my electorate have been offered expensive wireless services or satellite broadband as an alternative to cable or ADSL, but the cost is prohibitive, and anecdotal evidence suggests that the service is patchy. The maximum speed for wireless internet is still only two megabytes per second, not enough to download any of the new video features that will be so important as this technology moves forward. While the take-up of broadband in Australia has increased over recent years, I am also concerned that, due to a lack of infrastructure, those in my electorate who are willing and able to take up this technology cannot and may even be disadvantaged by the low home internet use in the area, just as rural and regional communities are disadvantaged by the lack of infrastructure.
There is one family in my electorate with one child in primary school, another in secondary and the parents are running a business from home. They could be doing all of this much more efficiently if they could get access to broadband. Both their business and their children’s education suffer because of the second-rate broadband infrastructure in the area. This is of great concern to me because we still have significant pockets of educational disadvantage. We still have relatively high rates of youth unemployment and, although we are an industrialised region, we still have a shortage of jobs. This technology could be not only skilling our children for future jobs but making some of the businesses even more successful and able to employ more people. We are holding them back because of this lack of vital infrastructure.
The technologies that broadband make possible like voice over internet protocol that I mentioned before would also be invaluable to constituents in my electorate, many of whom come from non-English-speaking backgrounds and often have brothers, sisters, parents, husbands, wives and children overseas. The prospect of being able to speak to their loved ones over the internet whenever they want is surely an exciting one for them but it is not much use if access cannot be obtained. All these possibilities are being held back by the government, who had a lack of vision in this budget for our future in this regard. They have had 10 long years to bring this country up to speed, but in telecommunications they have failed.
Labor’s broadband plan for a joint venture to deliver a national broadband network will deliver internet speeds at least 25 times faster than the current industry benchmark and provide essential infrastructure to the business community. Superfast broadband is estimated by the government’s own broadband advisory group as having the potential to add $12 billion to $30 billion to national production every year. Not only will Labor’s plan provide the telecommunications services we need now; it will also lay the future foundations to adapt technologies as they develop by providing the necessary infrastructure. It will provide equal access to broadband internet in the city and in the regions and banish broadband black spots like those in my electorate.
It is a national investment that will set up the next wave of economic growth needed to secure the future of our children. The piecemeal and patchy services currently available do not meet Australia’s infrastructure needs for the 21st century and the needs of hundreds of people in my electorate. People in my electorate deserve access not only for their children to this sort of technology for their studies and future employment prospects but also for the businesses that they are trying to run today without these services.
Secondly, I want to turn to an issue that is of concern to me in my portfolio area—that is, community legal centres. Sadly, the budget does not contain any new funding at all for community legal centres. When I say it does not contain any new funding, it does not even have a CPI adjustment for the small amount of money that is allocated to community legal centres. They do an enormous amount of good work. They provide services to the community, ordinary families and ordinary working people, who may have problems with their neighbours, problems with the law, a dispute with Centrelink or a family dispute. All of those are reasons why people may need legal services but cannot afford them.
Community legal centres provide a free service, and often advice given early prevents people going to court in the future. These services provide enormous value to the community. They are under extraordinary pressure, and the government has not even indexed their meagre budget. On top of this, we have seen a huge legislative program from this government that is going to increase the amount of work that these community centres will need do to. Unfortunately, we believe this program is going to disadvantage millions of Australians by attacking their rights at work, introducing new rules in both family law and the welfare system and forcing more people to seek advice and remedies through the legal system. It is a shame that the budget could not see its way to indexing current community legal centre funding to cover the costs of inflation. This appalling neglect of CLC funding has led to a number of CLCs suggesting that they will have to reduce service hours to be able to cope with existing, let alone increased, demand.
The Howard government’s extreme industrial relations changes will increase the volume of people seeking legal advice on their employment contracts by encouraging individual contracts and reducing the role of the Industrial Relations Commission and trade unions in resolving disputes between employees and employers. Of course, this will have the result of workers having fewer places to turn to find advocates or even just information about their rights. Community legal centres will become one of the few resources left for working people to seek that advice free of charge.
By removing protection against unfair dismissals, the new laws will increase the number of people seeking a remedy for unlawful dismissals through the courts, which inevitably again means more work for CLCs. Put on top of that the Welfare to Work legislation, with its stringent and onerous reporting requirements for single parents and disability pensioners, and we are going to see an increase in the number of people seeking assistance to appeal decisions on their Centrelink payments or to have payments reinstated. Social security disputes already make up a large proportion of the workload of community legal centres, and this will only increase as Centrelink customers come to terms with the new laws.
Then there are the complex changes to family law which were passed earlier this year, not to mention changes to the child support system, which are also close upon us. These changes affect some of the key principles in determining residency and parenting arrangements and they also create new penalties for those who breach court orders. There is no doubt that these changes will increase the number of families that are seeking advice about how the changes might affect their arrangement. In fact, given that the government is planning a national advertising campaign about these changes, we should expect a flood of people walking into CLCs for advice and information. Even though—a matter that I will come to in a moment—the government is setting up new family relationship centres, those centres are expressly asked not to provide legal advice. There will, whatever happens, still be some people who will need legal advice, and the CLCs will be the places that people will turn to.
While the government is increasing all these pressures on families, single parents and anybody who is in the workforce, it seems to be intent on reducing access to free legal advice and assistance by systematically undermining the community legal centres. So it is very unfortunate, despite other things having been allocated money in this budget, that nothing has found its way to the community legal centres. They have been long suffering under the Howard government, and we have seen time and time again that the government has preferred to spend public money on private legal services and advice for itself, to the tune of more than $170 million each year, while the entire community legal centre program, which provides legal services free of charge to the broader Australian public, gets only $24 million each year. Surely we can allocate our money better than that.
On top of the pressures on the existing services, we have not got any new services in a number of areas that desperately need them. All of the indicators show that the electorates of Bendigo, Hindmarsh, Richmond, Cowper, Paterson, Greenway, Hinkler and Dobell are in great need of community legal centres. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, having a community legal centre in your electorate, would be very well aware of the good work that they do and the struggle that they have in trying to provide outreach services to those neighbouring electorates that do not have them. But again we see nothing in the budget that acknowledges (1) that the existing service is under pressure, or (2) that there are actually new growth areas that are not serviced and that need services and that the government will have to put some money into doing so.
I think it is also particularly important to note that some of the specialised services, like the Women’s Legal Service and the Aboriginal legal services, are not being adequately funded. In the current debate in which we have been dealing with questions of abuse and domestic violence in Aboriginal communities, we cannot simply talk about increased policing; we also need to talk about what other things might assist in increasing conviction rates and we need to look at how we provide support to victims, how we provide advice to victims and how we increase community education and awareness. All of these things are done regularly by community legal services and we should look at whether providing some further assistance to these services could also be part of our solution to what is a very serious problem.
We do need to support people in the Aboriginal communities that are prepared to speak out and want access to justice, and we should make sure that we provide them with support. So far, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has been ignoring the federal responsibilities that exist for providing some of this support and has been focusing just on territory and state responsibilities. But this neglected program is one that does help Australians of all colours and backgrounds to get access to justice when they cannot afford expensive lawyers fees, and we need to seriously revisit it.
In the short time remaining to me I want to also talk briefly about family relationship centres, because this is one of the programs that the government has allocated money to in the budget. We are pleased about and have supported the existence of these centres and we know that there is some extra money in the budget that has been allocated on top of the money in last year’s budget, because the roll-out is happening slowly. But that extra money has been allocated because new work is going to be given to the family relationship centres in addition to what was originally intended—that is, a big chunk of advice on child support matters, which is going to dramatically increase the work and expectations for these family relationship centres.
I am concerned that, despite the money being allocated and us broadly being supportive of the program, there are already signs that it is being mismanaged and that it has been plagued by political interference and bungling from the beginning. We recently obtained departmental advice that was given to the Attorney-General from FaCSIA on the areas most in need of these family relationship centres. To my surprise, the list that the Attorney announced significantly differs from the FRC locations that were recommended to the minister. The electorates of the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Assistant Treasurer, the Minister for Workforce Participation and even the Prime Minister were favoured when the government ignored departmental data to make sure that the centres were distributed on political grounds, not on the basis of need.
Two centres were ranked highly for Melbourne’s west—one in my electorate and one in the member for Lalor’s electorate, in Melton. We received only one, to be located in a neighbouring electorate. But, although only one centre was ranked as suitable in northern Sydney, they have magically received two, one in the Prime Minister’s electorate and one in the health minister’s electorate. It is of great surprise to me that the western suburbs of Melbourne were recommended to have two, they got one and we find that one of them has moved to the northern suburbs of Sydney, where all the indicators of need from FaCSIA—such as child support customers, single parent families and parenting payment recipients—rank very low.
I am concerned that although the Attorney says that there is no political bias, we are not able to see how these centres are being allocated on the basis of need. Even some of the electorates which do not have community legal centres, such as Bendigo, Richmond and Patterson, will not get family relationship centres. The neighbouring services will be under extraordinary pressure. We do not see sufficient money being allocated and we do not see the Attorney taking these issues seriously. (Time expired)
The issue that I wish to address in this speech is energy, or, more specifically, what steps we need to take to secure our energy future. As I stated when I opened the debate on nuclear energy in a speech in March 2005, the issue of our energy future is critical. Unfortunately, the opposition has chosen to take a path of simply opposing nuclear energy without evaluating the option to see whether its view actually has merit. To illustrate just how stupid the Labor position on this is, consider the following scenario: let us, for argument’s sake, consider that nuclear power is 100 per cent safe, that it costs absolutely nothing and that there is no waste whatsoever. Would Labor, in that instance, continue to reject nuclear energy? If it did then it would be clear to all that the Labor position was sheer Ludditism, that it was simple ideology gone mad.
If Labor did accept nuclear energy in the scenario outlined then the case for nuclear energy would have to be determined with regard to thresholds—in other words: what level of risk is acceptable? After all, everything in life has risk. What economic costs would be deemed acceptable?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.
Is the member for Tangney willing to accept the question?
No, I will continue with the speech.
With waste, how much, how long a life and what level of radioactivity would be acceptable? These are all questions that are worth asking, and they are questions that Labor rejects outright in its simple-minded world view that the ‘N-word’ is bad and never to be discussed in polite company. The fact is that the inquiry that the Prime Minister has called for will allow an evaluation of those issues and others.
Labor does not want to know the truth, which I guess is why it so strongly pushes social engineering in the guise of outcomes based education. Curriculum councils appear to think that science is something that should be taught in a social context, rather like one would analyse history. Labor clearly thinks that ‘right think’ is the way to go with this, and to hell with the facts. Imagine if we were considering the internal combustion engine 100 years ago. No doubt Labor’s position would be that we could drill three oil wells and export oil but none of those terrible, newfangled cars for us: ‘The horse and buggy will do us, thank you. They can use cars and oil overseas, but we cannot use it here.’ To take the analogy further: penny-farthing bicycles would be analogous to alternative energy. Labor would say, ‘Penny-farthings and horse and buggy would be acceptable, but no cars for us, thank you.’
Let us consider the three aspects that are relevant to this important energy source: safety, economics and waste. Regarding safety, as I mentioned in my speech last year, nuclear power is demonstrably the safest form of power generation. At present, only about 56 deaths can be attributed to Chernobyl. This is not the result of some study by some group with a vested interest. This is the result of a comprehensive study conducted under the auspices of the World Health Organisation. Consider the thousands of annual coalmining deaths and the probable millions who have died as a result of respiratory ailments due to coal-fired power. Consider the fatalities resulting from gas or hydroelectricity production, and it becomes clear that nuclear energy is very safe, even when you look at the history and take into account a substandard Soviet RBMK reactor.
However, for Australia, I believe that we should be using generation IV reactors, which are inherently safe. These reactors cannot melt down—due to the physics of the design of the reactor, not due to fail-safes appended to provide safety. As I said, with this generation of reactor, meltdown of the reactor core is impossible. This is not just theory; this was actually trialled with a pebble bed nuclear reactor. The coolant flow was stopped for a period of days, and all that happened was that the reactor temperature increased to about 1,200 to 1,400 degrees and stabilised there until the coolant flowed again. The reason that this is possible is that the energy density or energy per unit volume in these reactors is low, so they can never go supercritical.
There are added benefits of generation IV reactors. They do not require much water, so it is not necessary to site them near large sources of water. Effectively, they could be put anywhere in Australia. In reality, they would need to be close enough to their markets that transmission losses are not overly large. Most generation IV reactors also do not require enriched uranium, so the reserves of uranium would last about 50 times as long as it is assumed they will last for conventional reactors. It is significant that generation IV reactors, which will be modular in design, will allow small reactors to power smaller population centres and will allow multiple modules to be joined together at the site of larger power demand. So, while the antinuclear warriors believe that there would be only 20 years worth of high-grade uranium left if all the world’s electricity were generated using nuclear power, the reality is that current reserves, with generation IV technology, would last around 1,000 years, assuming no new reserves were found—clearly a ridiculous assumption. Nuclear power using generation IV reactors is extremely safe, and Labor should embrace the technology.
The economic side is put by some as a criticism. In fact, when you look at what is being considered, the economic argument is not a strong one. What this parliament needs to consider is whether to legislate to allow nuclear power generation. Economics should be left to the utilities which choose whether to use it or not. Interestingly, the fact that many in the antinuclear movement push this line so strongly indicates that they are concerned that the economics of nuclear energy do stack up.
Consider why this is so. Let us assume for a moment that their argument is correct—that the economics do not stack up; that nuclear electricity is too expensive. Why are they so concerned about legislation that would allow nuclear power generation? After all, using this scenario, no utility would build a nuclear power station. So whether enabling legislation was in place allowing nuclear power generation would be moot. Having said that, studies that I have seen, including an independent study recently commissioned by ANSTO, indicate that the economics do stack up—even for the current generation of reactors. Economies of scale with generation IV reactors will bring the price right down.
Then there is the issue of nuclear waste. This is a subject that is extremely sensitive to many people. There has been considerable misinformation put out on this issue. There has been a lot of talk of needing to have the waste stored under armed guard for a period of 250,000 years. This is unmitigated rubbish. This comes about due to negative elements stating that plutonium 239 has a half-life of 25,000 years and that you need 10 half-lives to be safe. This can be seen for the errant nonsense that it is by considering the following. Assume you have one atom of plutonium 239 in 10 tonnes of concrete. Does this 10-tonne block of concrete need to be stored for 250,000 years? Of course not.
The simple fact is that it is the radioactivity level of the entire high-grade waste element that needs to be considered. In that case, the radioactivity declines to a point where, in a little over 1,000 years, the radioactivity level of the fuel rods is about the same as the ore from whence it came. Alternatively, you could simply dilute the fuel rods by a factor of 1,000-10,000 to one and put it in the hole that it was dug from. This is largely the same ‘method’ that is used by coal-fired power stations with the multiple tonnes of uranium, thorium, cadmium, arsenic and lead that are put into the environment every year. With this 10 half-lives argument, consider naturally-occurring uranium. It has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. We had better put all the sites of uranium ore under guard for 45 billion years! This is clearly nonsense.
We have an ideal material in Australia to store radioactive waste: synroc. Synroc was developed as a result of the discovery of a natural nuclear reactor in West Africa in 1972. The way the uranium was distributed in the rock and the fact that there was water flowing, moderating neutrons, meant that a chain reaction occurred about 1.7 billion years ago. The interesting thing is that the high-grade waste was naturally stably stored in this rock for that time period. The late Professor Ted Ringwood of the ANU examined the rock structure and came up with a synthetic equivalent—‘synroc’, for synthetic rock—which will store high-grade radioactive waste for geological time periods. Not only that but also, if immersed in water, the leaching of radioactive material is one-tenth that of granite. Safe storage of nuclear waste is not a technical problem; the problem is one of political will.
As I said earlier, generation IV reactors in the majority of cases have the ability to use unenriched uranium. The waste from these reactors has far less volume than that from conventional reactors and the waste is short lived. It is safe to handle in 200 to 300 years. Furthermore, the depleted fuel rods from conventional reactors can be used as fuel for these generation IV reactors, meaning that these reactors can clean up the majority of the waste that is currently stored at various sites around the world.
In addition, generation IV reactors will provide a very useful stepping stone to thorium reactors, which will have very short-lived waste. The thorium cycle is proliferation proof; thorium is a lighter element than uranium. Australia, in addition to having the largest uranium reserves in the world, also has the largest thorium reserves in the world, and there is about double the amount of thorium compared to uranium.
Labor have been playing a scare tactic on the siting of nuclear reactors based on the left-wing Australia Institute study of proposed nuclear power plant sites. They believe that this will get them traction. I am going to completely disabuse them of that notion. On Thursday last week I was quoted in the West Australian as saying that I supported a nuclear power station in Tangney. This was repeated later in the West Australian on two occasions and in the Australian. The quote was taken out of context, but I did not worry about correcting it as I felt it might be interesting to see how the community really felt about nuclear energy.
Tangney is a small electorate and there is simply no space anywhere for a nuclear reactor. Given this, if Labor were correct with their fear tactic on this argument, you would think that my office would have been flooded with negative phone calls and emails and that my staff would have been totally snowed under by a mountain of comment. So how many negative communications did I get? I got two negative phone calls, one negative email and one protester outside my electorate office wearing an antiradiation suit. I would like to thank that protester for helping to raise the profile of both my electorate office and me. I telephoned the two people who had called the office and discussed the issue with them, and they are now both comfortable with the idea, having heard the facts on the issue.
Far from Labor’s scare tactic working and despite the Leader of the Opposition having the ludicrous idea that this is an idea that is going to wedge the government, the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to be a statesman and to consider our energy future with an open mind and not, as in the title of a recent movie, with eyes wide shut. If the Leader of the Opposition is unable to show leadership on this issue, then I call on Labor members who have shown leadership on the issue, such as the members for Batman and Hunter, among many others I have spoken to, to lead the way on the issue. This issue is far too important to attempt blatant politicking in the guise of defining responsible policy.
Let us look at the Labor Party’s position on the issue. It is clear that what we have is a cobbled together excuse for a policy in order to attempt to placate both sides of the party. I am tempted to say that the Leader of the Opposition is once again trying to walk both sides of the street, but I will refrain from doing so. On the cobbled together attempt at a conciliated position, we have a sop to the member for Batman on uranium enrichment to enable him to win with his union while, at the same time, trying to placate the member for Grayndler by insisting that we would have no nuclear reactors.
It has been said before, but it is worth repeating, that when the Leader of the Opposition said there will be no nuclear power in Australia under a Beazley government what he really said is that there will be no Beazley government. He has drawn a line in the sand and he is on the wrong side. My advice for the Leader of the Opposition is this: you do not lead from the rear. Be a statesman—the statesman you so desperately want to be. Lead from the front and have a careful examination of all the facts. Do not put politics before probity. Scaremongering on nuclear energy will not deliver you government; the public are better informed than most of your colleagues.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned.