I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Lalor from moving: That the House notes that the Government has already restricted the rights of Members and the work of the Parliament:
This is an arrogant government, out of control, that now wants to stop the opposition—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. Democracy and accountability have been trashed by this government—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
Original question put:
That the motion (Ms Gillard’s) be agreed to.
I move:
That notice No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Abbott.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This government is proud of its record in funding vaccines. Commonwealth government expenditure on vaccines has increased 22-fold from $13 million in 1996 to $285 million last year. The proof of the success of the National Immunisation Program (NIP) can be measured by the declines in rates of preventable diseases and, in the case of polio and smallpox, eradication of the diseases from Australia.
The largest vaccination program ever undertaken in Australia, the National Meningococcal C Vaccination Program, has already achieved significant results. In 2002, before the program started, there were 213 cases of this disease reported to the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. By 2005 this had reduced to 40 cases, a decrease of 81 per cent. Deaths from meningococcal C have also declined by 83 per cent in this time.
The government provides funds to state and territory governments to purchase vaccines under the National Immunisation Program. The states and territories then provide the vaccines free of charge to providers so that the target population can be immunised.
Funds are also provided to state and territory governments to assist with any pre- and post-vaccine tests that may be required. In addition, the government also provides state and territory governments with assistance in procuring goods and services related to vaccine provision—for example, storage and delivery.
This bill is a minor administrative amendment that preserves the current funding arrangements between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. This allows the continuation of activities such as vaccine storage and distribution. The amendment in this bill will come into effect after the bill receives royal assent.
A strong National Immunisation Program is important. As new and more complex vaccines are developed, steps must be taken to ensure that the immunisation program is as efficient and effective as possible. We need to put into place arrangements that enable the NIP to respond to these future challenges. This is not a major bill but it is important, and I commend it to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.
Consideration resumed from 20 June.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, item 37, page 8 (line 15), omit “31 March”, substitute “30 September”.
(2) Schedule 1, item 37, page 8 (line 17), omit “15 April”, substitute “15 October”.
(3) Schedule 1, item 37, page 8 (line 17), omit “31 March”, substitute “30 September”.
(4) Schedule 1, item 37, page 8 (line 18), omit “15 March”, substitute “15 September”.
(5) Schedule 1, item 37, page 8 (line 18), omit “31 March”, substitute “30 September”.
(6) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (line 5), omit “31 March”, substitute “30 September”.
(7) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (line 6), omit “1 March”, substitute “1 September”.
(8) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (line 7), omit “31 March”, substitute “30 September”.
(9) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (line 9), omit “31 March”, substitute “30 September”.
(10) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (line 11), omit “15 April”, substitute “15 October”.
(11) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (line 12), omit “1 April”, substitute “1 October”.
(12) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (line 17), omit “31 March”, substitute “30 September”.
(13) Schedule 1, item 102, page 27 (line 22), omit “ 31 March 2007 ”, substitute “ 30 September 2006 ”.
(14) Schedule 1, item 102, page 27 (lines 24 and 25), omit “is taken to continue in force under that Part until the end of 31 March 2007”, substitute “ceases to be in force at the end of 30 September 2006”.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
These amendments seek to amend the expiry dates of excise licences. The government is amending the Excise Laws Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006 to change the date on which excise licences will expire. The bill currently provides that excise licences will have a common period of validity of three years and a common expiry date of 31 March. The initial period for a new licence will be two years after 31 March, following the initial approval—so it could be for a period of less than three years—and all existing licences will expire on 31 March 2007.
The amendment is that the validity period will remain three years with a common expiry date of 31 September. The initial period for a new licence will be two years after 30 September, following the initial approval—so it could be for a period of less than three years—and all existing licences will expire on 30 September 2006. This will provide an earlier opportunity for the Australian Taxation Office to ensure that all parties in the excise system that are licensed can be formally assessed against the legislative criteria for holding such a licence, which is designed to encourage compliance and to protect revenue. This change ensures that the renewal process occurs during a period of lower activity for certain licence holders, particularly tobacco growers.
These amendments by way of a Senate message are necessary because the bills to which they relate impose taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. The Senate may not amend a bill imposing taxation. It has done so and, therefore, returned the bill to the House for its consent. This shows that the government has, once again, put up a bill which is faulty and which, in turn, has required amendment by the government and, in this case, subsequent concurrence of the House.
The original bill was designed to make amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to give effect to the government’s changes in the fuel tax bill. Members of the House will remember that that fuel tax bill initiated a number of changes, including a new fuel tax regime to replace what were the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme and the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. Notably, it also proposed to abolish the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme, which was designed to be compensation for the impact of the GST on people living in outer metropolitan, regional, rural and remote areas.
It is discrimination; there is no doubt.
The member for New England is absolutely correct: there is no doubt. The jury is back in, and the conclusion is firm: the GST is having a compounding effect on those who live outside our capital cities. As a result, those people—more particularly those living in rural, regional and remote Australia—are having a greater burden of taxation imposed upon them than are their city cousins when they fill up their cars at the petrol pump. So it is very important to note that the bill makes that change at a time when fuel prices are at a record high and imposing significant burdens on Australian individuals and Australian families.
It is also worth noting that the Excise Laws Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006 puts in place new arrangements for the way in which business claims back fuel tax for which it is not liable. Up to now, businesses have been able to claim back immediately those fuel taxes from the Australian Taxation Office. The government proposed that, in future, businesses would need to make the claim on their business activity statement. Given that most businesses put in business activity statements on a quarterly basis, the government is imposing a significant cash flow problem on business. Most businesses will be carrying that taxation burden for three months and, in some cases, they will be carrying it for up to 12 months.
Following pressure from the opposition and a Senate committee, a reference for which was given by the opposition, the government did a backflip—or at least a half-pike. It announced that a period of grace would be extended to businesses caught up in the new scheme. The effect is that the new arrangements will not come into effect for two years for those businesses that choose to stay under the current arrangements.
It is very notable that, during the second reading debate on the fuel tax bill, I foreshadowed that I would be moving an amendment in this place to put in place that grace period ad infinitum—in other words, to allow business to choose which system they wanted to use on a permanent basis. Disgracefully and disappointingly, the government chose to gag that debate and, in doing so, denied me the opportunity to move that amendment. It therefore denied me a democratic right to move that amendment and it denied the people I represent in this place the right to have that amendment considered by this House. That is a disgrace, and the government should reflect on that point. We will continue to campaign on that very significant burden being imposed on Australian business, particularly small and medium businesses.
When this bill was in the Senate, the Democrats moved a reference to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to look at some alcohol taxation arrangements. Labor noted that that reference was probably outside the scope of the bill, but the committee process went forward in any case. It is interesting to note that there is a unanimous report from that committee, opening up the whole question of alcohol taxes in this country. It asks the government to review them and to consider whether there are some better options for a range of economic, social and health issues—notably, moving to a volumetric system and removing some of the disparities between alcohol taxes as they rest upon particular alcoholic drinks. I expect the parliamentary secretary, some time during this debate, to respond to some of those issues raised by the Senate committee. (Time expired)
Labor has agreed to the urgent passage of these amendments to the Excise Laws Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006, despite the fact that we have been gagged on just about every piece of legislation in the last couple of weeks. Labor is taking the government at its word that the amendments have been undertaken in consultation with the industry, and it will continue to cooperate with bringing forward the new licensing provisions. Interestingly, the same level of agreement may not flow as easily from the other side of the chamber, particularly when people raise the issue of ethanol. It seems that every day there is another backbench revolt and, unfortunately, this is now starting to impact on the issue of fuel.
The Prime Minister is still resisting Labor’s calls to grant the ACCC the powers it needs to scrutinise petrol prices. He is not taking the concerns of motorists seriously and he is not taking the concerns of hardworking families seriously. The Prime Minister is telling the Howard battlers out there that they should try walking around if they cannot afford to fill their cars with petrol. It is interesting that this debate should occur today following an article in the Herald Sun yesterday, which I trust most people would have seen by now, in which the Prime Minister took it upon himself to claim that he had already acted on petrol prices. He had the audacity to tell motorists that reductions in federal excise saved motorists, on average, about $10 each time they filled up their car. I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I do not believe that every time motorists in my electorate fill up their cars they are thinking that this Prime Minister has done great things for them by relieving the burden of higher petrol prices. It just does not seem to resonate out there.
To try and sell this to the Australian public has to be considered the ultimate spin over substance. This government has not acted on higher petrol prices and has refused to even take the smallest steps to do so. It continues to reject calls for the ACCC to monitor petrol prices, as provided for under part VIIA of section 95G(6) of the Trade Practices Act. What is worse is that the government tries to tell people that petrol prices are really the states’ problem. The government has been out there suggesting that it is the fault of state governments because they receive the GST. The GST is a Commonwealth tax—and no-one should believe otherwise—introduced by the Prime Minister himself and his government now stands as being the highest taxing government in our history. It is a Commonwealth tax. It was legislated in the Australian parliament, it is collected by the Commonwealth and distributed by the Commonwealth. There is no doubt that the GST is a Commonwealth tax and for the Prime Minister to blame the problems of higher petrol prices on the states because of the GST is misleading in the extreme.
Getting the ACCC to have a cursory look at petrol prices over the last long weekend might have been another example of tokenism, or at least spin, by this government, but it was patronising to all those motorists who are trying to fill up their car and not receiving much change from $100 every time they do so. Petrol prices are impacting every day on local families and they are certainly impacting on businesses. Petrol prices are impacting on our communities, as shown in the recent ACNielsen survey. The data also indicated that small business throughout the country is being grossly affected by it. It also made the point that it is deleterious to the tourism industry as a whole. The government needs to cut the spin and start coming up with solutions. A good first step would be to have the ACCC continually monitor petrol prices and not be used as a token method of overcoming the short-term problems on one weekend in the year.
I support the amendments that have come back from the Senate on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006, but I would like to make some comments on the broader energy debate that has been truncated not only on the fuel excise arrangements but on the energy debate that was before the House yesterday.
The member for New England might do that, but it must also be relevant to the motion before the chair.
A few weeks ago the Prime Minister called for a debate on Australia’s future energy needs and the nuclear issue was mentioned. A number of bills have been before this House, of which this amended legislation is part, which relate to future energy needs and how the excise and transitional arrangements for biofuels, ethanol, biodiesel et cetera will apply. But for some unfortunate reason the government has decided not to have a debate on Australia’s future energy needs and has used the guillotine to truncate some of those debates.
I would like to mention a few issues concerning fuel taxation. The current round of fuel bills that have gone through the House have included, as the shadow minister mentioned a moment ago, a proposal to remove the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme. This means that country people will be discriminated against in relation to the amount of GST that they pay at the bowser. It has amounted to about $270 million a year since 2000 and was described recently by my colleague the member for Gwydir on ABC radio in Tamworth as an inefficient scheme and a scheme that was not equalising the impact of GST on country motorists. If that was the case, why has this government shelled out $270 million over six years to the fuel companies? If the Deputy Prime Minister at the time recognised that it was an inefficient scheme that was not passing on the benefits to country motorists because of the disparity between country and city prices, why wasn’t something done earlier? Why was this massive subsidy of about $1.6 billion given to the fuel industry over those years?
Ethanol and biodiesel have been mentioned in these debates over the last few weeks. In the United States of America by the end of this year something like 20 per cent of the US corn crop will be utilised for ethanol. For those who do not know, that equates to about 60 million tonnes of corn. To put that into some perspective, Australia is one of the major trading nations in wheat—ethanol can be produced from corn, wheat, sorghum and other materials. We export 16 million tonnes of wheat, so it is not hard to see the impact a move towards ethanol or biodiesel would have on the farming community of regional Australia and obviously on the price of wheat.
For instance, in Europe at the moment canola is used for biodiesel, and that is having an extraordinary impact on the world price of canola. And this government does absolutely nothing other than to put in place this legislation. Last week the fuel excise platform bills were introduced to allow for domestic encouragement incentives for domestic ethanol to be removed over time so that imported ethanol would come into this country, which sends a message to investors in this country not to invest in biofuels. I think there are a number of issues in this whole area of energy for our future that really do need greater elaboration in this place. Yesterday’s debate was again truncated. Many members of this House intended to speak on that legislation and raise issues relating to solar energy and the use of bioenergies for electricity. All those issues have been bypassed by this government and I think that is an absolute disgrace at this time in our nation’s history. (Time expired)
Before my time expired during the second reading debate, I was talking about the Senate Economics Legislation Committee recommendations on the alcohol taxation regime. I made the point that Labor were of the view that the recommendations and, in fact, the reference were probably outside the scope of the bill, but we certainly did not want to deny the committee the opportunity to consider those aspects of the bill and we certainly did not want to stand in the way of the Australian Democrats in their attempt to have those matters considered.
I was making the point that, while the opposition does not have any particular position on alcohol taxes, throughout the course of the inquiry some important points were made about the health impacts of the current taxation regime, the way the ad valorem system does not necessarily deliver the best health and social outcomes and whether there is merit in applying a volumetric tax to alcohols generally. This would be highly disruptive, I have to say, for the industry, which is pretty much settled and lives with the current alcohol taxation regimes. In his decision to have an inquiry into the uranium industry and how far Australia should become involved in the nuclear cycle, the Prime Minister made the point that that does not mean he has any particular position on uranium, particularly enrichment and power generation, but that there is merit in having these inquiries.
The Senate Economics Legislation Committee has called upon the government to look at whether alcohol taxes are economically efficient and deliver the best social and health outcomes, and this should be responded to by the government. When he approaches the dispatch box I expect the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer to give a short response on behalf of the government and indicate whether the government is likely to take up the Senate Economics Legislation Committee’s challenge to look at that taxation regime as it applies to alcohol to determine whether we are getting the best economic, social and health outcomes under the current regime.
I made the point during the second reading debate on this bill that certain sections of the alcohol industry were promised that there would not be any changes in isolation to the taxation regime as it applies to alcohol—in other words, it would be dealing with the industry on the whole. Some sections of the industry were quite upset that, as part of the budget, the government made some changes to the wine equalisation tax rebate, which the opposition welcomed very warmly. But that was an alcohol tax change made in isolation, and, of course, it has caused some other parts of the industry to become agitated and push for changes, particularly to ready-to-mix drinks and how excise treats them differently from some beer drinks which share the same alcohol volume but to which different tax rates apply.
Given the very public discussion about ethanol during the debate on the fuel tax bill and the consequential bills, I also expect the parliamentary secretary will pass some comment on that issue when he summarises this debate. It is well known that members of the government backbench—and indeed some members of the opposition backbench—are still pushing for some more generous treatment of the ethanol industry. I make the point that this industry still enjoys tax-free status, at least until 2011. I think the original start-up date was 2008. It still enjoys total import protection and, of course, is the recipient of a number of capital grants.
That is a very significant leg-up for the industry, but each time the government has come forward with these concessions, the opposition has backed them willingly. If the government is proposing to put forward further concessions to the ethanol industry, the opposition will be happy to hear them and consider them on their merits. So I hope the parliamentary secretary indicates to the House whether the government is reconsidering the taxation regime as it applies to ethanol. He should indicate to the House and to his own backbench whether the government is proposing any further changes. I note that there are no government backbenchers in the chamber at present. That is of great disappointment to me. They have lots to say about ethanol outside this place and today was a great opportunity for them to come into the House and put their case for further concessions for ethanol—we would have been happy to have that debate. Maybe the parliamentary secretary can give us some indication of the government’s thinking in this regard.
I thank the member for Hunter, the member for Werriwa and the member for New England for their contributions this morning. We have heard that the member for Hunter has a lot of hopes for me this morning—he hopes this and he hopes that. And he is disappointed with lots of things. I want to reassure the member for Hunter that satisfying him and all of his hopes is obviously a key driver for us on this side; we are always striving to satisfy his hopes and wishes!
The member for Hunter and the member for Werriwa raised the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report in relation to alcohol tax. I have to say that I am a little bit confused about this, because I had been advised that Labor actually voted with the government to reject amendments moved by Senator Murray in relation to alcohol taxation. So I am a little bit confused as to where the member for Hunter might be coming from.
The other thing to bear in mind is that this morning we are here to talk about amendments to the Excise Laws Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006. When the member for Hunter and the member for New England first spoke they talked about the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme, they talked about the two-year transitional period and they talked about the use of BAS for fuel tax credits. The problem is that all those aspects relate to a completely different bill. Those aspects do not relate to the Excise Laws Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006 and they do not relate to the amendment that we are debating this morning. So the member for Hunter and the member for New England have the wrong bill in mind. All of the issues that they raise relate to the Fuel Tax Bill 2006, which has already passed the House of Representatives. So I am not sure where the member for Hunter is coming from.
The bill before us relates to things like clarifying the arrangements for using imported inputs in the manufacture of excisable goods; streamlining and clarifying the current arrangements for concessional spirits; strengthening controls over tobacco leaf, which has a high potential for excise liability; and acts against the beer excise revenue avoidance practice. This bill seeks to make improvements to excise licensing provisions to make renewal periods consistent and to allow better capacity for licensing to be used as a compliance tool to protect excise revenue. This bill is all about amending certain provisions of the Excise Act. It is about repealing a number of other acts. It also repeals a number of fuel related acts that are no longer required because of the fuel tax reforms.
So that is the bill that we are talking about this morning. The amendment that I moved this morning, which I think is a commonsense amendment, actually relates to that bill. The issues that the member for Hunter and the member for New England, and to a certain extent the member for Werriwa, have raised are completely irrelevant to this particular bill and this particular amendment.
You did provoke me, Mr Parliamentary Secretary. Can I point out to the parliamentary secretary, for his benefit and the benefit of the House, that this bill amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to implement certain elements of the government’s fuel tax reforms. So this is an important bill that gives effect to those fuel tax reforms. On that basis it is in order and appropriate for members on this side of the House to raise issues as contained in the fuel tax bills. I know that the government does not like us speaking about them, because they are very embarrassed publicly about the impact on small to medium businesses in particular. I know they are very embarrassed about the impact of the abolition of the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme on rural and regional motorists—indeed, on some motorists living in outer-metropolitan areas of capital cities. I know they are embarrassed about that, and do not want to have the debate. We guarantee them that we will keep having the debate and alerting the general public to the fact that, at a time of record high petrol prices, this government is now removing, abolishing, the very compensation that was put in place to offset the compounding impact of the GST in outer-metropolitan areas and in rural, regional and remote Australia.
But what really disappoints me about the parliamentary secretary’s contribution is that he failed to take up my challenge to give the House some guidance, some indication, about where the government is going, firstly, on ethanol—whether we can expect more proposals to change the taxation regime as it applies to ethanol and biofuels generally, whether we can expect proposals to change the Customs duty to delay the implementation of some import competition on the domestic ethanol industry and whether the government has any new initiatives to ensure that the major oil companies themselves do more to produce ethanol rather than remaining so reliant upon one particular company, which remains a very dominant force in the ethanol market in this country.
Secondly, it disappoints me that I requested from the parliamentary secretary some response from the government to the recommendation of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on alcohol taxes. They have called for a public debate in this country on those taxes. Again, we do not come to that debate with any particular issue or concern, but it is a debate worth having, particularly in the context of what is happening in the Northern Territory with the difficulties in some Aboriginal communities and whether some changes to alcohol tax arrangements could address some of those very significant health and social issues. So I would have thought, given the strength of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report, and its somewhat unanimous nature, that the government might have taken the opportunity to indicate to the House whether it does intend to take up that recommendation and proceed with a review of how the taxation regime applies to alcohol in this country.
I was listening with some interest to the parliamentary secretary making some points on people talking on the wrong legislation. I would have thought that the parliamentary secretary would have been well aware that the people who did want to make contributions yesterday on renewable electricity, the people who wanted to move amendments last week to some of the consequential bills to this piece of legislation that has come back from the Senate, have not been able to make those contributions because the government has refused those people the opportunity. So to come in here today and attack members of this parliament for wanting to make a contribution to the energy debate—the very debate that the leader of your party has said we should have, but does not seem to want to enable people in this parliament to participate in—is an absolute disgrace.
This legislation, as I understand it, is about the expiry dates for excise licences. Maybe the parliamentary secretary would like to explain to country motorists why the Fuel Sales Grant Scheme has expired and why those people will now have to pay a greater price at the bowser for petrol than their city cousins. Why will they have to pay 1c to 3c a litre more for their fuel than they do presently? Why has the government initiated legislation in this parliament which will lead quite directly to an increase in price for those people who live in country areas who do not have the benefits of competition between the fuel companies and who do not have the benefits of the dumping regime that the fuel companies have in the city areas?
The parliamentary secretary may take the time to explain to those people why they will have to pay more. Why, for one of the first times in the history of this nation, is the government—particularly a coalition government—putting in place policy that will discriminate against country people? The parliamentary secretary may also like to explain why the National Party and that branch of the National Party, the National Farmers Federation, are participating in this farce, where they are endorsing an increase in petrol prices for country people.
The parliamentary secretary may also like to let the people of Australia know, particularly country people, why the cash flow arrangements that will occur with the transfer of the rebate—what was originally called the diesel rebate—will now come under due consideration through the BAS. I understand we have a deferment of two years before that guillotine comes down on the farming community of Australia. The parliamentary secretary may take the time to explain why that is good for farmers and why farmers, who under the reckoning of anybody in this place do not know owe that tax, will have to pay that tax at the point of purchase and then wait three months or longer for the receipt of that money from the government. Why will that have to come into place?
I note the member for Hunter made mention of the fact that there are many people on the government side who talk about biofuels, ethanol, biodiesel and a whole range of other additives that could be used for a more environmental and healthy fuel source, but they are not here today and they were not here last week. The ones that were here last week—and the member for Gilmore is one that I have great respect for—made some very important points, including the very points that I made about the fuel excise legislation last week, and then they voted for it in this parliament. I think it is about time that the country members on the government benches start to stand up for the blubberings that they carry on with outside this parliament.
The parliamentary secretary may like to explain a few of those issues in his reply. Why are the BAS arrangements required? Why the Fuel Sales Grant Scheme has expired and discrimination against country motorists is required? Why is the government putting in place a scheme that will cause country motorists to pay more at the bowser? He might like to explain why there are no participants, why he has not mentioned the biofuels debate and why the broader debate on energy needs for Australia is being completely ignored by this government. (Time expired)
The chair indicates that the onerous duty of the chair is to be the arbiter of what is relevant in debates and indicates that the chair believes that there has been some leniency this morning, and this is always dependent upon the atmospherics and the karma of the chamber. I thank the members for their cooperation. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 29 March, on motion by Mr Ruddock:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the three bills that are being moved cognately: the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 and the Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006. Labor agrees with and certainly supports the intent of these bills. In fact, it is a shame that we could not have been here debating them much earlier. The genesis of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity appears to have derived from a reference by the then Labor Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, sent to the Australian Law Reform Commission more than 10 years ago. The Australian Law Reform Commission recommended that such a body be set up in its report of November 1996. It then took the Liberal Party from 1996 to June 2004 to adopt this proposal as party policy.
Needless to say, it is clearly a hallmark of Senator Ellison’s handiwork that this sort of delay seems to be commonplace. Not only did it take those eight long years for the Liberal Party to adopt this as party policy; it then took Senator Ellison a full two years to get his act together and bring the bill before the parliament. Yet in the same period we have seen numerous rushed changes to the terrorism acts and other laws affecting the powers of the AFP and many other agencies, but still no action was taken on this issue. The government seems simply not to see that, when you give agencies wide new powers, making sure there is robust oversight in place at the same time is critical. Although funding for the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner was then announced in the 2005 budget, the bill itself has been sitting on the forward list of urgent bills for well over a year.
At this point let me state unequivocally for the public record that there is no evidence—and we accept that there is no evidence—of systematic corruption in Australian Commonwealth law enforcement agencies, and I think it is important that we have been served so well by these agencies. Yet there are some isolated instances of concern. In the time that it has taken between the announcement of this bill and the present day that we are here debating the bill, we have seen the leaked secret internal Customs report that blew the lid on corrupt and criminal activity at Sydney airport, sparking the Wheeler review. We have seen a couple of Australian Crime Commission seconded officers charged in relation to corruption offences. We have seen extraordinary allegations made in relation to corruption of Commonwealth officials from a range of agencies in the Torres Strait.
The public can and should have confidence in the integrity of the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Customs Service officers who do an exceptional and excellent job in protecting the community from some pretty awful threats of terrorism, drug trafficking, sex slavery, child pornography and many other crimes. But we need to acknowledge that crime is big business. There are huge amounts of money involved, and history shows us that criminals are willing and able to corrupt serving officers to stay a step ahead of the law. It is absolutely vital, therefore, having seen some instances and seeing the potential is so great, that the long overdue integrity commission will finally be established. Likewise, the AFP’s new professional standards regime is clearly a marked improvement on the current arrangements. This is even more the case because, since September 11, our nation’s law enforcement agencies have had a dramatic increase in the range and availability of powers that they can use.
Some five long years after September 11, the Howard government is still fiddling with many of these powers on a semiregular basis which, I have to say, does not give us a lot of confidence in their ability to rapidly assess an emerging threat and coordinate and deliver a proportionate response. At the same time as these powers are being expanded, even if piece by piece, the oversight regime has until now largely remained frozen—partially, of course, due to the minister’s inability to progress this legislation and partly because the government persistently fails to take a long-term strategic view of what government infrastructure is needed for our security services. The government’s arrogance and incompetence seem to be becoming a security risk for the nation.
This legislation goes some way to striking the right balance of strong powers with strong oversight. To paraphrase Dr AJ Brown, who appeared before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee when examining this legislation, these bills represent the most significant change in Commonwealth integrity institutions in 20 years. Accordingly, as I have already said, let me foreshadow Labor’s broad support for this legislation before I go on to the specifics of how this legislation is not as good as it could be. Perhaps this is an appropriate moment to move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name. 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:
You can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, whilst we support this bill and think it is an important step towards making sure that an appropriate oversight mechanism is in place, we are extremely disappointed by the fact that the integrity commission has been given such a narrow jurisdiction to start off with, extending only to two agencies—the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. Given the number of agencies at a federal level which wield law enforcement powers, including the Australian Taxation Office, Customs, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and others, this is a massive error.
Let me remind the House of just what, for example, the immigration department has been up to under the life of this government. This chamber of horrors masquerades as a department of state while it has committed the following outrages: wilful ignorance of the law in relation to the duration of detention, specifically the test under section 196 of the act and in direct contravention of numerous Federal Court precedents; supervision of an institution that, according to newspaper reports, allegedly allowed repeated rape and sexual abuse of detainees, including one reported instance of rape of a mother in front of her toddler; supervision of an institution that has certainly treated detainees with mental illness extremely poorly, including very young children; wrongful detention of no fewer than 26 Australian citizens, and it is still not clear whether this includes the tragic case of Cornelia Rau; deportation of one citizen, who was apparently not fit to travel, to the Philippines to survive off a charitable home for the poor and crippled; transport of five detainees locked up in the back of a van for five hours without food, water, toilet or rest breaks; export of women and children to the island quarry of Nauru; placing even mothers in the act of labor under guard and refusing the right of the family to take photographs of the newborn; and abrogation of its duties to properly supervise contractor GSL or, alternatively, deliberate connivance with that organisation to conceal or cover up, using what the ANAO has called ‘considerable discretion’ as to what is reported as an incident.
The purpose of going through that whole list of these terrible actions that the department of immigration has been responsible for is to ask: would all or some of this conduct constitute behaviour that fell within the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner’s ambit? The definition of ‘engages in corrupt conduct’ under section 6 turns not on monetary gain but on abuse of office. Consider for a moment whether you could capture wilful ignorance, dereliction of duty and abuse of power in those terms. Yet, even if these actions were covered by those definitions, when we turn to the definition of a law enforcement agency, we find something missing: the department of immigration, the inflictor of so much human misery on so many people, all the while glibly and often wrongfully maintaining its authority to enforce the law, has in fact been left off the list of law enforcement agencies that are going to be covered by the remit of this new body which is being set up.
Other agencies are missing too—Customs, for example. They have uniforms, guns, powers of arrest and detention, powers to question, search and seize et cetera. To a member of the public, when undertaking these duties, Customs would be a law enforcement agency. Yet, while they hold almost identical powers to the police when undertaking certain aspects of their job, we find them missing from the list of law enforcement agencies that these bills and the new institution will cover. There are other agencies, such as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Taxation Office, that have investigatory and law enforcement powers and, when using those powers, the public might rightly expect that they would still have an oversight body to see whether they were using those powers appropriately or whether there was the potential for corruption, whether there was an abuse of office or whether some officers had been engaged in corrupt conduct as defined within this bill. They have, after all, access to stored communications and they can issue notices to produce. Obviously, bodies that have and use these sorts of powers would benefit from oversight—and not just actual oversight but also an awareness that oversight exists.
Instead of putting agencies such as these in the legislation, the minister proposes to add them at his whim and convenience by regulation. There is no guarantee that any of these agencies will be able to be investigated, and that is completely unacceptable. Why should the minister have a roving discretion to decide when an agency should or should not be investigated for corruption? Perhaps the minister and the government members can explain the public benefit in a minister maintaining the power to add and remove agencies at whim. Not only that but also I think it is an abrogation of our duty, in both this House and in the other place, to debate whether or not these agencies should or should not be covered. Instead, it will just be instigated by regulation, presumably some sort of disallowable instrument, which can come in or out of this parliament relatively quickly.
It is not only a dumb policy but also dumb politically and it detracts from what is otherwise an important change to our institution of government which is providing the public with more confidence in the officials who are undertaking these sorts of powers and responsibilities for the government. It shows that this government has simply got tired and lazy and is so obsessed with other issues, such as its extreme ideology, that it has forgotten what is of concern to Middle Australia—protecting the institutions of government that maintain their security day in and day out. It seems to me that it is all too ready to be kicked out of office and that some of these things can be planned and advocated for in a more serious long-term way for the protection of our institutions of government.
There are not that many federal agencies that the government could not have already contemplated all of them. How hard is it to sit down, work out what powers each agency has and make a final and definitive determination as to whether they are in fact law enforcement agencies or are exercising law enforcement powers so akin to a law enforcement agency to warrant their being treated as such for the purposes of this oversight? I really do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the officers of the various departments involved to do this. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of those who are sitting in this chamber to listen to it. I do believe it is beyond the wit of the government to make a decision on what they do or do not want covered and that makes this bill much less effective than it could be. That is what a sensible government would do—thoroughly approach its task on national security and make good policy. Sadly, we have a government that is not interested in any of those things.
Let me now address a number of issues specifically for each of the bills that are before us in this debate. The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill essentially establishes the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which is an anticorruption body responsible for investigating allegations of corruption concerning the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission as well as state police officers seconded to those bodies. The number of overseen agencies, as I have already flagged, can be expanded by regulation. Labor totally rejects the ministerial power of veto on corruption investigations, a point I have already made, which this mechanism effectively gives the minister. The commission will have powers similar to that of a standing royal commission. Essentially, the Commonwealth is following the lead of the states, many of which have set up similar bodies with similar powers to this commission.
I mentioned previously that, thankfully, there is no evidence of systematic or serious corruption within the Australian Crime Commission or the AFP. The situation we have here is completely different, for example, to the endemic corruption of the National Party regime led by Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland, whose conduct was so bereft of anything approaching moral or ethical behaviour that it demanded the establishment of the Criminal Justice Commission, the forerunner of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. At least the community can rest safe knowing that there is not going to be another National Party government again not just here but anywhere ever—but that is probably another story that we do not need to go into today. The establishment of this anticorruption commission is intended instead to provide a deterrent to such behaviour in the future as well as to enhance public confidence in our federal crime-fighting bodies. I think that, as I have mentioned before, this is particularly important when we have been giving a range of these organisations so many new powers, for which there is significant concern in the community. Balancing those strong powers with strong oversight has been a key message of Labor’s approach to these issues and we are pleased that the government is implementing this part of a policy that we have been committed to for a long time.
To return to this bill, the commission may deal with corruption issues either by notification or on referral from the minister and it has the power to refer the investigation to another agency in certain circumstances. The commission also has the power to hold and conduct public inquiries on a range of corruption related issues at the request of the minister.
Finally, a new parliamentary joint committee will be created to oversee the commission. This is of some concern to Labor as it looks like a little bit of a waste. Both the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission itself have recommended that the existing joint committee could take on this role. We are still a little bit unsure as to why the government thinks a new body is required. It certainly seems strange, on a day when the government is closing down all the other committees in the Senate, that it would be setting up another one rather than using one with existing expertise. We look forward to the government’s explanation as to why it is yet again ignoring its backbench, those who are on these committees and have made the recommendation that the existing joint committee could be used. It seems that again this is something that the government has just decided it is going to do.
I want to briefly flag something which might be of particular importance to the officers who are here in the parliament. There are a number of technical issues particularly on the consequential amendments bill that we think could have been dealt with. These are minor matters but, as I understand, it is the intention of the government to move this legislation very quickly through the House and the Senate tomorrow, so perhaps advance notice of our concerns can be fixed in this House, while the debate is on, rather than needing to go through the process of moving it elsewhere and perhaps having it return.
The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 purports to make a number of changes to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. This act was amended recently by the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006. There are a number of small matters and, frankly, silly mistakes in this bill after we have taken such a long time to get it before the House. It seems that item 27 of schedule 1 amended the title of the principal act, but then repeated references are made through these other bills to the principal act under its previous name. I understand that Senator Ludwig has sought informally to bring this to the government’s attention but, as yet, we have not had any response as to whether that will be corrected. It is the kind of sloppy inattention to detail that we have come, in this House certainly, to expect from the Attorney-General. It is the type of blase administration that would lead one to enact redundant laws that may have to be revisited soon after to amend or repeal them. It is also a sign of the high-handed arrogance of the Attorney-General, in whose portfolio the TI legislation resides, that he did not prepare a suitably amended bill before dumping it on the table of the parliament. I think it is also the sign of an administrator who is less than firm in his grip on the job.
What else can we expect from an Attorney who ignores even the friendly and sage advice of his own backbench on sedition, for example? We have now seen the Law Reform Commission agree with the views of not just Labor and not just his own backbench. Now the Law Reform Commission says that those offences should not have gone ahead. Instead of taking that advice at the time, the Attorney-General was determined to rush that legislation through the parliament inappropriately and now has to revisit it. We do not want to be in the position that we have to do that with this bill. The Attorney is either so busy trying to find some other political wedge on which he can focus his attention or so fixated on his diminishing power that he cannot see the errors that lie plainly before him. So Labor foreshadows amendments to get rid of and to fix up that shoddy drafting. The government should present these consequential amendments to the parliament when they are comprehensively ready rather than rushing the legislation through in this inappropriate form.
Similarly, we have found a basic problem in item 1 of schedule 1 in the consequential amendments section where we seem to be inserting a new paragraph (ea) into a subsection that already includes a paragraph (ea). Of course, we understand that errors like this can occur, but when we spot them and bring them to the government’s attention they should be fixed quickly rather than be left to have to be raised in this debate time.
I raise these issues with the government because I hope that it can address these technical errors in the House during the course of this debate, perhaps in the consideration in detail stage, rather than leaving it for the Senate to fix. If that happens, the bill will have to make a needless trip back to this place to approve the inevitable amendments made over there. We all want this bill to pass quickly—having taken 10 years to get to this point we do not want any unnecessary delay—so I hope we can tidy this up the first time it needs to pass through this House.
The third bill that is covered in this cognate debate is the Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006. This updates the complaints procedure for the AFP, to bring in as people can see in the explanatory memorandum a ‘contemporary managerial’ style of complaints handling. The amendments in this bill are the outcome of the 2003 Fisher review into professional standards in the AFP, which recommended the repeal of the act which previously covered this area, the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, and contain the establishment of a new complaints regime with clear definitions of the types of conduct which are covered. The professional standards bill categorises misconduct into four levels of seriousness—category 1, inappropriate conduct; category 2, minor misconduct or inappropriate conduct that reveals unsatisfactory behaviour; category 3, serious misconduct; and category 4, corrupt conduct—and allows the Australian Federal Police Commissioner and the Ombudsman to assign certain behaviours to a category of conduct.
Misconduct will be dealt with according to the category to which it relates. The lower levels will be dealt with by managers whereas higher complaints and complaints of corrupt conduct will be investigated by a specific internal unit or by the new commission established by the other bill respectively. Importantly, the commission must be notified of any instance of corrupt conduct. Again, the minister has the power to arrange an inquiry concerning the conduct of the AFP or anything else to do with the AFP. Investigators under this legislation have wide-ranging powers, such as the power to enter AFP property and the power to direct an AFP appointee to provide information. The federal Ombudsman is also given powers under the new regime. As I have already mentioned, he or she can determine, in conjunction with the commissioner, what kinds of issues belong to different categories. The Ombudsman will also conduct annual reviews of the operation of the professional standards section of the AFP.
As the parliament might be aware, a Senate committee has already assessed these bills. All three bills are largely welcomed by Labor and were referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, which made a large number of sensible recommendations to improve the bill. I will take the House through a number of those. The key issue related to the jurisdictional matter, which has already been flagged throughout my speech in the second reading debate. The committee examined the issue of the jurisdiction. As I have already discussed, the commission—as the bill stands—only has the power to investigate allegations of corruption made against members of the AFP and the ACC, although this is expandable by regulation. This is plainly ridiculous. To quote the Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, in referring to the oversight of the commission over law enforcement bodies:
There is a gap here—and I do not want to name agencies—if you look at the powers, such as access to search warrants, access to the use of firearms and access to detention.
Even the commissioner for police, in giving evidence to the Senate inquiry, acknowledges these gaps we have been referring to—without wanting to list all of those agencies which we have touched upon. There is the old saying ‘What is good for the goose is good for the gander’. This seems to be particularly true when you are talking about law enforcement powers which are used by a range of different authorities. You would think that it was just as important that those other agencies also be susceptible to the oversight which is being proposed for the AFP and the ACC. As witnesses to the committee argued, there are gaps in the AFP’s effective jurisdiction over corrupt conduct in other agencies—being restricted to the investigation of criminal matters in cases in which there was conduct that was corrupt but not clearly criminal. We could be in a position where we would not have oversight, where our existing agencies responsible for the enforcement of our laws would not have power, but where there is conduct falling between those gaps that the public would rightly want scrutinised.
Finally, the committee investigated the allowance in the legislation for its jurisdictional expansion by regulations. The final report stated:
No rationale has been advanced for this potential expansion of jurisdiction by stages via regulation.
But we are concerned not just with expansion. We are also concerned that any agency actually listed in regulations could also be removed from the jurisdiction of the Integrity Commissioner by the stroke of a minister’s pen. This is obviously of great concern to us. As I said, it should not be beyond the wit of the government to be able to determine which agencies this body should have oversight for and which powers exercised by certain agencies should be overseen. That would provide the best and strongest confidence in those who are exercising these powers. Also, the confidence that we rightly have in our systems for law enforcement in this country will be enhanced by having proper coverage for this bill.
The committee recommended that other agencies be brought under the commission’s authority by legislative change rather than by regulation and that the government give a time frame for adding additional agencies to its jurisdiction. I think, in that case, the committee might have been rather kinder than the Labor Party would have been, in that we are critical of the government having taken this long to even introduce these bills. We do not understand why they could not have already made an assessment for these other agencies and these bills could have dealt with all those issues. In the absence of that, we strongly believe—as the committee does—that legislative change, not regulation, is the process by which you should add or in fact subtract agencies. I foreshadow, therefore, that my Labor colleagues in the Senate will be moving a range of amendments in that other place to improve the bill in line with the committee’s process and as I have flagged through my speech. With those reservations, Labor supports the bills and commends them to the House.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I listened carefully to the contribution to the debate on the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 and cognate bills made by the honourable member for Gellibrand. I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed to hear it dripping with negativity. While she said the opposition does not oppose these bills, she delivered a particularly negative speech.
Far be it from us to actually want to improve something!
You did—which suggested that in some way, shape or form the government, instead of being given credit for what is a really positive initiative, an initiative that has never happened before in the life of the parliament, regardless of what party has been in office, should be criticised. She mentioned that it has taken a number of years for these bills to come before the House. The Labor Party were in office for many years and they did absolutely nothing.
This government has brought forward this legislation which will establish the independent statutory office of the Integrity Commissioner and he or she will be supported by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. As the member for Gellibrand indicated, we are fortunate that in the Commonwealth sphere in Australia there is not a system of entrenched or endemic corruption. I do not think anyone has suggested that any of the departments run by the Australian government is in any way, shape or form corrupt. However, an ounce of prevention is better than a tonne of cure and that is why this initiative of establishing the office of the Integrity Commissioner, supported by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, is an important step. It is vital in a democracy that we have accountable agencies of government. If the Integrity Commissioner and the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity are established, then there will be a powerful disincentive for any official inclined to conduct themselves corruptly to do so.
The member for Gellibrand spent a considerable period of her contribution criticising the fact that initially the Integrity Commissioner will have responsibilities with respect to only the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. The government obviously wants to see how the Integrity Commissioner will operate. The Integrity Commissioner’s qualifications will be particularly high and he or she will have powers similar to those of a royal commission, including the power to compel people to give evidence relevant to an inquiry even where the evidence is self-incriminating. We have a situation where we do not see we have a problem with respect to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission but where we want a body to investigate any possible corrupt conduct should that allegedly occur.
The government clearly has, by regulation in the bill, made provision for the addition of other Commonwealth agencies to come within the purview of the Integrity Commissioner and the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. This is incremental change. It might have been possible essentially to include all government agencies in one hit but, of course, the whole structure of the Integrity Commissioner’s office and the ACLEI would have had to be different if all government agencies were included from the outset. I think that the way it has been suggested in the bill is the appropriate way to go. Two very important organisations, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission, are initially brought within the purview of the Integrity Commissioner and then, as any bugs in the legislation are ironed out—not that we are suggesting that there are any bugs—we will look at how this legislation is operating and will then consider the inclusion of other Australian government agencies with law enforcement functions, should that be considered to be necessary.
I think the two bodies that are included are highly respected. They play a key role in making sure that we have a great deal of integrity and observation of the law, and the suggestion by the opposition that including only the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission somehow indicates that the government is less than serious about preventing corruption is simply not a credible statement made by the member for Gellibrand and does her no credit at all. I suppose it is a positive thing that we are setting up the Integrity Commissioner’s office and I suppose, in a sense, it is regrettable that, in 2006, it is seen as necessary to have in place this sort of authority, but I think the community has every right to expect that Australian government agencies will be open, accountable and transparent and will observe the law. That the Integrity Commissioner is being established gives to the Australian community a great sense of confidence that, were there any allegations of corruption in the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission, they would be fully investigated.
I am a great admirer of the Australian Federal Police and I suspect the honourable member for Werriwa, who will be following me in this debate, is also a great admirer of the Australian Federal Police, given his prior life in law enforcement. The Australian Crime Commission also does a really important job. We all know that the Australian Federal Police have been heavily involved in security issues in the Australia-Pacific region and were involved in investigations after the Bali bombing some years ago. I suppose, in a sense, we now have so many Australian Federal Police officers stationed around the world that you could almost say, ‘Join the Australian Federal Police and see the world!’ But I tell you what: I have personally observed the way they operate in a number of parts of the globe and they have my unabashed admiration. They do help to make the world a much more secure place.
As has become the habit in this place, the member for Gellibrand has moved a second reading amendment. I want to reiterate that I think she has been excessively negative because, instead of praising this government for bringing in this legislation, after 100 years plus of federal government, and after many years of the Labor government, which did nothing, we do have this positive legislation before the chamber and the member for Gellibrand and honourable members of the opposition really ought to be saying to the government: ‘Well done. No other government has done this before. You have. We support you all the way.’ While they say they do not want to prevent this bill from having a second reading, when you look at the second reading amendment it is entirely negative and unsatisfactory. I think that the tactics undertaken by the opposition in this matter probably help to undermine the confidence of the Australian people in our parliamentary system because there is too much oppositionism for oppositionism’s sake. This is positive legislation. Even the opposition say that it is good as far as it goes, but then they want to go even further. The government, in this legislation, has made provision for the inclusion of additional bodies as the government may determine by regulation.
The opposition wants any bodies which are to be added or subtracted to be added or subtracted by legislation in this place. We all know what the parliamentary sitting program is like. We all know what the parliamentary business program is like. What you need is flexibility. The way to have flexibility would be to be able to add—and I suspect it would be always a question of adding rather than subtracting—additional Australian government bodies as required.
This is important legislation. I think that the government deserves every credit for helping to improve the confidence that the Australian people have in the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. As other bodies are added, as undoubtedly they will be, and as the legislation settles in, that will assist the Australian people to have confidence that any allegation of corruption will be fully and appropriately investigated.
I want to come back to something I said at the outset. Happily, in Australia there is no entrenched culture of corruption at the Australian government level. I do not think it has ever been seriously suggested that any government has been seriously corrupt. But it is important to have in place the necessary mechanisms to ensure that, were allegations of corruption to arise, they would be quickly and expeditiously investigated by people of appropriate seniority and integrity. I am particularly pleased to be able to support all of these bills currently before the chamber.
I rise to speak on the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 and the Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006. The bills before us today, when considered as a package, seek to implement a number of changes to the operations of the AFP Professional Standards Unit and to set up a new Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. I will also take this opportunity to speak in support of Labor’s second reading amendment to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006. As members would be aware, and as the member for Fisher has just indicated, I have a background in working with various police agencies throughout the country. In previous contributions in this place I have said that I have represented the professional and industrial interests of police, and I am happy to be here again today, lending support in terms of the professional interests of our police.
Before turning to the details of the provisions of these bills, I would like to say that I do not support corrupt conduct by police, or by any other law enforcement agency or public official for that matter. However, I do wish to ensure that any agency established to investigate corrupt conduct has as an underpinning philosophy a process of procedural fairness and natural justice. Any agency or officials of such bodies that do not have such an underpinning philosophy should not be supported in this place.
The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 seeks to establish the position of Integrity Commissioner and a new agency under the Attorney-General’s portfolio, which will be the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, and it specifies powers for the investigation and reporting of corruption issues. It creates new offences for not cooperating with the Integrity Commissioner and it is limited in operational scope to the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission and former employees of the National Crime Authority.
The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 will allow the Integrity Commissioner to have access to certain powers under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, the Crimes Act 1914 and various other acts. It will extend the scope of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act and consequential amendments to allow the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to cooperate with those organisations. It should also be noted that the commissioner will have access to various coercive powers in order to direct compliance in respect of investigations.
The Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006 seeks to repeal the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, to abolish the Australian Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal and to establish in the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 a new four-category system for complaints of its own investigation into both conduct and practice issues. The bill amends a range of acts as a consequence, incorporates the drug and alcohol screening tests into the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 and amends the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to make new provisions for suspension, termination and resignation from AFP employment. The establishment of the position of Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner is a welcome development and the opposition also welcomes the measures designed to address inadequacies in the existing AFP complaints and disciplinary systems.
It is worth noting that it has taken the coalition almost two full years to come good on their commitment to set up an independent national anticorruption body. In fact it has taken this government almost 10 years to act on concerns raised by the Australian Law Reform Commission. Three additional reports, including the secret Harrison report, have all urged that reform be undertaken in this area. Over the last decade the Australian Police Disciplinary Tribunal has effectively been moribund; I think it is seven years since it last heard a matter. You would have thought that, after taking this long to introduce the legislation, the government would have taken the time to get it right, as opposed to simply expediting it in the parliament.
There are still a number of other what I consider to be minor flaws in these bills, which add to the growing trend of sloppy legislation introduced by this government. I strongly support providing our police and other law enforcement personnel with the best tools to assist in their duties. As a consequence, I support these bills. I make no apology for doing that. They are a step in the right direction but, quite frankly, the legislation is not at this stage quite right and still needs to be amended; hence the second reading amendment put forward by the opposition.
In my opinion, these bills go a considerable way towards providing police and law enforcement personnel with the tools they need. Despite that, I do have a number of concerns and I would like to detail them. I support the bills but feel they should be subject to greater scrutiny and certainly a detailed review. As I noted earlier, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 seeks to establish the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. It specifies the powers for the investigation and reporting of corrupt activities and creates new offences for not cooperating with the Integrity Commissioner. Operationally it limits the scope to the AFP, the Australian Crime Commission and former NCA employees.
Despite these welcome changes, the definition of ‘law enforcement agency’ in its current form is limited to the conduct and investigations within the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police—only within those two organisations. The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity should be expanded to include all other Commonwealth law enforcement agencies and employees of those law enforcement agencies, particularly where those employees are engaged in intelligence gathering and investigation work within those agencies.
Many of these agencies increasingly wield powers that would have previously been regarded as being police powers. For example, I note that Australian Customs Service officers have the power to use weapons, including pistols and the weapons mounted on the decks of their maritime vessels, and powers of arrest and detention, a power to search and seize, the ability to conduct controlled operations and the responsibility for the storage of large amounts of contraband such as drugs, alcohol, tobacco, knives, guns and ammunition. This government may have effectively exempted Customs officers from the oversight of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner by not specifically including them in this legislation. To be able to include them, as the member for Fisher was indicating, it would simply be a matter of moving that by regulation. But I have to say that is simply not good enough. Doing that just by regulation—adding and subtracting organisations or agencies involved in law enforcement other than the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission—could possibly lead to a system that effectively allows the minister responsible to have a veto over corruption allegations or indeed a corruption investigation. That is why we, in Labor’s second reading amendment, want to take a more definitive approach and actually specify those agencies which use law enforcement powers and subject those to the oversight of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner.
It is my opinion that not taking this course of action will, apart from everything else, including giving the minister a right of veto, possibly send the wrong message to the community—and certainly send the wrong message to those people that I formerly represented—that any form of corruption may only be found in the AFP or the ACC. I hope that we are not going to find corruption in any of our agencies. But why would we leave out, by concerted action, all those other law enforcement agency officers using powers under federal acts and where we allow them to conduct themselves in a manner such as Australian Federal Police officers?
I strongly question how the government will enhance the Commonwealth’s anticorruption capacity if the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner’s oversight role is restricted in the way that is proposed here. Bear in mind that in many areas of operation within the sphere of this government, whether they be Customs, Taxation or Immigration, we have Australian Federal Police being seconded to each one of the organisations within those areas. It is of some curiosity to us on this side of the House as to whether those officers, when they undertake a secondment, will still be subject to the oversight of the Integrity Commissioner. But it is a simple fact at this stage that more and more, in terms of our deployment of personnel with investigative skills to investigations, we are seconding people from our respective police forces, particularly the AFP, to fulfil those operations. If we are going to say that this integrity regime would, and should for that matter, cover the AFP and the ACC, that regime should also apply to any other Commonwealth agency involved in law enforcement.
It is also concerning that the current definition of ‘serious corruption’ as an offence punishable, on conviction, by a term of 12 months or more of imprisonment will have an unintended consequence of picking up a range of offences that might not be considered to amount to serious corruption. The definition contained in the bill has the potential for minor matters to be dealt with by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. Quite frankly, I understand that was never intended to be the case. My fear is that, for instance, some driving offences in the ACT Crimes Act that attract a penalty of a 12-month term of imprisonment could be dealt with—I am not saying they will be, but certainly under the definitions of this bill they could be dealt with—by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. Whilst not denying that officers indicted on these offences should be dealt with in accordance with the relevant laws, I believe it is inappropriate and untenable that these types of offences be included within the scope and definition of offences to include serious corruption.
Perhaps, as previously suggested to the Minister for Justice and Customs by the Police Federation of Australia, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity should confine itself to the investigation and exposure of corruption and serious criminal misconduct, and that the definition of matters to be investigated should be clearly defined in the bill itself, as opposed to simply allowing it to take its scope from the possible prison term that may eventuate from any offence involving a police officer or an officer subject to an investigation. It has also been suggested by the Police Federation of Australia that the definition of corruption used by the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales could also assist in at least containing the investigations to issues of serious corruption or serious professional misconduct.
All matters of performance and service delivery should continue to be managed by the relevant agencies and oversighted by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity should have a clear accountability mechanism to the parliament. This has been addressed in a number of locations, but the 2005 report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission made specific recommendations to the minister about the oversight of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.
On completion of its report in 2005 on the Australian Crime Commission and supporting the government’s move for the establishment of the Australian law enforcement integrity regime, the committee unanimously found and recommended that the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity should be included in the provisions that allow for the scrutiny of the agency’s operation by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission.
It is also worth noting that the committee found and unanimously recommended that the legislation for the creation of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity should include a provision for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACC to be able to refer matters to the commission for investigation, with a requirement to report back to the committee such matters of investigation. Clearly, when the joint committee was charged with the responsibility of looking at and addressing issues involving the ACC and the Australian Federal Police, the committee not only acknowledged that there was a need for the position of the Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner to be established and a person appointed to fulfil that role but also unanimously took the view that there should be parliamentary oversight of that provision.
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee in May this year made the following recommendation:
The committee recommends that Part 14 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 be amended to provide the existing Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission with jurisdiction to scrutinise the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and those Commonwealth law enforcement agencies subject to its oversight.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACC and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee strongly recommend not just parliamentary oversight but oversight by the joint parliamentary committee itself.
The Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006 inserts a new part in the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to modernise the complaints and professional standards regime within the AFP. I share the concerns raised with me by the Australian Police Federation and by the Australian Federal Police Association that this bill does not pick up the recommendations made by His Honour Mr Justice Fisher following his review of the industrial environment in 2003—a review that led to the introduction of this bill. In fairness, Mr Justice Fisher called for an independent review of certain matters, particularly in relation to dismissal and financial penalty. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006, and the Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006 and to support the amendment moved the member for Gellibrand and the comments made by the member for Werriwa.
The bills detail the establishment of the Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and a new system for dealing with complaints and investigations into police conduct. The new agency—the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—will investigate corruption allegations against law enforcement agencies and officers and will also have the capacity to conduct public inquires under the control of an integrity commissioner.
The bills are a welcome development, but I note that it has taken the coalition government almost two full years to come good on the commitment they made to set up this independent, national anticorruption body. Although we have had a delay in seeing the bills come before the parliament, it is good that they have finally got here and, as I said, I certainly do welcome that. Despite the delay in getting the bills here, there are, without a doubt, still a number of flaws in the bills, which I will touch later on.
As a former police officer, I have the highest regard for the police and the very difficult job that they do in obviously very trying circumstances. I also have a very high regard for the AFP and support their work. I believe that an independent authority will help to maintain their already high standards. When it comes to issues such as these, the vast majority of the police and the public want a system that provides a lot of accountability. That is needed so that police are able to conduct their duties in a very professional manner. When it comes to disciplinary matters, it is important for police that a fair and just system exists so that complaints can be handled in a professional manner. As I said, a system whereby police services are made accountable is what the public and the police want; they want transparent systems.
We have heard many cases of police corruption over the years, particularly involving the Bjelke-Petersen National Party government. We do not have time here today to detail some of those instances. For the vast majority of police that are out there, day after day, doing the hard yards and doing their job, the fact that these systems will be put in place protects them as well. It is very important to have overriding and overreaching independent systems that protect them and that provide the public with a system whereby police are accountable. In that sense I certainly welcome these bills. Again, particularly from a policing point of view and having been a police officer, I want to stress my highest regard for the police. Often we hear so many people condemning the police. The vast majority of them are doing a very difficult job under difficult circumstances, particularly many members of the AFP.
The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 establishes an Integrity Commissioner and a new agency, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. It specifies powers for the investigation and reporting of corruption issues. It also creates new offences for not cooperating with the Integrity Commissioner. It is limited in its operational scope to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission and, as many speakers have said before, it should include other government agencies. It seems quite remarkable that other federal government agencies that have investigative powers have not been included in this particular legislation. One of the deficiencies of these bills is that they are not included in it.
The Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner will have a broad range of powers to investigate corruption but, as I said, may only investigate law enforcement agencies. There should have been more agencies listed in these bills. I will detail that a bit later on, but just to restrict it to the AFP and the ACC really has not gone far enough in that instance. As I said, I welcome the legislation, because we have waited a long time to get to this point—another example of this very arrogant and sloppy government.
The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 allows the Integrity Commissioner access to certain powers under the Telecommunications (Interceptions) Act 1979. As I said, despite the delays in these bills, there are still many flaws. For example, the bill before us does not take into account the passage of the Telecommunications (Interceptions) Amendment Act 2006 and, as a consequence, the consequential bill is just rife with many redundant references. The member for Gellibrand outlined many of the technicalities that have to be rectified. That is purely an example of sloppy government to have this vast array of technicalities. It should have been improved at a much earlier stage. It is not correct at all. As I say, it is just another sign of this very arrogant government in not ensuring that we do not have bills like this that are very sloppy with constant references throughout.
The new system that is to be established under these bills is a marked improvement on the current system which relies upon the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate such matters. When any particular body is investigating itself, at the outset that does not seem appropriate. It seems quite outrageous that a body would be investigating itself and the actions of their people, because it often is not impartial and is also not perceived as being impartial. One of the reasons it has been frustrating and has taken so long for the government to get this bill to the House is that it has been necessary to rectify that. Obviously, if a body is investigating itself there is an apparent conflict of interest. It was not a decent system, whereby you could ensure a fair and just system, where there was a procedure to ensure that complaints were adequately heard and also a forum for police to have their issues heard. In addition to the previous situation, the Ombudsman did not have the range of powers that are proposed in this legislation and he would have been lacking sufficient resources to investigate many of the issues and the complaints that would have been put forward.
I support the amendment moved by the member for Gellibrand. I would like to comment on some of the points raised. Firstly, it took the Howard government almost seven years to commit to a policy of establishing a Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner since the November 1996 report by the Australian Law Reform Commission, when it first recommended a federal independent anticorruption commission. That is certainly a long time and a huge delay. Again, it is another failure by this government to take action that was desperately needed: the establishment of this commissioner. The amendment notes that it has taken the Howard government since June 2004 to bring this legislation before the parliament. Therefore, we have waited almost 10 long years to get this legislation here, and that is outrageous.
The amendment also notes that, despite the powers that the Australian Customs Service officers have regarding the use of weapons, including pistols and maritime deck-mounted guns; the powers of arrest and detention; the powers of search and seizure; the ability to conduct controlled operations; the responsibility for collection of large amounts of border related revenue; and the responsibility for storage of large amounts of contraband and goods such as drugs, alcohol, tobacco, knives, guns and ammunition, the Howard government has exempted Customs from the oversight of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission by not specifically including them in the legislation. When considering the extent of the powers they have, they should be included in the legislation. The amendment notes that there are a range of Commonwealth agencies with such law enforcement style powers that should receive the oversight from this commission.
Another area of concern is the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The member for Gellibrand detailed many of the causes of concern. We have seen the department of immigration, under the Howard government’s maladministration, wrongly holding 26 Australians in immigration detention centres. That in itself should be sending the signal to bring bodies such as the department of immigration under the control of this new agency. It is very bad that the Howard government has not taken that action. Importantly, both Customs and DIMIA have had serious allegations of corruption levelled against them recently and that warrants investigation by a body of the type specified in this legislation.
Another measure in the bill is the government’s proposed system of adding and subtracting agencies other than the AFP and ACC by regulation. This would mean that the minister could effectively veto corruption investigations. I think it is outrageous that the minister would be able to disrupt these investigations on a whim. We need to know that there is a separation of powers, and here that is not able to happen. It seems outrageous and I am certainly opposed to the minister having a veto power, which could have undue influence over whether an investigation even occurs. How can the public be assured that there is going to be a proper and thorough investigation of issues within agencies if the minister can just decide to veto that investigation because it may not suit the government’s political objectives? I am certainly very much opposed to the government’s system of adding and subtracting these agencies
The other cognate bill, the Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006, repeals the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, abolishes the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal and incorporates the new regime into the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. This is a new, four-category system for complaints and investigations into conduct and practice issues. The bill replaces the current Australian Federal Police disciplinary regime. It provides a four-tiered system of police conduct: category 1, inappropriate conduct; category 2, minor misconduct or inappropriate conduct that reveals unsatisfactory behaviour; category 3, serious misconduct; and category 4, corrupt conduct. The bill complements the new Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commission. These changes are an improvement on current arrangements. The Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal is now virtually defunct and many different agencies and groups have been calling for fairer and more transparent methods of dealing with professional standards issues.
The measures in this bill address some of the inadequacies in the Australian Federal Police complaints and disciplinary systems, but, again, it is a major concern that the government has taken almost 10 long years to act on these concerns that were first raised in the report by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal has been defunct for seven of those 10 long years, having heard no cases in that time.
As a former police officer, I am sure the majority of police do welcome thorough, fair and just analysis of their professional conduct. Police officers expect a system in which the public can make fair and just complaints and where police can defend themselves in a fair and just manner. Police accept the consequences of illegal or corrupt conduct. It comes down to accountability at all levels. That is vitally important. Often, mismanagement of the complaints handling process can cause grave damage to an officer’s professional ability and can cause widespread disillusionment in other police. On decisions such as dismissal or major redeployment, police must have a fair forum in which they can be heard.
Another issue I would like to touch on is how, in many instances, this government has taken to politicising the work of the AFP. As a former police officer, I find this particularly outrageous. I point to the very public humiliation by the Howard government of Commissioner Mick Keelty when he commented on the Madrid train bombing some years ago. At that time, Mr Keelty made a comment in a very professional manner as the AFP Commissioner on his views on the heightening of a country’s terrorist targets in light of such actions. What we saw then was the most disgraceful and unjustified attack by the Howard government on the police commissioner, who was making a very fair and just assessment of a situation—and a very correct assessment, in my opinion. I thought it was outrageous, particularly when the Minister for Foreign Affairs then accused the AFP Commissioner of ‘expressing a view which reflects a lot of the propaganda we have been getting from al-Qaeda’.
Of course these comments were politically motivated and they were offensive to the commissioner, the Federal Police, police generally and the Australian public. Here was someone making a fair and just professional assessment of a situation with all the knowledge that he had, and what did the Howard government do? They just smacked him down and told him to shut up. It was absolutely outrageous that they interfered in such a way and humiliated him when his comments were indeed very accurate and just. The foreign affairs minister’s behaviour in particular was quite disgusting, because Mick Keelty certainly does a very fine job as commissioner. When I was with the police, we had an expression that would apply to this: ‘The foreign minister’s never met an angry man.’ I dare say he probably has not, but I am sure Mick Keelty has and I am sure in his role as commissioner he was quite able to make a fair and just assessment of that situation.
I would like to touch yet again on the long history of these bills arriving in the parliament. There certainly has been a very lengthy delay, because the establishment of the new agency was recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 1996 and by the 2003 Fisher review. In 1996 the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended the setting up of an independent national integrity and investigations commission which would have royal commission style powers. The report also recommended the four-step categorisation of corruption and misconduct, which has been outlined in the bill.
The review of professional standards in the Australian Federal Police—the Fisher review—was undertaken by Justice William Fisher and the report was tabled in the federal parliament in December 2003. For many years federal Labor has been committed to the establishment of an independent anti-corruption authority to oversee the investigative, prosecutorial and judicial processes. Labor believes that the Australian Crime Commission and the Federal Police should have appropriate independent complaints-handling procedures. It has certainly taken a long time to get to this day. The establishment of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is indeed a welcome, if not very late, action by the government. It has taken almost two full years for them to come good on their commitment to set up this independent national anti-corruption body.
I would also like to comment on the fact that the overwhelming weight of the law enforcement budget recently was directed towards overseas operations. But I also believe it is very important that the Howard government should be mindful of increasing the budget domestically as well, to make sure that we have adequate training and adequate resources for the AFP officers that are based here. However, I do welcome the establishment of this national authority, which is indeed very long overdue.
It is a good idea to protect public trust and confidence in Australia’s primary law enforcement agencies. That is why this should be extended to other Commonwealth law enforcement agencies as well, particularly ones such as Customs and DIMA, which I spoke of earlier. People have to have public trust and confidence in those agencies. We need to have the commissioner overseeing any other Commonwealth law enforcement agencies that may have those powers, so we can have that public trust and confidence. We do not want to see a situation where the minister is vetoing them left, right and centre because it may not happen to suit their political objectives at that time.
I conclude by saying that I certainly have the highest respect for the officers of the Australian Federal Police and I support their work. I believe that the establishment of this authority will help maintain their already high standards. It is welcome to have a body, and the majority of police would want a body, which will investigate those who are not doing the right thing. That is really important. It protects them as well. We live in a community where everyone seems to be attacking the police left, right and centre. As I mentioned earlier, the foreign minister seems quite willing and able to attack the Federal Police when it suits him. Personally, I am outraged by that. As I said, I think we should be supporting our police in the great work they do in the community. (Time expired)
I rise to speak in relation to these three bills, which are being dealt with together. The first bill is the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006. The minister in his second reading speech points out that this bill:
... implements the decision, announced by the government in June 2004, to establish an independent body, with the powers of a royal commission, to detect and investigate corruption in the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission, should it arise.
I further quote the minister:
The bill will facilitate the detection, prosecution and prevention of corruption in Australian government law enforcement agencies. The bill will establish the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity ... headed by a statutory officer, the Integrity Commissioner.
The jurisdiction of the Integrity Commissioner and ACLEI will initially cover the AFP and the ACC. Other Australian government agencies with law enforcement functions may later be brought within the jurisdiction by regulations.
The second bill being considered is the Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006. This bill repeals the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 and inserts a new part into the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to modernise the complaints and professional standards regime within the Australian Federal Police. The bill also amends the Ombudsman Act 1976 to align the Ombudsman’s administrative review role over the AFP more closely with the role it has in relation to other Australian government agencies.
The third bill is the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006. This bill provides for ACLEI investigators to have access to the full range of police special investigative powers, including the capacity to use telecommunications interception, surveillance devices, controlled delivery and assumed identities.
Unlike other speakers, I want to introduce a note of caution into this debate. I suppose it comes from my history, before I came into parliament, as a legal aid solicitor and barrister. I am not as enthusiastic as some in this chamber about corruption watchdogs. Indeed, the minister in his second reading speech said:
The focus on the AFP and the ACC does not reflect a perception that these bodies currently have a significant problem with corruption. Indeed, there is no evidence of systemic corruption within either body. However, these agencies play a key role in Australian government law enforcement. Putting in place a regime of rigorous external examination now will ensure that the public can have continuing confidence in their integrity.
So on those words this is an exercise in trying to maintain confidence in the integrity of the particular bodies and that corruption is not systemic. And I do not think it is systemic in either the AFP or the Australian Crime Commission. I think the vast majority of people who work within those agencies are decent, law-abiding citizens who are doing a public good. You will get a rotten apple here or there, but one has to question whether one wants to go to the next step and devote a whole lot of resources and funding to an agency as a PR exercise. I do not have a problem—if there is a problem—in funding an agency. But I was never a great fan of Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales when it was first set up. I think a number of the investigations that that body has undertaken have been questionable. Indeed, I think the former Premier of New South Wales Nick Greiner was done a very great wrong by that body and drummed out of public office. He was subsequently exonerated by the judicial system. And I am not a great fan of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, I have to say, at times—I am not saying all of the time. These bodies are now creeping into our systems and, frankly, they are growing like topsy. I think we need to be careful.
That is why there is some criticism as to how wide the application is. At the moment it is only the AFP and the ACC, and the government is saying that other government agencies with law enforcement functions will be brought in later. Probably that gradual approach, I might say, is the proper approach. You get a body up and running first, to concentrate on something at the first stage of its development and before going too far, because when you go across all agencies you are going to require a body with substantial resources.
I just pose that question. I am not here opposing these bills but I am speaking more as a devil’s advocate, to put on record a few concerns that I have and to say to a few people who are enthusiastic and trumpeting here, there and everywhere how great this is that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. There might be an argument that we are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. That is not defending corruption; what I am saying to the parliament is that we need to be satisfied that this is the best way to achieve it. At the moment we have had a Law Reform Commission report and an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, and they were both supportive. So I do not seek to argue against those particular reports. I just state that I prefer cautionary approaches. I am very attracted to the report of the Senate committee that urges some caution. Indeed, recommendation No. 2 says:
3.71 The committee recommends that the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 be amended to provide the Integrity Commissioner with discretion not to investigate or refer a complaint where he or she considers the complaint to be frivolous:
So there is a threshold question there. I know there are some thresholds already within the proposed bills. The reason I say that is that I would not want to see the commission tied up in pursuing matters unnecessarily that could be dealt with in other ways. I note that, as I said, there are procedures within the other acts as to how people will be dealt with. Part of the problem is that substantial resources will be required to do this and I think it has to be properly targeted at the level and type of conduct that we are talking about. If it is not, it would also tie up the resources and create morale problems within the organisations themselves, and I would not want that. Some things might be pursued that will have some ramifications. I think there is an argument for sending a message that we are going to do everything in our power to make sure that these organisations are clean. There is nothing more corrosive for an organisation than if someone is found out to be corrupt and there are issues that compromise inquiries within those organisations. I think the objects of the bill are fine:
They are noble objects and I am hopeful that those objects will be pursued in an appropriate manner. As I said, my reservations are a result of what I felt were some inappropriate investigations. In relation to the development of some of these investigations, obviously there will be some tests established over time—as there have been with ICAC legislation in New South Wales—as to what corrupt conduct means. In relation to Mr Greiner, ICAC found one thing and he had his appropriate day in court and was cleared in relation to that interpretation.
In relation to these bills, there is some criticism that the government has taken its time, that there was a Law Reform Commission recommendation made back in 1996 on these matters. I have a view and I am not going to join in the chorus of criticism. There are enough people criticising the government over this. What I want to do is make sure that we have good legislation and a good body. If that took extra time, so be it. That is why I say the Senate committee is one that has good standing in this place. They have come up with a number of recommendations and I do not think they can be easily dismissed.
I know that my friend and colleague the member for Denison, Mr Kerr, who is following me in this debate, will have something to say. As a former justice minister and a former Attorney-General for a short time, he is well qualified to comment on these matters before the parliament. I think he will comment with goodwill towards the organisations concerned. I do not want people to think that there is not goodwill. Too often we see question time and the public are meant to think that there is a gladiatorial contest and division on both sides of the House. On many of these bills, there is not division; there is goodwill on both sides of the chamber. What we are about is trying to produce good outcomes—better outcomes, better public policy—in these matters. My reservation came about at the outset from the admission in the second reading speech that there is no evidence of systemic corruption—that putting in place this regime was really about ensuring the public had continuing confidence in the integrity of these organisations. From my starting point, that raises a question mark because I think you need evidence of a significant level of corruption before you go to the next level.
We are talking about some further intrusive measures that, through the third bill before the House, the Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006, will be placed on people being investigated. We are going to have the full range of police special investigative powers, including the capacity to use telecommunications interception, surveillance devices, controlled delivery and assumed identities. I suppose that shows why a specialist body is being set up and why the Ombudsman is probably inappropriate in this regard. In some ways, I am arguing the other side of the coin here. If you are going to go down this path, that is why there is the argument that you need a specialist body. If you need it removed, who guards the guard while the guard guards you? You need to have someone independent. I can see the argument as to why an ombudsman is not the appropriate person in terms of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission, because the use of telecommunications interception, surveillance devices, controlled delivery and assumed identities are not things that the Ombudsman should be doing.
With the qualifications that I have put, this agency has to operate in a way that is conservative, if I might call it that. I know that the opposition supports these bills, with the qualification that a second reading amendment has been moved by the shadow Attorney-General on these matters. That amendment is critical of the government’s delays in bringing these measures before the parliament and critical of the Australian Customs Service being exempted in the first instance. For what it is worth, I just say that this is a fledgling body. I am interested in what my colleague the member for Denison will say in terms of the agencies that should be subject to these powers, as to whether he thinks there is an argument that you need to develop the body first before expanding its use to other agencies.
I raise these things not to blackguard what is actually being done; they are legitimate questions that need to be asked and need to be thought through because there are resource implications. I have to be fair: I can see an argument as to why there has been a limitation on the number of agencies in the first instance because of resource and other implications. To get the body up and running, you do not give it too much too early which would set it up for failure in the first instance. You let it get its procedures and processes right before you expand the number of agencies. I am interested to hear what my learned friend says in relation to that and whether he has the view of ‘No, hang it: let all the agencies come under its umbrella in the first instance,’ or not.
On balance, I support what the government has done in this instance, and that is to be more cautious and allow the commission to get on its feet before it brings in other agencies on a gradual basis. I can see where my other colleagues are coming from, but I just have a different view. I think it is fair that, in a debate like this which has brought into question the number of agencies subject to this regime in the first instance, one just does not hide behind the veneer of not making a comment. I do support the legislation that is before the House, and I look forward to the contribution of my colleague the member for Denison who, I am sure, will enrich the debate. (Time expired)
A legal tag team: senior counsel and junior counsel!
This is the tag team, love-in of counsel on the Labor backbench on the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006, and the Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006. I firstly acknowledge the contribution of the member for Banks. It was, as always, an independently minded contribution and this parliament ought to value very much the goodwill those members who are not part of the executive of either party bring to bear on serious debates of this kind. The honourable member has, I think very correctly, pointed out that Australia is fortunate to have law enforcement agencies which broadly have been immune from structural corruption. I have been a minister and a shadow minister in this area and I am a very interested observer as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission and the former Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. During my period of time in this parliament, I have been a careful observer of the law enforcement agencies of the Commonwealth. I do not believe that there has been institutionalised or entrenched corruption in those agencies. That sets them aside from some of the law enforcement agencies of the states where corruption has been endemic from time to time and has presented a problem that has required the establishment of royal commissions with special methods to get to the problems and, of course, the lamentable and very unfortunate circumstances of seeing senior persons in positions of trust in the law enforcement profession—including, in Queensland’s case, the commissioner himself—disgraced as a result of those processes.
In the federal sphere, we have been very lucky. Certainly, those commissioners I have known in the nearly 20 years that I have been a member of this parliament—Commissioner McAuley, Commissioner Palmer and Commissioner Keelty—are three persons whose personal integrity I think is beyond question. We should not pretend that within the AFP there are not going to be instances where individuals succumb to the temptation of corruption. I remember very clearly a conversation I had with Commissioner Palmer about a year after his appointment in which he said to me that you could not make rules that would be secure enough to give you an assurance that corruption would not occur within the AFP; you had to try and build a system of moral authority so that when temptation presented itself it would generally be resisted. He also said, ‘At some time, at some place in Australia, there is going to be a young 25-year-old constable confronting a person who is involved in the criminal world who may have, for example, on the back seat of a car a bag with $100,000 in used banknotes and some large amount of drugs and, in exchange for allowing that car to drive off, the constable will get more than he would be paid in two years of salary.’ We can imagine such circumstances arising from time to time and it would be foolish for us to believe, in an environment where temptation and the possibility of large reward for giving into that temptation exists, that will not sometimes be a motivating factor for those who should be giving their professional responsibility to law enforcement but are tempted—if I might use a corny phrase—by the dark side.
Of course, once a person becomes a victim of their own greed, and becomes known to those in the criminal world, then they are repeatedly used to benefit that underworld. I know from my experience as a minister at a time when New South Wales had a law enforcement agency infected by corruption that it meant that there were instances where law enforcement cooperation was difficult with the state agencies because the AFP believed that information that was passed to certain persons within New South Wales would automatically be transmitted to corrupt law enforcement officials and then to those engaged in crime. So we do have a reason to put in place mechanisms to deal with the possibility of corruption.
I well remember—and this is to counterbalance the point of caution made by the member for Banks—the circumstances that faced me when complaints were made by a Mr Skrijel that his investigation by members of the National Crime Authority had been corrupt and that he had been essentially framed. There was a series of complaints preceding my becoming Minister for Justice and, upon becoming minister, I was provided with briefs from my department to the effect that there were suspicious circumstances—I can put it no higher than that—that two seconded members of the NCA may have been responsible for conduct which was detrimental to Mr Skrijel and potentially corrupt. I was invited by Mr Skrijel to appoint a royal commission to investigate that particular complaint. On the advice of my department, I took the view that the establishment of a royal commission, with all the consequences and costs, would not be an appropriate use of resources but that the matter needed to be investigated. Again on the advice of my department, I sought out a prominent South Australian barrister, Mr Quick QC, to conduct a review of the Skrijel matter and to report to me. That report revealed matters that confirmed that there were issues that required further investigation and it was in due course referred to the Deputy Ombudsman of Victoria, from where the officers of the National Crime Authority involved were originally posted, as they had disciplinary responsibility over them. Ultimately, a review was held by the Deputy Ombudsman. Mr Skrijel remained a disappointed complainant and, in part, blamed me for what was ultimately an outcome which he was dissatisfied with.
Although I was, in a sense, put in a position where Mr Skrijel took the view that, in some manner, I had not pursued his complaint vigorously and he pursued me vigorously in consequence, making very serious allegations about my own propriety, what it did reveal was that we did not have an effective process for independent complaints resolution for the National Crime Authority at that time. It strengthened, in my mind, the case that there does need to be a process that is robust, that the public can have confidence in, that extends to Commonwealth law enforcement across the board and that is able not only to receive and investigate complaints and to deal fairly with those complaints, from the point of view of a person who believes that they have been dealt with improperly by law enforcement officials, but also to protect the interests of Commonwealth that law enforcement is operating properly and in accordance with our expectations that it be immune from institutional corruption.
Therefore, I am pleased to see these bills come forward. I think they are a long time in the making. It has been a longstanding request of the committees on which I have served that there be a strengthened complaints resolution process. I do not believe that it is in anybody’s interest in the Commonwealth to not put in place the belt and braces to make certain that our confidence in the integrity of the law enforcement agencies that we have benefited from is preserved as those agencies expand and become a much more central component of Australian law enforcement. It is trite to recall that, from a relatively modest base, the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority, now the Australian Crime Commission, have come to be very significant in dealing with serious and organised crime. Not merely do they have a strengthened and enhanced reputation over the years due to their effectiveness but also they have increased numbers, increased responsibilities and a higher profile.
The management styles and structures that are appropriate for such organisations as they have grown have to change. The Australian Federal Police was originally almost a quasi-military organisation—the first commissioner, indeed, being a former military officer. That was not an appropriate framework to operate within but, as we have moved, we have become much more professional in the management styles that have been evolving. We have shifted away from command and control. The language used in law enforcement at a federal level has shifted towards federal agent away from various ranked positions. We have become a central component of law enforcement in Australia. That carries with it responsibilities of making certain that the agency does not ever become a victim of institutionalised corruption such that some of the states have from time to time had to deal with. Were it to do so, we would lose something very fundamental in our capacity as a national parliament and the community would legitimately look upon us with great scorn.
That said, the reservations of the member for Banks do need to be borne in mind. We need to be fair to law enforcement personnel. These procedures that we are putting in place give great powers to investigative agencies or the commissioner and those powers will be available to investigate the conduct of law enforcement personnel. They may, naturally, feel that this is an intrusive process. We have to be aware that there are interests of fairness and natural justice that also extend to those working in law enforcement, and we have to make certain that the interests of their industrial organisations and their professional associations are borne in mind as this is worked through and put into practice. It is important that the processes be fair to complainants, to the general public and to law enforcement personnel themselves. Of course, one of the jobs of the parliamentary oversight committee established in the legislation will be, I would hope, to make certain that in zeal these organisations do not overstep the bounds that are appropriate for the carriage of the large responsibility that we are entrusting with them.
One of the concerns that the honourable member for Banks did raise, namely the concern that the organisation might have a large impact—that is, he referred to the conduct of a former Premier of New South Wales—is not warranted. This is a very narrowly focused integrity commission, focused on law enforcement. It is not focused upon persons outside of that scope.
I think there is a bit of a lost opportunity in not establishing a single oversight body to deal with the various issues and responsibility under the law enforcement umbrella. There is currently a Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. I am the deputy chair of that committee, which is vigorous in its pursuit of its responsibilities, and often it has drawn attention to the fact that its oversight capacity of the Australian Crime Commission is really examining the tail rather than the dog. We look through the wrong end of the telescope at the law enforcement community. The ACC is an important agency, but it is a small component of Commonwealth law enforcement when it is balanced against the larger resources that are committed to the Australian Federal Police.
There is still no parliamentary oversight agency created to look at the overall positioning of law enforcement in Australia. Any examination of that, from this parliament’s point of view, will still have to be done through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. There is no establishment in this bill or in any other measures that I see connected with it that will establish a comprehensive oversight of the actions of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies by this parliament, and I think that is a great mistake. It is a lost opportunity. We have comprehensive oversight of all intelligence agencies, for example. Every intelligence agency has been brought under the reporting obligations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It used to be called the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD. As it has picked up all the other intelligence agencies, it is now simply called the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Similarly, there should be a parliamentary joint committee on law enforcement and it should have within its remit the tasks that are given in this bill to the oversight of the integrity commission. Instead of consolidation, we create a further joint committee. We establish a joint committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, with powers to examine and to report on the various matters that the integrity commission will be dealing with. But, again, it will be a fragmented examination and not within an overarching oversight responsibility for law enforcement. That is what we really need in this area. We need this parliament to be confident that one of its standing agencies has an oversight responsibility for law enforcement in this community at a Commonwealth level. Without that, one key area of Commonwealth involvement which we all rely on to work well and effectively is not subject to the kind of scrutiny that I imagine most members of the community believe it is already subject to. We will have examination of the Australian Crime Commission, we will have examination of the integrity commission, but we will not have any overall examination of where law enforcement is going—what its objectives are, what its structures should be or how it should be positioned. We have no proper examination of the role of the Australian Federal Police, the largest of those agencies. There is a simple omission.
Might I conclude by addressing the last point the member for Banks raised, about Customs. I understand his concern that the organisation should learn to crawl before it walks, let alone runs, but I think that probably—even through its crawling and early walking stages—it would have done no harm to have included Customs. The same temptations to corruption exist for those who are on the front line in Customs. In fact, Customs often receives information in relation to matters which, if misused, could be of enormous financial benefit to organised crime. Any Customs officer in that position may be subject to the same temptations as members of the law enforcement fraternity, the AFP or the Australian Crime Commission potentially are, and I do not think it would have done any harm to put those of Customs—who have a direct, front-line law enforcement responsibility—under this oversight regime.
The last point I will make before I sit down is that I will be interested to see how this works out with the secondments from state agencies to the Australian Crime Commission. That has always been a difficult area. I am not certain whether the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers cover this sufficiently or whether the bills do. I still have some doubts in my mind as to whether or not, where a complaint is made against seconded officers who have gone back to their state agencies, this will enable that to be followed through properly. That is the sort of issue that confronted me when Mr Skrijel was making his complaints. I hope they can be dealt with effectively through this process, but it is a matter that I will keep my eye on because I am not certain that it will be properly dealt with. On balance, I think these bills deserve support and I support also the amendment that the shadow Attorney-General has put forward.
I am happy to follow the members for Denison and Banks and the shadow Attorney-General in putting Labor’s case with regard to this series of bills. This is a cognate debate. There is the initial bill, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006; the associated bill, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006; and the Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006. It is proper that there be a cognate debate on these bills, because the issues involved in all go to the questions of how the Australian Federal Police are organised, their professional conduct and changing that as a result of reports which have been previously been done. After waiting a considerable period of time—some might say seven and some might say 10 long years—for this government to act, we have finally got in the principal bill a series of recommendations to put before the parliament based on a number of reports over time.
Corruption within the Australian Federal Police and instances of that is not endemic. We are not dealing with what occurred in Queensland or in New South Wales, where reaction to systemic corruption within those forces was such that there were investigative agencies and commissions set up to look into and then to repair those police forces. We are not dealing here with corruption of the same order, value or significance. But it is deep enough to merit a second reading speech a bit longer than what is probably the Attorney-General’s shortest second reading speech. It was about three paragraphs in all. He simply said: ‘We’ve set it up. That’s it. We hope it will do its job. The integrity of the Australia’s federal police will be ensured by (1) setting up the commission and (2) providing the commissioner with adequate access to information and making a series of consequential amendments.’
This is an interesting bill. Once you go beyond the outlying skin of this onion of a bill and start to pull the elements of it apart, you find that it goes to a series of other government bills. It actually tells you a lot about the current operation not only of the criminal law but also of the exceptions, throughout a series of bills, that allow the Australian Federal Police—and, indeed, other agencies—to act in ways that would otherwise be unlawful, simply because to do otherwise than grant them those exceptions would mean that they could be hauled before the courts, could be hauled up for internal review by the Australian Federal Police or, once this bill becomes law, before the Australian Integrity Commissioner.
Just to give the House a flavour of what this means, there are secrecy provisions imposed on the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and staff, but items 4 and 5 in this bill say that those normal secrecy provisions need to be put aside, because if they are made for the purpose of this act—the law enforcement integrity act—then they will be allowed to be made. The second element is where we are dealing with ASIO officers. The unauthorised communication of intelligence by those officers is a criminal offence. The exception to that relates to the Australian Crime Commission, but this bill says, ‘We’ll add one person and that is the Integrity Commissioner.’ You could go through and look at the Crimes Act of 1914, the Criminal Code of 1995, the Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988—there are 30 or more of them, I think.
Finally, I want to indicate just what is involved here on the question of assumed or false identities. This happens; it is reported from time to time. There are a number of agencies where, in order to take up any corruption activities or investigations, Commonwealth and state agencies, such as the Australian Federal Police, the ACC, ASIO and state police forces and anticorruption agencies, acquire and use assumed—that is, false—identities. If that is appropriately authorised, these agencies can request assumed identity documents from Commonwealth, state and territory agencies—passports, Medicare cards and so on. This bill says that the staff who are working for the Integrity Commission can have that same level or degree of powers.
Given the amount of time that it has taken to get to the point where we have the bill, and I have outlined that there are a number of bills that have had to have provisions attached for the commissioner to undertake his work, and given that there have been so many reviews—we had the initial review in 1996 and there was a further one in 1997; 2004 was the last time this should have been finalised—you would have to wonder why they were not more specific as to the agencies that should have been taken into account and why they were not more inclusive, by including the Australian Customs Service and, indeed, by including the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Instead of keeping it isolated to the Australian Federal Police, Labor argues—and has argued in the amendment which I support—that it would have been not only sensible but also absolutely necessary to do that.
What is the reason for that? The core of this bill is about the Australian Federal Police. If you look at (1) the record of the AFP, (2) its mode of operations and (3) the opportunity for people to become involved in areas where corrupt conduct could be involved, you will see the very fact that they are not state police entities is one of the reasons there have been so few known cases of corrupt activity in the Australian Federal Police. It is the nature of the work that, in good part, determines whether or not the temptation is great enough for people to undertake corrupt activity. If you look at the specific responsibilities that agencies and the people working with those agencies have, then by going to the Customs Service and seeing how it operates and the environment it works in, particularly at Australia’s major airports, you will understand why this bill should apply to them. It is the nature of their business that underlines the fact that the operations of this bill should be extended to the vast number of goods moving in and out of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, for instance, one of the main security controlled airports in Australia. We have argued for that quite specifically in our amendment. For the benefit of the House and the Australian public, I will read out paragraph (3) of our amendment:
If that is so—and the minister needs to answer the charge put by us in this amendment—then one of the key areas that should be controlled has not been. Think about the operation, in practice, of the intersection between Customs, state police, the Australian Protective Service and the Australian Federal Police at our major airports. Think about the occasion for corrupt activity being undertaken. Think about the fact that there has been, over decades of experience within Sydney and Melbourne airports, a culture where not only drugs but also other illegal goods—for instance, guns—are traded from one end of the country to the other and where there has been, because the agencies have not been properly coordinated, no effective investigation of what has happened there.
The Wheeler report, which the government accepted in September 2005, indicated that the way in which those agencies interacted was entirely dysfunctional. They needed to be completely reorganised. He suggested there should be one single enforcement agency, one police force, put in place throughout Australia’s major security controlled airports and that it be responsible to one person. The reason he suggested that—it has not been done by the government—is that it is in the interstices of procedure, it is between the different agencies, that the greatest capacity for people to be able to do wrong and engage in corrupt conduct is available. Where you get an overlapping of functions and uncertainty in terms of who is supposed to do the job and who has a purview in what is a complex operation in any of these major airports, you have significant problems with Customs, state police, the Australian Protective Service and the Australian Federal Police, or the private security firms that have been given the job of doing a great deal of that.
Anyone in those agencies who is in a position to be bribed or brought into the criminal culture that exists within those entities could be under investigation by the Australian Integrity Commissioner, but only if it is specifically provided for in this bill. It is our view that that is not the case. It is our view that the minister may by exemption have created a situation where those who are least likely to be under the purview of the commissioner, the Australian Federal Police, because of the very nature of their job, are under the purview of this legislation. But those who are most likely in the Commonwealth government agencies are not taken into account in this bill. I would suggest to the minister that, if that is the case, they must be incorporated and that he should accept Labor’s amendment in this regard.
The amendment we have put up is pretty tough, particularly if you look at the way in which the government have dealt with these measures, but I think it is extremely significant. The first two parts go to the question of the timing. Let us look back to 1996. I was here in November 1996. I have been here for 10 years as of yesterday. I gave my first speech 10 years ago. In all of the 10 very long years that this government have been in action—they have been here but not necessarily in action—one of the fundamental problems we have had is the dilatoriness in taking up what should be seen as simply doing their job. The government, at the very start, 10 years ago, said: ‘Let’s have a look at what the Commonwealth government activity is. Let’s have a look at what the Commonwealth government should be doing.’ They produced a report from the National Commission of Audit, and the fundamental decision, the baseline for this government, was that the Commonwealth government should in fact provide no direct service at all to the Australian community and that their ultimate function is, effectively, to be a bystander; they would be auditors and benchmarkers.
This bill took so long in part because it is an active measure. It has benchmarking and auditing functions, but it goes to the question of the operation of Commonwealth entities—in this case, the AFP. That is matched by the associated bill in which there is an attempt to bring the standards in the AFP up to date to deal with complaints in a better way than in the past. We commend the fact that those steps have been taken. But they are on too small a scale and do not really get to the nub, to the core, of what this is, because if the Commonwealth could do so I am sure they would simply outsource everything they could. We know that they have sought to do that in Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, and we know what problems have been created as a result. We know that in securing Australia’s airports a lot of the security work is left up to private companies. Those private companies are not properly vetted. The government have had a number of attempts at doing that, but because criminal elements, and indeed terrorist elements, have been able to operate within the boundaries of cleaning services, baggage handlers and so on, stopping that by proper provision but also stopping it by accurately including government services that they still have not taken responsibility for is an important thing to do.
By contrast, the American government understand very fully that they have to take responsibility for historic or traditional government activities. They are not as ideological as this government is and they therefore take very seriously the charge they have to look to the welfare and conduct of their people when they are travelling and to ensure that the action they take in relation to their federal and state agencies is such that they can ensure that corruption is rooted out. They take direct responsibility for it, and that is why it is much safer to travel in the United States and into and out of it than virtually anywhere else in the world now, because they have seriously got the message. What this government seriously needs to get the message on is that, given that it has taken so long to produce, this legislation is too narrow in its scope. We need to have it more inclusive, particularly in Customs and DIMIA.
There are also other areas, and I will speak to these last two parts of our amendment, where the government needs to be brought to task. Point (4) of our amendment states:
An absolute disgrace.
Disgraceful. But there is more; lastly:
Taking into account the fact that absolutely Customs should be involved here, there is a strong case that Immigration should be involved, when you look at past practice.
Our amendment goes to the core of the whole question of whether or not there is an adequate system of administration. If you introduce legislation with the shortest second reading speech I have ever seen—there are probably about 100 words in it—if you say, ‘The focus of this is so narrow that we really do not have to go into much of the detail,’ and if you then say, ‘It may affect government agencies, but we’ll just make up a shopping list and the minister can either add a few to the shopping list or knock them off simply by determining that and whacking a regulation through so they are off the shopping list and out of the oversight of this,’ and so it is all done as a governmental driver, then you would have to question the integrity of the process of setting up an Integrity Commissioner, having that Integrity Commissioner involved in law enforcement and having appropriate powers. We would argue that the self-generation of investigations under this bill is not sufficient. Even if the commissioner has information come to him or his staff and he generates a report, there is still the fact that with a single stroke of the pen the minister can say, ‘That’s out of your purview altogether.’ That creates a situation where the integrity of the whole process can be pulled to pieces.
The government does not seriously understand, appreciate or take into account the fundamental demands of being in government and of ensuring not only that its agencies are seen as full extensions of the government but also that the people working for those agencies are under the full purview of the Integrity Commissioner. The very narrowness of the principal bill is its chief problem. Historically, if you look at this issue you see that the source of corrupt activity is not to be found in the normal sorts of operations of the Australian Federal Police, who do a wonderful job; it is to be found in the exceptions. If this commissioner is to really do his work and if his staff are to be put to the job and to do it effectively, then we need all of those relevant government agencies and organisations to be brought within its span, not to be able to be knocked off the shopping list at the minister’s whim. This is a significant bill and I commend it. I also commend our amendment to the bill to the House for its consideration, particularly by the minister. (Time expired)
We are having a cognate debate on the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 and the Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006. I want to say a few things about this legislation. In particular, I was pleased to follow the contribution by my colleague the honourable member for Blaxland. I totally endorse his remarks. In particular, why wouldn’t you want to have the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs under the purview of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner when 26 of our fellow Australian citizens—I repeat: 26 of our fellow Australian citizens—have been illegally and unlawfully detained in detention centres? It is an absolute disgrace, yet we are being asked to have confidence in the department of immigration.
The shadow Attorney-General has moved a second reading amendment and has foreshadowed detailed amendments to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill. The second reading amendment highlights the fact that the recommendation for the establishment of a law enforcement integrity commissioner first arose in November 1996 in report No. 82 of the Australian Law Reform Commission. In implementing a significant change—and I acknowledge that this is a significant change—it is appropriate for governments to be cautious in framing the legislation and ensuring that they have got it right. But I am sure you would not disagree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this has taken almost 10 years. November this year would be the 10th anniversary of this recommendation. Caution, yes, but this is legislating at a snail’s pace. In fact, maybe the Leader of the House would want me to withdraw that as a reflection on snails—and if I have so reflected, I apologise and I withdraw. But I do not understand, as the honourable member for Blaxland has pointed out, why, when our law enforcement agencies have been under so much stress from heightened activity due to the threat of terrorism, it has taken 10 long years for this bill to come to fruition.
This bill is welcome and we are actually supporting it. I think our amendments will strengthen the bill and I will be most interested to see whether or not the Attorney-General—or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is at the table—will be embracing our second reading amendment and, in particular, our detailed amendments. Labor would like to see the reporting regime opened up and subjected to judicial review. We would also like to see agencies such as AUSTRAC, Customs and, as I have mentioned, the department of immigration covered by the Integrity Commissioner. This bill would be greatly enhanced if those agencies came under its purview. I think that would give comfort to citizens that there are remedial steps that they can take. The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner would be charged with dealing with corruption, and in 2004 the platform of the Australian Labor Party had this to say:
Labor supports the establishment of independent anti-corruption authorities to oversee the investigative, prosecutorial and judicial processes. Labor will ensure that the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police have appropriate independent complaints handling procedures.
I am very pleased with it, and it is for that reason that the opposition is supporting these measures.
I am focused on the Australian Federal Police, because on Monday I raised a privileges matter concerning tampering with mail. I understand that Australia Post has its own internal security, but I specifically wrote to the Australian Federal Police because I had no confidence in having an impartial examination of the serious issues that I had raised—that is, between 3,000 to 5,000 mail items were shredded. Unfortunately, the security bin holding my material has now been removed. Another federal member is in the same boat as I am—of having their mail tampered with—not by the workers at Australia Post Nepean centre but by the management.
This is why I was very keen to see the Australian Federal Police look at what I believe is a climate of corruption in the New South Wales state branch of Australia Post—but they did not. I suppose I have cause to write to the Ombudsman. I have lodged my complaint with the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, but I have not heard from him. I must say that this is uncharacteristic. I have the greatest admiration for Commissioner Keelty. I think he has done a great job, and I also believe that he presides over a very effective and efficient Australian Federal Police force. The officers of the Australian Federal Police have my admiration and my total support.
Unfortunately, many members of the Australian Federal Police are tied up on overseas assignments, where they are doing a great job. The 2004-05 annual report states that 258 officers are stationed at overseas posts; at least a further 147 are on peacekeeping duties overseas; 1,205 Protective Service officers are involved in guarding duties, not investigative services; 26 are on secondment to other agencies—I would be very happy if that were 27 not 26, so that we had one on secondment to Australia Post; 1,291 are unsworn; 608 are appropriately on ACT local policing duties; and 20 are on local policing duties in other Australian territories.
We have talked many times in this House about the Australian defence forces being at perhaps their highest tempo of operation since the Vietnam War. I think that is a true statement. I also think it is true of the Australian Federal Police. In recent times they have been at an exceptional level of operation and are deeply committed all over the world to duties as they have been announced by the Australian government. This is putting a lot of pressure on the Australian Federal Police. Perhaps I should take a more charitable view of the Australian Federal Police not investigating what happened at the Nepean delivery centre and what I understand to be a climate of corruption operating within the New South Wales Australia Post operations at management level—and I want to stress ‘at management level’.
Why would we argue, for example, to have Customs involved in this? I have spoken a number of times about what is happening on our northern borders. It is a matter of record that last year 13,000 foreign fishing vessels were sighted in either our coastal waters or our economic zone. Now, 13,000 is a lot of fishing vessels, along with 78,000 illegal foreign fishermen, in our waters. Of the 13,000 boats, only 400 were apprehended. It is a matter of record that some of those boats were landing on our shores.
I have raised the quarantine issues associated with that. We are at grave risk of foot-and-mouth disease entering this country by illegal foreign fishermen landing on our coast. The most probable way that avian flu will enter this country is through illegal fishermen. And, of course, there are marine pests. We already know that it cost $3 billion to eradicate the black striped mussel from Darwin Harbour. If it hit our pearling industry, it would wipe it out, which is the last in the wild pearling industry. It would be not only a huge economic loss to us but also a tragedy for the world.
The point I want to make is that no-one can tell us whether drugs are coming in on these boats. We cannot say whether drugs are coming in on these boats. We do not know whether weapons are coming in on these boats. We do not know whether there are persons, other than refugees, seeking to enter Australia by landing on our coast. This is a serious issue. It is not confined just to one small spot on the Western Australian coast, it is not confined to the coast of the Northern Territory, it is not confined to Queensland—it is across our northern waters. It is a very serious issue.
I would never argue that this scandal, in my view, is an issue of corruption within Customs or an issue of corruption within Coastwatch or an issue of corruption within the Federal Police. I would not make that argument. But when you have 78,000 illegal fishermen in our northern waters and we are unable to respond, then certainly some ministers should stand up before the dispatch box and accept responsibility. I also say to those agencies that they are derelict in their duty by not recommending more strongly to the government appropriate measures that would stop this.
This country was thrown into utter turmoil by a couple of thousand illegal refugees wanting to land in Australia. We turned our immigration laws upside down. We took extraordinary action on border protection, but in any one year the numbers were relatively modest, certainly compared to other countries. For example, in the UK up to 100,000 people would seek refugee status. But here I am talking about genuine people, because they are poor fishermen, trying to earn a livelihood, being financed by illegal cartels operating in Indonesia and some other countries. I have some sympathy for the fishermen but these 78,000 illegal foreign fishermen are, at will, being allowed to enter our coast and we are doing absolutely nothing about it. I am sorry; that is not true. The government are proposing to lift the number of vessels apprehended by 4.62 per cent. ‘In the case of 78,000 illegal fishermen, we hope to apprehend 3,700.’ This is seen by the government as an adequate response.
I think it is a totally inadequate response. It is another example of the government refusing to protect Australian sovereignty. We know what you are doing on the immigration bill, we know who you are appeasing on the immigration bill, but you will not stand up and protect our sovereignty and our borders. The government knows and the agencies know that these illegal fishermen are landing on our coast. Why shouldn’t we have Customs under the purview of this Integrity Commissioner? I think we should. In relation to the scandal that is operating on our northern borders, I certainly hope that we do not have to wait another 10 years to see some action.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman will have an additional role in relation to the Australian Federal Police. We will still see complaints made to the Ombudsman, but his title will be changed, I think, to the Law Enforcement Ombudsman. But not all complaints will be handled by the Ombudsman. The so-called serious corruption complaints will be handled by the new statutory body that we are establishing in these bills.
To sum up, there is still a lot to be done in the law enforcement area. I regret to say—and, again, I apologise if I am offending snails—it has taken a decade, with a snail’s pace tackling of these important issues. Labor support the legislation and welcome it. We think it is long overdue, but we still welcome it. We have a second reading amendment—which I am sure, if you had your druthers, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be supporting—and some in detail amendments that strengthen the bill.
I endorse the comments of my colleagues the members for Chifley, Banks and Denison, who have spoken to these bills, and reiterate that Labor welcomes this legislation finally coming into the House. Three bills are being considered cognately, and the substantial amendments that the shadow Attorney-General has moved warrant consideration. There is absolutely no doubt that a rationalisation of law enforcement is long overdue in this country, and the government has finally managed to present us with this legislation. The opposition takes a very keen interest in both the substance and the efficacy of the legislation that comes into the parliament, and I think it is notable that the debate conducted in the House today goes to issues of substance and efficacy.
We note that the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 and the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 establish the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission as a new agency under the Attorney-General’s portfolio, that there are specific powers for the investigation and reporting of corruption issues—and that is important—that new offences are created for not cooperating with the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner and that the bills are limited in operational scope to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission but that any other Commonwealth law agency that has a law enforcement function could be included by being specified in regulations. I will come to that issue in a moment.
By establishing a new agency, the Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commission, or ACLEI, to investigate corruption allegations against law enforcement agencies and officers and to conduct public inquiries under the control of an integrity commissioner, the government is bringing to the 21st century that which should have been done some time ago—but the measures are welcomed nevertheless. Such an agency was recommended as far back as 1996 in the Australian Law Reform Commission report No. 82 and also in 2003 by the Fisher review. The commissioner is given a broad range of powers in relation to investigating corruption but can only investigate law enforcement agencies. Additionally, it is worth while pointing out that article 6.9 of the 2004 ALP national platform states:
Labor supports the establishment of independent anti-corruption authorities to oversee the investigative, prosecutorial and judicial processes. Labor will ensure that the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police have appropriate independent complaints handling procedures.
Clearly, that is an important part of the legislation before us. We agree that the proposed regime is a fair improvement on the current regime. The current regime relies on the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate, and the AFP has had a conflict of interest in, effectively, investigating itself. As other members have mentioned, the bill is not yet optimal, particularly in the fact that it does not draw Customs and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs into its regime. We believe that deficiency needs to be considered by the government. It is the case that a broader range of agencies can potentially be added or delisted from the regime, and that is something we will take some interest in as this legislation unfolds and as the policy issues that need to be considered in relation to the legislation continues.
The Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006the other bill to be considered in this cognate debate—repeals the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, establishes in the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 a new four-category system for complaints and own-motion investigations into conduct and practice issues, and amends a range of acts as a consequence. It incorporates a provision relating to alcohol screening tests into the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. It amends the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to make new provisions for suspension, termination and resignation from AFP employment. This legislation provides improvements in the arrangements. The Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal has pretty much stopped working; it certainly has not heard any cases for the past seven years. Importantly, this new regime is an integral part of a broader anticorruption regime which includes ACLEI, so, along with our amendments, Labor believe the bill should be supported.
I note that the bill provides minimal protection for whistleblowers by making an offence of victimisation under proposed section 40YA, part VA, division 3. A provision relating to the stripping of superannuation from those found guilty of corruption offences is deleted from the bill. We believe some additional issues arise out of this which should be considered, including how complaints can be referred against AFP local police contingents in external territories. That is a technical issue but clearly an important one given that there are a number of the AFP local police contingents now operating in external territories. Also, under clause 40TC, which relates to ordered training and development action, a provision ought to be considered to protect people from pecuniary loss. A number of other technical matters are contained in the amendments that the shadow Attorney-General has moved.
One of the things that is clear is that Labor will use the Senate committee process to examine the bill closely in an endeavour to secure necessary amendments. But I have to say in relation to that particular matter that the decision in the last 24 hours by the government to effectively seek to take control of the Senate raises some very legitimate questions about whether or not we will be able to properly scrutinise this legislation, or any other legislation which has such far-reaching consequences, when it comes through the House.
I draw your attention to the chain of events that have led from the Prime Minister, upon taking control of the Senate and announcing that the approach that the government will take will be humble—I think that was one of the words that was used—to the situation that we are faced with this morning, when we learn that in fact it is the government’s intention in the Senate that it will determine who heads the committees. The government will effectively control the agenda of Senate committees, including whether or not witnesses will be called and heard.
When we are considering a bill about improving the governance, accountability and efficiency of the purview of police agencies in the Commonwealth, a far more important but related issue is whether or not the parliament can continue to exercise its proper oversight duties in relation to these bodies and any others, including legislation. That is what this is all about at this point in time. We need to be very aware that, since taking control of the Senate, the government has, amongst other things, unilaterally changed the allocation of questions and awarded itself two extra questions each day at the expense of non-government senators, cut off debate and prevented full and open debate in the Senate on a number of really important bills that people in the gallery who are listening to me speaking would know are important and go to the very heart of their lives and what goes on in their communities—the Telstra bill, Work Choices, Welfare to Work, voluntary student unionism. Those are some of the bills that were subject to much less scrutiny.
The guillotine was imposed on the debate concerning $30 billion of taxpayers’ assets that are tied up in Telstra, leaving no opportunity for the Senate to do what the people of Australia expect it to do: hold the government to account. The government unilaterally altered the sitting hours in the week of the Telstra debate; it did not consult with other parties—the Labor Party, the Greens or the Democrats—in the Senate. Additionally, the Howard government has unilaterally pushed Senator Fielding down the senators list so that Senator Joyce could jump into his place. The Family First senator did not get to speak on that legislation in the Senate. That is a disgraceful abuse of process.
Additionally, debate has been gagged. People may remember that, on 13 October, when we were considering the antiterror legislation that was coming through the House, Senator Hill, the then government leader in the Senate, put a motion for the inquiry into the antiterror legislation after 4.30 pm on Thursday, as no vote could be held at this time. This would have effectively meant a one-day inquiry into the legislation. That is what the government was trying to do at that time.
Some ministers have shown a contempt for Senate abuses by not showing up to portfolio estimates, either sending parliamentary secretaries or junior ministers. Senators Kemp and Colbeck replaced Senator Ian Campbell at Environment and Heritage and Senator Sandy Macdonald replaced Senator Hill at Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Debate was gagged on 3 November in a debate about hours and routine and business, in the Senate again. Debate was gagged on 8 November in a debate over Labor’s proposed amendments to the references to the Work Choice inquiries. The legislation committee inquiring into the radioactive waste bill inquiry did not travel to the Northern Territory for local input. It did not even go to the very place where the legislation was likely to have its impact. Again, an antiterror bill and two welfare bills were guillotined and the debate was gagged on 5 December.
While I am reciting what has actually gone on in the Senate and noting the decline in the openness, accountability and thoroughness with which all elected senators can perform their tasks in the Senate, who could forget when Senator McGauran gave the finger to non-government senators during a vote count. I have not been in the parliament that long, but I must say that democracy dropped down a level of respect when Senator McGauran reacted in that way.
Additionally, there has been a considerable abuse of question time in the Senate. But now, more importantly, we see a final step taken by the government in seeking to reduce the capacity that the parliament has to consider bills and their effects clearly, including bills such as the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 and cognate bills.
I come into the parliament as the member for Kingsford Smith. I want to reiterate the comments of my colleagues, the member for Banks and the member for Dennison in particular, and note that there is a lost opportunity in this legislation in that we do not have a single oversight body that can deal with law enforcement, and to particularly note the fact that Customs and DIMA have not been brought directly within the purview of the legislation. The electorate that I represent has a significant port facility. Some of the problems and issues that we have seen in relation to Customs, and some of the significant difficulties—both security difficulties and difficulties and issues that relate to corruption itself—are really on the mind of my constituents; and, as I represent them, on my mind as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recall a report into the Customs IT system. That was the system that almost stopped the nation’s ports. The report showed that the new system had not expedited sea cargo by any measure, had not delivered streamlined and simplified dealings with Customs, had not delivered on improved security via cargo profiling and had not delivered any cost efficiencies, despite Senator Ellison promising the parliament that ‘these will be the greatest reforms to occur to the Australian Customs Service since Federation.’ The report found that ‘almost immediately’ the system ‘caused disruption to the nation’s ports’ and that Customs continued to introduce changes to the software up to 6 October, only one week prior to the go-live date.
If we had the opportunity to properly scrutinise the performance of ministers and the way in which legislation rolls through this parliament then we would be able to ask more questions about this, but in the future we will not be able to do that. But more importantly, I think, is the prospect that on the ports and the wharves there are opportunities and environments which place both security issues and corruption issues into the front field. To that extent, the fact that this legislation does not as a matter of course provide for or include Customs is an oversight.
I will conclude my remarks. There is no question that this legislation is needed. Additionally, there is no question that the issues that we have brought into the parliament are issues of efficiency, of efficacy and particularly of whether or not Customs and AUSTRAC, which are clearly law enforcement agencies, ought to be included in this legislation rather than being simply dependent on the minister’s listing for regulation. So they are important issues that have been raised. We will support the bill, awaiting and inviting the government to consider the amendment that has been moved.
During my contribution to the debate on the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 and cognate bills, I will turn to some of the issues highlighted by the member for Kingsford Smith in his contribution to this debate. Like other members on this side of the parliament, we are very concerned about the way this government has eroded the democratic process within Australia and within this parliament.
This legislation seeks to establish the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner and a new agency under the Attorney-General’s portfolio, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. It specifies a power for the investigation and reporting of corruption issues. It creates new offences for not cooperating with the Integrity Commissioner. It is limited in operational scope to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission—the former National Crime Authority. However, any other Commonwealth government agency that has a law enforcement function could be included by being specified in regulation. The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006, which we are discussing today, allows the Integrity Commissioner access to certain powers under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Crimes Act 1914 and various other acts. It extends the scope of the Telecommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1997 to allow the ACLEI to cooperate with other organisations.
Whilst we on this side are supporting this bill, it does have some flaws. We are quite concerned about the omissions in this legislation and I think that there are a few points that I need to make in relation to this legislation. As I have already stated, it establishes the Office of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner, and we on this side of the parliament welcome that development. But it is also worth noting just how long it has taken the government to develop this legislation: it has taken it almost two years to come good on the commitment to set up an independent national anticorruption body.
You might ask why this is necessary. I think members would be aware that most states have similar bodies, and it is very important that we can ensure the integrity of our Commonwealth law enforcement bodies. It should be noted—and I say without reservation—that the majority of law enforcement officers within the Commonwealth jurisdiction are very honourable, hardworking and dedicated people. But, unfortunately, at times there are some people who do not operate at the same level of integrity. So this is needed. It is an independent national anticorruption body and, as such, members should all get behind it.
But I do see it as a bit of a missed opportunity. This government had the opportunity to set up a body that would provide that oversight for all law enforcement bodies. As previous speakers on this side have mentioned, it has ignored DIMA and AUSTRAC and the Australian Customs Service. Even the Australian Taxation Office could be looked at in the context of this legislation. But, unfortunately, the government has not chosen to do this. There are still a number of minor flaws in this bill which add to the trend that this government has of putting before the parliament sloppy legislation, legislation that is half finished.
I think this links in to the arrogance that has developed within the coalition ranks since it has had control of both houses of parliament. It thinks it can just throw legislation into the House without going through the proper processes. It is a government that does not feel it is really accountable to anyone. It is a law unto itself and the only thing that can be guaranteed is that this government will push anything through this House if it thinks that it will benefit it. It took two years to develop the legislation and at the end of two years we have sloppy legislation that has not been detailed properly. I think that on that account the government stands condemned.
The bill before us today clearly does not take into account the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006. As a consequence, the consequential amendment bill is littered with redundant references. It is clear from the quality of the legislation and the lack of the timely response to the recommendation that the Attorney-General takes for granted that any piece of legislation he puts before the House will be successful. It is a very lazy cavalier approach to this parliament and to developing legislation of a quality that the Australian people should expect. The opposition will support this bill, but we do have a number of concerns. The shadow minister has put it to the House that we will be moving amendments that are vitally important to bring the Customs Service, AUSTRAC, justice portfolios and other law enforcement agencies under this legislation.
The Lateline program of 18 September last year highlighted the need for this type of legislation. However, it needs to be broader than the legislation before us today. The Lateline presentation was a special report on the trade in drugs, guns and people over the Torres Strait, between Papua New Guinea and Australia. As we all know, there have been increased tensions between Australia and New Zealand over these matters. However, it is a trade that has been taking place for a very long time and one that this government has not moved to stop. In this Lateline report, it was alleged that corrupt officials were making this trade even easier. I know that the member for Chifley spoke at some length about illegal fishing, the failure of the government to stop that practice and the failure of the government to stop many of the illegal activities that take place in the northern part of Australia.
This Lateline report highlighted the need for the government to address this issue. Very important information was put forward in that program—information that makes it so much more important for us to include in this legislation Customs and other areas. One of the contributors said:
Sometimes the drug dealers give drugs and buy off the Customs guys.
The question was asked:
So are Australian officials corrupt?
The answer:
Yes ... especially Immigration.
Where in this legislation is Immigration covered? The answer is that it is not. Because it is not covered, we have flawed legislation before us here in the parliament today. As I have already highlighted, this is sloppy legislation put to us by a very lazy Attorney-General who thinks he can serve anything up to this parliament, say what he likes and it will get through because he has the numbers in the House and in the Senate.
Before going back to the Lateline program, I would like to make a couple of comments on the Senate and the moves that this government has taken to interfere with the democratic process not only in the Senate but here in this parliament. This week, this House has been subject to a number of gag motions. I have been prevented from speaking on two or three pieces of legislation in this parliament because this government has rammed legislation through the parliament. This is not a government that allows for proper debate, discussion, investigation and amendments to legislation. I have been prevented from speaking on these pieces of legislation this week, as have many other members on this side of the House. We believe that legislation should have proper scrutiny, and I would argue very strongly and passionately that this government is preventing that. By preventing proper scrutiny the government is doing a disservice to the Australian people. The Australian people deserve better than that. They deserve legislation that has been properly debated and scrutinised by the House of Representatives and the Senate.
We have noticed a very big change in this parliament since the government gained control of the Senate. No longer do we sit late on the night before parliament rises. My prediction is that we will probably get out of parliament at the normal time on Thursday night because the government has control of the Senate. Previously when the government rammed things through the House, things were properly scrutinised in the Senate because the government did not have the numbers then. Now the government has the numbers in the Senate, everything will be rammed through the Senate without proper scrutiny in the same way it has been rammed through this parliament since the Howard government came to power. Today we have heard the news that the government will rationalise the Senate committees by reducing their numbers, once again decreasing the capacity of senators to properly examine legislation. It is all about the government’s removing itself from accountability. It is all about a lack of scrutiny. It is all about ramming everything through. It is all about not allowing proper democratic processes in this parliament.
The member for Kingsford Smith highlighted some of the legislation that this government had gagged debate on—very vital legislation to the people of Australia. The Telstra debate, the Welfare to Work legislation and the Work Choices legislation—I see the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is at the table—were gagged. We were not allowed to discuss vital legislation that changed the shape of Australia. The antiterrorism legislation, once again, was gagged. Under this government, our democracy has been diminished and Australians are being persecuted because of this government’s approach to governing our country. I urge the government to rethink its plans for the Senate, because I see it as a further abuse of our parliamentary system in Australia. It is the action of a very arrogant government that really does not want to be accountable to the Australian people in a way that it should be.
The Lateline report I was examining a moment ago highlights a number of areas where there are deficiencies in policing the waters north of Australia. In that particular interview, it was stated that two local economies north of Australia are fishing and smuggling; that it was all about bringing guns, drugs and people in. The following fact was also highlighted:
Part of the problem is in the Australian side. The Australian law enforcement agencies are corrupt. Federal Police, Customs, and Australian Immigration officers are corrupt. They are part of the network.
Today we are putting in place legislation that will look at part of the problem, and I suspect the part of the problem that is most accountable now—that is, the Australian Federal Police—but it ignores Customs and DIMA. I really do not think that DIMA should escape the oversight of this legislation when we look at some of the examples that have been before the parliament of the 26 Australians held in immigration detention. I do not need to go into the plight of Cornelia Rau today as all members are aware of the activities that have happened where DIMA have not acted in the way that one would expect them to act. I would argue that there has been an abuse of their law enforcement powers and that they should receive the same sort of oversight that we are placing on agencies that come under this legislation.
I argue very strongly that, unless the government includes these other departments and agencies, this legislation is flawed, and it is very much a missed opportunity. I find it extremely disappointing that this government is prepared to cover two agencies—the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission—when there are a number of other agencies that should come under this legislation. While I support this legislation, I condemn the government for its sloppy and very untimely approach to developing this legislation. It has been very remiss in omitting those agencies that I have highlighted throughout my contribution to this debate. I have provided supporting evidence from the Lateline show of 18 April that really supports the inclusion of those agencies to be covered by this legislation.
I hope that when this legislation reaches the Senate it will be scrutinised properly. As I have already highlighted, this government is not about proper scrutiny; it is about reducing the ability of the Senate to scrutinise legislation in the way that it should be scrutinised. I urge the government to reconsider its proposal to reduce the number of Senate committees and the ability of the Senate to do its job—that is, to review legislation.
The three bills before us, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 and cognate bills, are principally designed to create the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner. That is an important position, and the Labor Party welcomes the creation of that office. It has been Labor policy for some time; we have been calling for the creation of that position for some time. In fact, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended the establishment of a body such as this back in 1996 in its report of November of that year. It took the Liberal government the best part of two years before they finally adopted that recommendation of the Law Reform Commission. In June 2004, which is some eight years later, the Liberal government finally got around to adopting that recommendation.
If memory serves me correctly, I think it was the former Labor Attorney-General Michael Lavarch who asked the Law Reform Commission to look at these matters. I should reflect that Michael Lavarch was an outstanding Attorney-General who, in a number of respects, brought the administration of law in Australia into a modern contemporary frame. It is a pity that subsequent Attorneys-General have not had either his ability or his integrity. That is my view, and I am sure the view of many people in the legal fraternity who have watched the situation.
In any event, after about eight years the Liberal government finally decided that this was a good idea, that the Law Reform Commission had it right in November 1996, and adopted the policy of establishing the Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commission. It has taken this government two years since then to have a bill materialise in this parliament, and when you reflect on the number of pieces of legislation in the law enforcement and antiterrorism areas that this government has introduced—in some cases with little or no debate—it is hard to understand why it relegated such an important measure to such a low priority. The fact that it has taken two years for this government after adopting this policy to produce a bill indicates the lack of interest it has in ensuring proper transparency and accountability.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I think Australia’s police and law enforcement bodies are, with a few exceptions, made up of very decent professional people who are dedicated to the task at hand and perform an excellent job. We see that day in and day out and, whether as legislators or as citizens, we know that if we are in difficulty it is the law enforcement agency people of Australia we turn to and they respond with great dedication and within the limits of the resources available to them.
That said, it has to be acknowledged that it is a fact of history that some people in those roles will do the wrong thing from time to time. I do not want to overplay that because, if we are going to be frank about it, there are a few politicians and ex-politicians that have done the wrong thing and have found themselves on the wrong end of a court case. Indeed, there are a few politicians who have found themselves in jail as a result of things that they have done as members of parliament or in holding office in state or federal legislatures. So I do not want to pretend or paint a picture in any way that the law enforcement agencies more than any other group in our community in positions of trust behave in a way that might be seen as improper or unlawful. The fact is that the community rightly demands that there be accountability and transparency for those who hold high office and those who hold positions of trust, and the law enforcement bodies fall into that category.
Some years ago, states around Australia, confronted with the reality of illegal and improper activity by some of the law enforcement bodies, established various commissions or committees to oversight the police bodies throughout the country. It has taken some years for the Commonwealth to recognise the need for a similar body to provide for greater accountability and transparency in the operations of our law enforcement agencies.
One of the great tragedies of this bill, though, is its narrow scope. The bill provides for an Integrity Commissioner but then ties the Integrity Commissioner’s hands behind his back. The bill allows the Integrity Commissioner to overview the operations of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. I suspect that, of all the law enforcement agencies under the Commonwealth’s control, those are the two where there are fewer problems than anywhere else. That is not to say that there will not be issues from time to time or that there are not cases that warrant investigation, but the simple fact is that the AFP and the Australian Crime Commission have a very good reputation here in Australia and, indeed, abroad for their professionalism and the quality of the work they do. The AFP have been called on to assist neighbouring countries build their police services and security services. We see them operating in the Solomons and in Dili. They are well regarded around the world when they have been on international deployments as part of UN contingents. So having those two agencies, and only those two agencies, subject to the integrity commission is the government’s way of establishing the Clayton’s commission—that is the integrity commission you have without really having an integrity commission.
This is the integrity commission that is not going to be able to do the job it needs to, which is to supervise and oversee all of the law enforcement agencies for which the Commonwealth is responsible. Why is it, for example, that the Australian Taxation Office is not subject to an external integrity commission oversight? Why is the Australian Customs Service not subject to that oversight? Why is the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs not subject to that oversight? My friend and colleague Senator Ludwig in the Senate and my colleague here in the House of Representatives Nicola Roxon made the observation that the performance of the department of immigration has been so appalling that it can rightly be described as a ‘chamber of horrors that masquerades as a department of state’. The simple fact is that the immigration department’s performance in a raft of areas, not just over a short period of time but time and again over the last decade, has been appalling.
I just cite a couple of examples to recall some of the problems that we have witnessed in the maladministration of that department. There is the wrongful detention of no fewer than 26 Australian citizens. This is a department that has deported people who are Australians. They are having enough trouble figuring out whether you are an Australian citizen before they deport you, let alone whether you are a fit and proper person. This is the same department that has allowed five detainees to be transported locked up in the back of a van for five hours without food, without water, without toilet facilities and without a rest break. It is the same department that exports women and children to an island quarry hole on Nauru. It is the same department that allowed even mothers in the act of labour to be placed under guard and refused the right of family members to take photographs of the newborn. This is a department that is out of control, this is a department that has been the subject of ongoing criticism in this parliament and in public, yet the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission being created through this bill will not be given the power to deal with the operations of the immigration department and the enforcement of law which it undertakes. It is a glaring anomaly. Why does the minister under this bill have a roving discretion to decide which agencies should be investigated and which should not? These law enforcement agencies that are the responsibility of the Commonwealth should all be subject to the same integrity review process and oversight. They are not. Everyone who is involved in a law enforcement agency and in the administration of them in Australia knows that is a glaring anomaly.
In the inquiry of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee the Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, made the following observation about the problem that this gap presented:
There is a gap here—and I do not want to name agencies—if you look at the powers, such as access to search warrants, access to the use of firearms and access to detention.
The implication was that you can identify those agencies that should be subject of an Integrity Commissioner. Of course, Mick Keelty is right. It is not just the Federal Police who are in a position where they deal with warrants, have access to firearms or have access to detention. Other agencies do and they should be subject in this act to those provisions. Indeed, the Senate committee has recommended that these agencies should be brought under the purview of the Integrity Commissioner by legislative means. It should be here in the bill before us. The government, before this bill is dealt with in the Senate, should change at least that aspect of the bill to make sure that its coverage is more complete. All of the law enforcement agencies responsible to the Commonwealth should be subject to the purview of this body.
I mentioned the Senate committee inquiry on this and the recommendations that it made. I cannot let the events of the last 24 hours go by without making the observation that we may not see statements from people like the police commissioner to Senate inquiries in the future or, indeed, the sorts of recommendations that were made here. Since this government has had control of the Senate from the middle of last year as a result of the last election, it has done everything it can at every stage to muzzle the Senate and to muzzle the parliamentary process. I think the executive—the cabinet, the ministers in this government—have come to the view that the parliament is really just a bit of a nuisance, an obstacle, an impediment and a frustration that has to be endured but entertained as little as possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker, have a look at this debate. Today we have seen just one member of the government stand to support the bill. There have been about eight members of the Labor Party speak on this bill. We on this side of the parliament actually think that the parliamentary process is important. We also happen to think that this legislation is important. We think that accountability and transparency are important. These are but a trifle to members of the cabinet. They think transparency and accountability are simply an impediment to their political goals. They think the parliament is an impediment to the program they want to put through. You see that carried out here today as the gag has been applied. You see it here today in this House as government members do not even entertain the idea that they should engage in the debate in the parliament, because the parliament is largely irrelevant as far as this government is concerned.
In the Senate, where there has been scrutiny, you have seen since the middle of last year this government use its numbers as brutally as it thinks it can to ensure that debate in the Senate is also reduced. It causes me great concern. I remember well the situation at the end of last year when the ASIO bill was presented to the Senate. After 4.30 on a Thursday afternoon, the government, thinking they were very clever, dropped a motion on the table to have what amounted to a one-day Senate hearing into those quite contentious and far-reaching provisions of the ASIO bill. They thought it was clever, because the motion could not be amended after 4.30 on a Thursday afternoon, and they basically issued an ultimatum to the Labor Party and all other parties in the Senate: vote for a one-day hearing or you will get none at all.
It is a matter of record that we protested fiercely inside and outside the parliament, and the government, thankfully, under the pressure of public opinion, backed off from that one-day hearing. We ended up with a one-week hearing—not a lot better, I have to say. It was a one-week hearing that in other circumstances, before the Liberal Party had control of the Senate, would have been more like a three- or four-month hearing with evidence taken around the country. But, no, the government wanted to have a one-day hearing and it shifted to a five-day hearing under pressure.
That is an unacceptable approach to legislative debate in this parliament. That is not how you get good laws. That is how legislators make mistakes. They make mistakes when you have arrogant, out-of-touch ministers who think that the parliamentary process is simply an impediment on the road to their desired outcome and when they are so arrogant that they think that all of the knowledge and all of the answers reside within the ministerial office and the staffers who populate the advisers benches. They do not. We get it wrong in this parliament sometimes even after we have had extensive debate, but I tell you what: we get it wrong a hell of a lot more when we have half-a-dozen ministers as the only people involved in the decision-making process. That is where this government is heading.
They have gagged debate on serious matters in this House of Representatives this week. They are now in the process, announced in the last 24 hours, of closing down about a third of the Senate’s committees. One of the things that the people of Australia know is that, irrespective of who the government of the land has been, when important matters are before the parliament, invariably there will be a Senate inquiry that allows for full and public involvement—that is, people can make submissions and the media can report fully on what is going on. This government is trying to close that down.
There has been committee consideration of the legislation before us and they have made recommendations that I hope this government take on board. The Labor Party have moved an amendment, which I hope this government takes on board. Foremost should be an expansion of the scope that the Integrity Commissioner has. Those other Commonwealth law enforcement agencies should be subject to oversight by the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission, not just the AFP and the Crime Commission. Those other law enforcement agencies should also be dealt with here.
This is an important bill and it is a step in the right direction. We welcome it as a step in the right direction, but it falls short of the mark that I think the Australian people expect. It falls short of the mark that those involved in the law enforcement agencies expect. The words of Mick Keelty that I spoke about before should be heeded by the government, the advice of the Senate committee should also be heeded by the government and the amendment moved by Labor should be adopted by the government so that we can end up with a bill that is not just a step in the right direction but a significant advance on where we are at the moment.
in reply—Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you very much for the call and I thank the members who have contributed in the debate on the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 and cognate bills—the members for Gellibrand, Fisher, Werriwa, Richmond, Denison, Kingsford Smith, Shortland, Chifley, Blaxland, Banks and Brisbane. It has certainly been a matter of quite considerable contribution and I thank all the members. In the time available, I may not be able to deal with all of the points made, but I will try to deal with the substantial issues.
It has been suggested, during the discussion and in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gellibrand, that there has been some delay in the implementation of this matter. The first point I should make is that this has not been a response to the Australian Law Reform Commission report; it is a new initiative that is being brought forward in the absence of evidence of serious corruption in Australian law enforcement. The matters referred to by the opposition either are not relevant to corruption or are based upon media reports that have not raised issues but matters that have been the subject of separate investigation. Our view is that it is entirely appropriate that in these circumstances the legislation that has been brought forward should be properly and fully developed with full and careful consideration.
The member for Gellibrand in her comments pressed these matters by seeking in her amendment to add new agencies to the proposed jurisdiction of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission by seeking to extend its jurisdiction. In our view, that would involve considerable delay. Extension by regulation rather than in the legislation itself, in our view, would be a more efficient approach and repeal of such extended jurisdiction by regulation to avoid a particular investigation, even if it were technically possible, would not be politically feasible.
Mention was made by the member for Richmond of the need for appeal against dismissal. In this matter, the government has taken account of questions raised as to whether amended section 69A of the AFP Act would prevent review by the Industrial Relations Commission of dismissals under section 28 of that act for misconduct. The government will be proposing an amendment to clarify that section 69A does not affect appeals against dismissals under section 28.
Some matters were raised by the honourable member for Gellibrand, as I have mentioned, who named Customs, DIMA, ASIC and other agencies that should be covered. Our view is that the role of the Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner is to deal principally with law enforcement functions. The functions of regulatory agencies which may in some similar respects deal with law enforcement issues do not necessarily mean they should be covered in a body of this sort. The functions of regulatory agencies are in many cases more narrowly focused and include roles that are different from those of law enforcement agencies. In our view, other considerations should be taken into account in dealing with these issues. This could be done on a case-by-case basis, as the need is identified and after due consideration of the relationship between law enforcement and non law enforcement functions within each agency.
The issues listed in the opposition’s amendment in relation to the Australian Customs Service demonstrate the complexities of addressing the mixed functions of agencies, other than the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission, in extending jurisdiction to the Integrity Commissioner. Given the complex issues that are involved, we consider the incremental approach that we foreshadowed will allow for a much more adequate consideration of the particular issues relevant to each agency.
The member for Gellibrand also, as I understand it, asked why a new parliamentary committee is required to oversight this body and I think the member for Werriwa raised the same issue. The Senate committee recommended that the existing Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission could oversight it. The government accepts that there is some potential overlap with the area of responsibility of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. However, the functions for the proposed Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission are being focused not on the law enforcement agencies, over which the Integrity Commissioner has jurisdiction, but on the work of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission, particularly on its use of the special coercive powers which are given to it by this bill. To combine these functions would merely tend to create confusion between the roles of the two different committees in relation to the Australian Crime Commission and its role on other agencies. It should be kept in mind that the Australian Crime Commission, even at the outset, will only amount to a small proportion of the persons within the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction.
With reference to the argument made by the member for Denison for a law enforcement parliamentary joint committee, the government remains unconvinced that such a joint committee with jurisdiction over Commonwealth law enforcement officers is necessary. The law enforcement functions of the Commonwealth extend to a large range of Commonwealth agencies. A committee with general oversight of Commonwealth law enforcement would need to look into activities of all the agencies, possibly interfering with areas of responsibility of a range of other committees of the parliament.
The member for Werriwa raised some issues about the definition of ‘serious corruption’ being too wide because it has the potential for imprisonment of more than 12 months. The government does not wish to limit the Integrity Commissioner to any particular level of corruption, because this would potentially allow borderline cases to be withheld from the commissioner inappropriately. The bill expressly provides that the Integrity Commissioner should focus on serious and systemic corruption. The bill provides for flexibility for the Integrity Commissioner to leave minor issues to law enforcement agencies for internal investigation. The definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ is broad and appropriately so. It corresponds to the definition already used in the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act and the Australian Federal Police Act in provisions for loss of superannuation benefits.
The member for Banks asked why resources should be devoted to this issue if there were no problem. The government agree that we should be cautious about devoting resources to what may not be an extensive problem in our law enforcement agencies, but this is essentially the approach that the government has adopted and will continue to adopt—that is, one of caution. The government are conscious of the need to avoid damage to the morale of law enforcement officers by an excessively zealous approach, but we have tried to achieve a balance by ensuring that people know there is an appropriate framework for these matters to be dealt with.
The member for Chifley would like to see the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act applied to reports and decisions under the bill. The work of the agency will be in the nature of police investigations. Giving reasons for decisions would be quite inappropriate in these circumstances and it would open an avenue for collateral attack of investigations.
In trying to progress the bill’s consideration, I will withhold further comments. There will be some government amendments, in part to improve the bill but also in part to reflect the Senate committee’s consideration. I commend the bill to the chamber and indicate that the government does not accept the opposition’s amendment.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gellibrand has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
I move:
Clause 1, page 9 (line 10), after “Interception”, insert “and Access”.
I will be fairly brief. This is a minor change that goes to the renaming of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. The name of the bill, as the Attorney would know, has been changed since the time it was introduced and the time we are debating it. I give the Attorney some notice that I do not intend to speak for very long on this amendment. Basically it is a change that is necessitated because, as the Attorney would be aware, of a change to the name that came about because of the changes to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. It is a technical matter which I think the government should have no problem in accepting, given that it corrects the references to the act as now properly named.
The advice I have is that the amendment is not necessary. But, given that there is a willingness to accept it, even though we think it is unnecessary, I think I will leave it to consideration in another place.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and move government amendments (1) to (27):
(1) Clause 10, page 16 (line 15), omit paragraph (1)(d).
(2) Clause 10, page 16 (after line 17), after paragraph (1)(f), insert:
(fa) a person engaged overseas under section 69A of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to perform duties overseas as an employee of the AFP;
(3) Clause 10, page 17 (after line 32), after paragraph (5)(a), insert:
(aa) a person referred to in paragraph (1)(e) or (f) who is also an employee of another government agency is a secondee to the AFP; and
(4) Clause 22, page 28 (lines 25 to 27), omit paragraph (2)(c).
(5) Clause 22, page 28 (line 29), after paragraph (2)(d), insert:
; or (e) subject to subsection (2A), a Commonwealth law that applies to the agency allows the agency to decide not to deal with the allegation or information that raises the corruption issue.
(6) Clause 22, page 28 (after line 33), after subclause (2), insert:
(2A) Despite paragraph (2)(e), the agency must continue and complete, or begin and complete, an investigation of the corruption issue if the Integrity Commissioner considers, despite the Commonwealth law, that it would be more appropriate for the issue to be investigated.
(7) Clause 31, page 38 (lines 30 and 31), omit paragraph (4)(c).
(8) Clause 31, page 38 (line 33), at the end of subclause (4), add:
; or (e) an investigation of the corruption issue is not warranted having regard to all the circumstances.
(9) Clause 42, page 49 (lines 13 and 14), omit paragraph (3)(c).
(10) Clause 42, page 49 (line 16), at the end of subclause (3), add:
; or (e) further investigation of the corruption issue is not warranted having regard to all the circumstances.
(11) Clause 72, page 77 (lines 18 and 19), omit the note, substitute:
Note: Subsection 104A(1) provides certain protections for people who make submissions.
(12) Clause 81, page 85 (line 24), before “A person”, insert “(1)”.
(13) Clause 81, page 85 (after line 27), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) Subsection (3) applies if it appears to the Integrity Commissioner that, because a person:
(a) is to give information, or produce a document or thing; or
(b) has given information, or produced a document or thing;
to the Integrity Commissioner in response to a request under section 75 or 76, either:
(c) the safety of the person or any other person may be prejudiced; or
(d) the person or any other person may be subjected to intimidation or harassment.
(3) The Integrity Commissioner may make such arrangements as are necessary:
(a) to protect the safety of any person mentioned in paragraph (2)(c); or
(b) to protect any person mentioned in paragraph (2)(d) from intimidation or harassment.
(4) For the purpose of subsection (3), the arrangements that the Integrity Commissioner may make include arrangements with:
(a) the Minister; or
(b) members of the AFP; or
(c) members of the police force of a State or Territory.
(5) This section does not affect the Witness Protection Act 1994.
(14) Clause 96, page 104 (line 28), omit “produced”, substitute “produce”.
(15) Clause 104, page 112 (line 31) to page 113 (line 4), omit subclause (3).
(16) Page 113 (after line 11), at the end of Division 2, add:
104A Protection of witnesses etc.
(1) A person who:
(a) gives evidence at a hearing conducted under this Act; or
(b) produces a document or thing at a hearing conducted under this Act; or
(c) makes a submission to the Integrity Commissioner in relation to a public inquiry;
has the same protection as a witness in proceedings in the High Court.
(2) Subsection (3) applies if it appears to the Integrity Commissioner that, because a person:
(a) is to give evidence, or produce a document or thing, at a hearing under this Act; or
(b) has given evidence, or produced a document or thing, at a hearing under this Act; or
(c) is to make, or has made, a submission to the Integrity Commissioner in relation to a public inquiry;
either:
(d) the safety of the person or any other person may be prejudiced; or
(e) the person or any other person may be subjected to intimidation or harassment.
(3) The Integrity Commissioner may make such arrangements as are necessary:
(a) to protect the safety of any person mentioned in paragraph (2)(d); or
(b) to protect any person mentioned in paragraph (2)(e) from intimidation or harassment.
(4) For the purpose of subsection (3), the arrangements that the Integrity Commissioner may make include arrangements with:
(a) the Minister; or
(b) members of the AFP; or
(c) members of the police force of a State or Territory.
(5) This section does not affect the Witness Protection Act 1994.
(17) Clause 123, page 134 (lines 3 to 7), omit subclause (4), substitute:
(4) However, the Integrity Commissioner must not do so if the data is evidence that he or she must deal with in accordance with Part 10.
(18) Heading to Division 1, page 146 (lines 4 and 5), omit the heading.
(19) Clause 147, page 152 (line 9), omit “must”.
(20) Division 2, clause 148, page 153 (line 2) to page 154 (line 7), omit the Division.
(21) Clause 149, page 156 (after line 28), at the end of the clause, add:
(6) The Attorney-General must give a copy of the certificate to:
(a) the Integrity Commissioner; and
(b) either:
(i) if the information or the document referred to in subsection (1) is in the possession of a law enforcement agency—the head of the law enforcement agency; or
(ii) if the information or the document referred to in subsection (1) is in the possession of a person—the person.
(22) Clause 201, page 194 (line 25), at the end of paragraph (2)(a), add:
and (vii) certificates issued under section 149 during that year;
(23) Heading to subclause 208(3), page 201 (line 29), omit the heading, substitute:
Giving information to relevant agency
(24) Clause 208, page 201 (line 30) to page 202 (line 6), omit subclause (3), substitute:
(3) Subsection 207(1) does not prevent the Integrity Commissioner from disclosing information to the following heads of agencies:
(a) the Commonwealth Ombudsman;
(b) an Ombudsman of a State or Territory;
(c) the head of a law enforcement agency;
(d) the head of a police force of a State or Territory;
(e) the head of an integrity agency for a State or Territory;
(f) the head of another government agency;
if the Integrity Commissioner is satisfied that, having regard to the functions of the agency concerned, it is appropriate to do so.
(25) Page 214 (after line 11), after clause 223, insert:
223A Review of operation of Act
Undertaking the review
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of the first 3 years of the operation of this Act.
Report to Minister
(2) The persons undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months after the end of the 3-year period.
Submissions
(3) The review must include an opportunity for:
(a) persons who are, or have been, staff members of law enforcement agencies; and
(b) members of the public;
to make written submissions on the operation of this Act.
Assistance
(4) The Integrity Commissioner and staff members of ACLEI must, if requested to do so by the persons undertaking the review, assist them in:
(a) conducting the review; and
(b) preparing the written report.
Tabling of report
(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House.
Section not to apply if review conducted by Parliamentary committee
(6) However, this section does not apply if a committee of one or both Houses of the Parliament (including the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity) has reviewed the operation of this Act, or started such a review, before the end of the 3-year period.
Definition
(7) In this section:
independent review means a review undertaken by a person or persons who, in the Minister’s opinion, possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the review.
(26) Clause 224, page 214 (line 13), before “The”, insert “(1)”.
(27) Clause 224, page 214 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) The regulations may require that information or reports that are required to be given under prescribed provisions are also to be given to prescribed persons in specified circumstances.
The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 forms part of a package of three bills that will introduce major reforms into the handling of corruption issues and other issues relating to misconduct. We introduced this legislation late in March, and the bills were referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. The committee’s report was tabled on 11 May. The committee was called upon to report on these bills in a short time frame and has done sterling work in conducting public hearings and taking account of a range of submissions. I wish to place on record the government’s appreciation of the work of the chair and members of the committee and the staff in producing a report in such a short period of time. The government agrees in whole or in part with 13 of the 15 recommendations made by the committee. The amendments the government proposes to all three bills will give effect to agreed recommendations where legislation is necessary.
By way of background, I would like to comment briefly on those recommendations by the committee in relation to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 that are not expressly addressed by the proposed government amendments. Only three of these involve disagreement in principle, and the remainder are simply cases where legislation is not required to achieve the committee’s purpose.
The committee’s first recommendation is that the bill be amended such that changes to agencies subject to the commissioner’s jurisdiction are made by legislation rather than by regulation, as is currently provided for. The government does not agree with this recommendation. A requirement that jurisdiction be extended by primary legislation would effectively prevent rapid extension of jurisdiction if this became desirable. Extensions by regulation would still be subject to parliamentary oversight through tabling and the disallowance process.
The committee’s recommendation 5 is that the bill be amended to provide an offence of giving false or misleading information to the Integrity Commissioner with an appropriate maximum penalty. The government agrees with the principle underlying the recommendation, but there is no need to legislate for this purpose separately in this bill. Division 137 of the Criminal Code currently creates an offence of this type which will automatically apply and carries a penalty of 12 months imprisonment.
The committee’s recommendation 6 is that a practice and procedure manual be developed as soon as possible after the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission commences operation. The government agrees in principle to the recommendation, but implementation will be a matter for the Integrity Commissioner.
The committee’s recommendation 10 is that part 14 of the bill be amended to provide the existing Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission with jurisdiction to scrutinise the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and those Commonwealth law enforcement agencies subject to its oversight. The government will not be introducing an amendment to implement this recommendation. While there is some overlap in the areas of responsibility, the functions of the Integrity Commissioner are distinct from those of the Australian Crime Commission. The government considers it preferable to establish a separate committee to scrutinise the former body.
I now turn to the proposed government amendments to the bill. They fall into two categories—those to implement the recommendations of the committee’s review of the bill and those necessary to address a small number of other issues that came to light after the bill was introduced. Items 1 and 2 amend clause 10 of the bill, which determines the class of people that are to be treated as staff members of law enforcement agencies for the purposes of the bill. Item 1 will correct a technical error, by omitting Protective Service officers from the list of staff members of the AFP. The term ‘AFP employee’, which also occurs in the list, includes Protective Service officers. Item 2 ensures that all persons employed by the AFP are subject to the regime established by the bill, providing the person engaged under the AFP Act to perform duties overseas as an employee of the AFP is included as a staff member of the AFP and these people are not AFP employees as that term is defined in the Australian Federal Police Act.
Amendment (3) amends subclause 10(5) of the bill, which determines which staff members of law enforcement agencies are to be regarded as secondees for the purposes of the bill. The effect of the subclause is to ensure that the person’s home agency and any relevant integrity agency is informed that the person is under investigation by the commissioner and may become involved in the investigation where appropriate. This item extends the concept of secondee to the Australian Federal Police to include a special member or a special Protective Service officer where the person is an employee of another government agency. This addresses the difficulty when some state and territory personnel are made available by the AFP by means other than secondment in the conventional sense—for example, by engagement of special members of the Australian Federal Police while on leave from their normal employer. The proposed amendment will ensure the secondee provisions in the bill apply to all staff members of the Australian Federal Police who have a home agency other than the AFP.
Amendments (4), (7) and (9) will implement the Senate committee’s recommendation 3. Clause 22 deals with the obligation of the head of a law enforcement agency to investigate a corruption issue. Clauses 31 and 42 deal with the obligation of the Integrity Commissioner to decide and reconsider how to deal with corruption issues. In each case, there are grounds provided for not taking further action, including the ground that the matter was not raised in good faith. (Extension of time granted) These items would omit this ‘not in good faith’ ground to avoid the risk of being used to justify not taking further action in a case where the person giving information has a malicious motivation that the information may be accurate.
Amendments (5) and (6): clause 22 provides grounds upon which the agency may decide not to investigate a corruption issue. The proposed amendments make allowance for the situation where another Commonwealth law would permit the head of a law enforcement agency to decide not to investigate alleged misconduct by a member of their agency staff on a ground other than those listed in clause 22. The proposed new section, section 40TF of the Australian Federal Police Act set out in schedule 1 to the Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006, would result in precisely this situation, as amendments (5) and (6) would permit the agency head in a situation to rely on an alternative ground in deciding not to investigate the corruption issue, subject to agreement by the Integrity Commissioner.
Amendments (8) and (10) implement in part the Senate committee’s recommendation 2 that amend clauses 31 and 42 of the bill to provide the Integrity Commissioner with residual discretion, if none of the other grounds is applicable, to take no further action in relation to a corruption issue where he or she is satisfied that the investigation is not warranted in the particular circumstances. These amendments provide the Integrity Commissioner with the flexibility not to investigate in such cases that would involve unreasonable use of the Integrity Commissioner’s resources. The amendment addresses only one of the three elements in the committee’s recommendation 2. The first was unnecessary, as the discretion to investigate that is already provided by clauses 31 and 42 of the bill and includes reference to frivolous vexation complaints, and discretion not to investigate complaints made in good faith will be implemented by amendments (7) and (9), as already mentioned. The third ground suggested by the committee would not be appropriate in this context. In dealing with a corruption allegation, it is irrelevant whether a person giving information has a personal interest in the matter because vindication of a complainant’s rights is not a primary objective in such a case.
Amendments (11), (12), (13), (15) and (16) remedy an omission identified by the Senate committee in recommendation 4. Perhaps, given the time, I will leave the further explanation of those matters. Amendments (14) and (19) will simply correct typographical errors in clauses 96 and 147 of the bill. Amendments (17), (18), (19), (23) and (24) will amend clause 23, part 10, and clause 208 of the bill to provide the Integrity Commissioner with broad authority to disclose information to another Commonwealth or state or territory government agency that has a legitimate interest in the information being received. This authority to disclose information is subject to any specific contrary provisions in the bill that are applicable in particular cases, such as a certificate issued by the Attorney-General under section 149 preventing disclosure of certain information. These amendments will address the concern underlying committee recommendation 8. They will also address broader concerns expressed before the committee that the bill would not make adequate provision for the Integrity Commissioner to share information relevant to the functions and operations of other agencies.
Amendments (21) and (22) will implement the Senate committee’s recommendation 9 in a slightly modified form. Amendment (25) implements the Senate committee’s recommendation 11. It will insert a requirement for the minister to arrange independent expert review of the operation of the bill after three years. The obligation will only arise if a parliamentary committee has not already initiated a similar review by the end of the period to be reviewed.
Finally, amendments (26) and (27) provide that regulations may prescribe that information or reports must be given to specified persons in particular circumstances. This amendment is intended to deal with issues arising from the role of the Australian Federal Police as a provider of policing services to the Australian Capital Territory and certain other territories. For example, regulations could impose an obligation on the integrity commission to provide information about an investigation or a corruption issue affecting ACT policing to the ACT police minister, in the same circumstances in which the integrity commission must provide such information to a Commonwealth minister. Because territory policing functions are performed under arrangements made under section 8 of the Australian Federal Police Act and open to variation, it is not appropriate to include detailed provisions for this purpose in the bill. I commend the amendments to the House.
This is another example, unfortunately, of the bad law-making that goes on under the watch of this Attorney, when we have to do it all on the run. The Attorney has not even had the decency to respond to the Senate committee’s report prior to moving the amendments today, which had not been circulated. They deal with a number of recommendations that come from the Senate committee, but it might have been courteous to this House, let alone the other place, to provide that response prior to moving these amendments.
We have no trouble in accepting recommendations that come from the Senate committee’s consideration of these matters—and a number of them are technical. However, in the brief time that this material has been available to us, I cannot accept the Attorney’s assertion that the others are merely simply technical matters. Just to use an example, the first item removes Protective Service officers from the reach of the new Law Enforcement Integrity Commission which is being set up, when one of the key complaints the Labor Party have is that consideration should have been given to their coverage by this commission. Protective Service officers, as many of us in this House know, wear the same uniforms as the Federal Police. They are armed. They have significant powers. In our view, it is at least a matter that should be considered, not moved as a mere ‘technical amendment’ in this House with a group of 26 others, without any notice having been given.
So it is of great concern to us. I know that there will be time in another place to go back through these, but it is extraordinary for the Attorney—who normally likes to regard himself as being decent in the way that he deals with matters in this House—to have given such a lack of notice either in response to the Senate committee’s recommendations or for these changes. We have another batch of changes for each of the other bills that are before us, which presumably will not be able to be dealt with before the House is called to other duties at two o’clock. We would just like to register our protest that, on matters that there is, by and large, support for, it would be much easier to get these through the parliament if we were to be given notice of the changes that the Attorney intends to move.
Given that there was not an opportunity to speak separately on it, I also want to flag that, if the Attorney wants to take more time to consider the amendment that was moved by us and consider it in the other place, he knows that his colleagues in the other place have been urging for this matter to be passed by the parliament this week. I am not sure whether the Attorney is aware that if those changes are accepted in the other place they will have to come back here. We are putting a lot of pressure on the time constraints, I think, when the amendment could be accepted in this place. It is not a major amendment. We have one amendment that makes one set of changes to a couple of words, and the government is moving 27 that it expects us to be able to agree to without any notice. So we express our serious reservations and hope that we will be in a position, if the House is called to other duties before then, to be able to consider in detail those 27 amendments that have been moved by the Attorney without any notice to us. Perhaps he might consider that as a preferable course of action.
I will just take the opportunity for a moment to say that I do not intend any discourtesy but, with a bill that is normally initiated and dealt with in another place, it is unusual to be progressing in the other direction. Certainly I would want to be of assistance, and I will continue to try to be of assistance, but I think the explanation is in the fact that these matters would normally be initiated elsewhere. I have taken some advice, and I would be happy to accede to the honourable member’s amendment if the Clerk can devise a way in which we can consider that again.
It might assist the House if I move the amendment again. I am happy to deal with the others first. For your assistance, Mr Speaker, we have two sets of amendments: one that has been voted on, which the Attorney was just indicating that the government now accepts, which we are grateful for; and the 27 amendments by the government that are currently before the chair. We need to be able to move both lots of those, so I am in your hands as to which order you might want to do that in.
Order! I have taken advice. I think it will be easier if we deal with the government amendments first, and then the member for Gellibrand’s amendment can be reconsidered.
Obviously we should proceed to deal with the government amendments.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
Clause 1, page 9 (line 10), after “Interception”, insert “and Access”.
We have already spoken to this matter; we just need to put it to a vote.
The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Gellibrand be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the clarification he provided to the House yesterday when he said that, at the time of the election—‘at that stage’—he had no intention of reducing the number of allowable matters. At exactly what stage did the Prime Minister decide to reduce the number of allowable matters? Did it happen to be at the stage that he got majority control of the Senate and at the same time he decided to remove the rights of young people to vote, remove disclosure of large political donations, remove the rights of members to speak on and debate amendments to bills, close down Senate committees and rort Hansard? Prime Minister, isn’t this a systematic display of arrogance and avoidance of scrutiny?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: quite apart from the falsity of most of the claims contained in that question, it was clearly out of order. The language was clearly out of order. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to make those sorts of claims, there are procedures of the House and they should be used.
I note the last part of the question was not appropriate. The first part of the question—
Could I say the reason why: in the 32 years I have been in this place, I have not, like many other members, made a habit of altering in any way the Hansard record of things I have said, so I want that withdrawn.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! the Prime Minister has called for that accusation to be withdrawn.
I seek leave to table the ABC Sydney news. Last night—
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.
Mr Speaker, this goes to his point!
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
I honestly do not mind withdrawing it because—I need to ask you a question, Mr Speaker—I agree that, when a member of parliament wants something withdrawn, they ought to do so. If I had called him a nasty name, I think that would be appropriate. I have made the suggestion to him that he rorted Hansard. It is quite possible for him to answer that particular accusation—
Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that part of the question.
All right, Mr Speaker, I will withdraw that, and what I will ask the Prime Minister is: why did you alter Hansard?
Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
Mr Howard interjecting
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. I am on my feet, and if he chooses to defy the chair, I will deal with him. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has not properly withdrawn his claim.
Opposition members interjecting—
He has not properly withdrawn his claim. He is accusing the Prime Minister of doctoring the Hansard, something which is not true and is scurrilous, and it should be fully, totally, unconditionally withdrawn.
I withdraw the word ‘rort’. That, I think, is the word that is objectionable, because ‘Hansard’ would not have been objectionable to the Prime Minister. ‘Rort’ is withdrawn. I have now rephrased the question: why did you alter Hansard, along with all the other things that I included—
I did not alter Hansard.
Opposition members interjecting—
I did not alter Hansard, and the Leader of the Opposition is so fond of throwing allegations around. I would like the Leader of the Opposition to have the courage to demonstrate in a proper forensic way what happened. I would like him to do it.
Government members interjecting—
Order! Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will resume their seats.
Mr Howard interjecting
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Opposition members interjecting—
The level of interjections is far too high, and I will deal with someone if it continues. Does the Prime Minister wish to continue his answer? The Prime Minister has the call.
The Leader of the Opposition asked me a long question which included an inaccurate claim that I had altered Hansard. If he is referring to the fact that, through a slip of the tongue, I said ‘Labor’ rather than ‘Liberal’, I can assure him the correction was not made at my request or instigation. It was made automatically by the Hansard staff. I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that he has wasted 10 minutes of question time making a phoney allegation like that. It is of a piece with the absurd, over-the-top claim he made that in some way the government is behaving in an evil fashion in order to have the committee system that operated for 12 of the 13 years that the Labor Party was in office. Because we are bringing that back, we are somehow or other overturning parliamentary democracy. This is a bit rich coming from a man who served as Deputy Prime Minister to Lord Keating when he was Prime Minister, who basically looked across the dispatch box, looked at the serfs on the other side and said, ‘Question time is a privilege extended by the executive to the parliament.’
If the Leader of the Opposition has forgotten, let me remind him that in a very interesting interview back in 1994—
Opposition members interjecting—
Yes, I have a very long memory, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition. I remember this interview very well because I took part in it with the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 104—
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler would be well aware that the Leader of the Opposition asked a lengthy question and the Prime Minister is very much in order.
The indomitable John Shovelan asked a very searching question on the PM program. He said, ‘Mr Beazley, why is it that the government thinks it is unnecessary for the Prime Minister to turn up each day? Why is it that we need to cut his requirement at question time?’ Mr Beazley said in response, ‘Well, there are very few governments who think it is necessary for the Prime Minister to turn up every day.’ Such arrogance. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that, for so long as I am Prime Minister of this country, I will turn up every day, I will make myself accountable and I will go on answering double the number of questions of any of my predecessors, let alone Labor predecessors. This is the most accountable executive since Federation.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I seek leave to table—
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat and he is warned. The member for Grayndler will resume his seat or I will deal with him. The member for Grayndler sought to take a point of order. That was not a point of order. He is warned.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister.
I have called the member for Tangney; the member for Grayndler will resume his seat.
Would the Prime Minister outline to the House how Australian workers have fared over the last 10 years? How does this compare with the previous 13 years? Is the Prime Minister aware of any threats facing Australian workers?
If I can be a little more forensic, let me remind the House that over the last 10 years real wages in Australia have risen by 16.8 per cent. This compares to the 1.3 per cent growth in the 13 years of the previous Labor government. Using the national accounts statistics, a calculation can be made that the average Australian worker is $127 a week better off as a result of the 10 years of this government. They are $127 a week better off after 10½ years of this government than they would have been compared with the economic performance of the former government because, if the real wage pattern of the previous 13 years had continued over the last 10 years, the average Australian worker would have been $127 a week worse off than they have been. That means that the Australian worker is $6,655 a year better off than they would have been under a Labor government. This is not an illusion; this is real money. This is the real dividend and fruits of this government’s economic management. I am asked about threats posed to this prosperity. It gives a great deal of relevance to the warnings of the Business Council yesterday and it was all summed up extremely well in the Melbourne Herald Sun today by that eminent and respected economic commentator Terry McCrann when he had this to say:
The resources industry is the goose that lays Australia’s golden egg. Kim Beazley is prepared to slaughter it—mindlessly, cynically—
Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting
The member for Reid is warned.
He said:
... and almost casually irresponsibly. Let there be absolutely no mistake. If Labor won the next election and if it delivered on its promise to abolish Australian Workplace Agreements, it would seriously hurt every single current and future Australian ... AWAs are the fundamental basis of that flexibility and productivity. Abolish them and you rip away the foundation of the resources industry’s success.
The member for Tangney asked me about threats. Terry McCrann has nailed the nature, the extent and the dimension of the threat posed by a Beazley Labor government.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Malaysia led by His Excellency the Hon. Tan Sri Dr Abdul Hamid bin Pawanteh, the President of the Malaysian Senate. On behalf of the House I extend to our visitors a very warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to comments made by the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Pell, on Sunday:
I don’t particularly like the new IR laws because I’m frightened they could be used to force down minimum wages.
I also refer the Prime Minister to Laurie Oakes’s article in the Bulletin magazine today when he said:
Cardinal Pell is right to be concerned. These laws will lead to lower pay and worse conditions for a not insignificant number of workers. The government has known it all along. It lied in claiming other-wise.
Prime Minister, isn’t Laurie Oakes right?
I quite like Laurie, but let me say his analysis is not one that I would accept. Let me put it graciously: his analysis is not one that I am minded to accept. But I am in a benevolent mood and I do not want to be too harsh about an esteemed correspondent, particularly as I am attending that press gallery bash tonight—although, Mr Speaker, I will have to be very careful of how I behave. Seriously, this is an issue relating to credibility and credibility is about performance and is about delivery. If you want to compare the wage credibility and performance of this government with the former Labor government, I am very happy to engage in the analysis.
The other observation I would make is that I have an enormous amount of respect for Cardinal Pell, as I have said before. I do not always agree with him; he does not always agree with me. I think we have well-documented differences of view about whether or not Australia should become a republic, but I do have an enormous regard for the leadership that he brings to the 27 per cent of Australians who claim the Catholic faith. I think he is one of the most impressive ecclesiastical figures in Australia, but I would also invite the member for Perth to have a look at the rest of Cardinal Pell’s statement. He has some very interesting observations about workplace agreements and you ought to read them.
My question is also to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to reports that some state governments are charging an administrative fee to schools that have been allocated a grant by the Australian government under the Investing in Our Schools program? Does this mean that less money is going directly to schools for their projects?
I regret to say to the member for Hume that my attention has been drawn. I think it is an outrage that the parents of children attending government schools all around Australia are not getting the full value of the $1 zillion Investing in Our Schools program in government schools and low-fee independent schools that I announced at the time of the 2004 election. We have done this because the states have not invested enough in government schools. We have done this because the rate of increase of state government investment in government schools has been slower than the rate of increase of federal government investment. I think it is outrageous that, as you move around the country, you can find countless examples. There is an example in Western Australia where figures of up to 16 per cent are being deducted. An example was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph, drawn to my attention by the member for Hume who asked the question, of the Iemma government deducting about $600,000 from about 30 schools. These are basic provisions that we are making. We are filling the space that should have been occupied by the state governments and they have got the nerve and the effrontery to charge the schools for administering our program. Our program was intended to help the schools. I call on the state governments to stop docking from Australian parents the money that we are providing because they have not done their job.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. I refer to the minister’s previous statements regarding the deployment of Australian troops. In February, the minister said our troops were going to the Oruzgan province in the south of France when they were in fact going to Afghanistan. Yesterday, the minister said they were going to the Syrian border when they were in fact going to the Saudi border. If the minister cannot competently inform the Australian people where our troops are being deployed, why should we have any confidence in his administration of this key portfolio?
I thank the member for Cowan for his question. In fact, as I have advised the House, in the new arrangements in Al Muthanna province in southern Iraq, our troops will be based in Tallil. Thirty of our soldiers will be involved in providing further training at the basic training centre in Tallil. Another three will be supporting education at the counterinsurgency unit, which is some 20 kilometres from Baghdad. The training and mentoring that they will be undertaking will be not only for the general support and training of the Iraqi security forces in Al Muthanna but also for border protection and support and training for those who will be undertaking border protection not only on the Saudi border but also on the Syrian border.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as the Minister for Trade. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how our rural and regional export industries depend on a high standard of social infrastructure? Are there any barriers to improving that social infrastructure that underpins vital export industries in regional and rural Australia?
I thank the member for Hinkler for his question. Of course, representing that part of Queensland that he does, he understands the importance of export industries such as the Australian coal industry. We have seen some incredible growth in resources exports in recent years. In fact, the coal exports grew from 2004 to 2005 from $13 billion to $22 billion—a lot of those being exported out of the ports in the member for Hinkler’s electorate. So our export industries are very reliant on the infrastructure available, not just the transport infrastructure such as the ports—we all remember the debacle in Dalrymple Bay last year holding up the flow of exports and particularly coal exports going out of Queensland—but also the social infrastructure that is largely the responsibility of the state governments in Australia to maintain, provide and support.
To this end, we do not believe that some of the state governments have the same focus on the importance of exports, industries, employment and safety in regional Australia as the Commonwealth government does. To give an example: last year BHP’s Blackwater coal mine in Central Queensland was compromised by the Queensland Labor government’s chronic underfunding of public hospitals and health services in Queensland. When the Queensland Health doctor at the Blackwater Hospital was away on sick leave, the Queensland government refused to replace him. They refused to provide a locum at that hospital to service that part of Queensland. In that area, BHP operate the Blackwater mine and, to their credit, BHP had a helicopter on stand-by in Emerald to fly a doctor into Blackwater if needed because the Queensland Labor government would not replace the doctor at Blackwater Hospital. Because of the Queensland Labor government’s failure to deliver reasonable health services in regional Queensland, the Blackwater mine operation was interrupted by an unlawful industrial action. It was aimed at the Beattie government because they would not replace the doctor at Blackwater when he was off sick.
Australia’s export industry should not be put at risk and Australia’s exports should not be interrupted because state Labor governments like that in Queensland—who participate in receiving $42 billion during the course of the health care agreements to help pay for public hospital services—do not live up to their responsibilities. Not only that but also Queensland this year are in receipt of an extra $525 million in GST receipts. So they are $525 million better off. They get money for their public hospitals through the Australian health care agreements, yet they still do not deliver the services where they are needed and they are interrupting the ability of Australian companies to export out of Australia. The states have to get serious about supporting Australian exports and they have to get serious about providing a decent level of services to regional Australia.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Ms Judy Maddigan, Speaker of the Parliament of Victoria, and I remind the House that this year the Parliament of Victoria celebrates its 150th anniversary. On behalf of the House, I extend to Speaker Maddigan a very warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to comments by Theo L Sambuaga, chair of Indonesia’s foreign relations committee, in relation to the release of Abu Bakar Bashir. He said:
My advice don’t let other heads of foreign countries to interfere in our process of law.
Why won’t the Prime Minister listen to the advice of his own government led Senate inquiry and to the Australian parliament, rather than the Indonesian parliament, and abandon once and for all his bill to appease Indonesia?
The government is not acting in any way to appease Indonesia. As evidence of that, I do intend when I next see the Indonesian President—notwithstanding the advice tendered by the gentleman quoted by the member who asked me the question—to raise the question of Abu Bakar Bashir and I do intend to put to the Indonesian President the strongly held views of the Australian people regarding this issue.
So far as the legislation to which the member refers is concerned, this government remains quite firm in its resolve to, where opportunity presents, further strengthen our border protection. Unlike the Labor Party, we have a strong, unequivocal position on protecting this country’s borders. Unlike the Labor Party, we have a very strong and determined position in relation to deterring illegal immigration. If the honourable gentleman is candid enough about the research that I am sure he has done on this issue, he will know that back in 2001 there was no more frequent advocate of the need to cooperate with Indonesia than the current Leader of the Opposition. In fact, on one occasion the Leader of the Opposition effectively said, ‘Oh, you can fix all this border protection stuff by ringing up the Indonesian President and having a chat about it.’
Mr Swan interjecting
Order! The member for Lilley!
In other words—
Mr Swan interjecting
Order! The member for Lilley is warned.
the sine qua non of everything he said on this issue was that you have to get along well with Indonesia. It is an element. It is not the only element. I would remind the member for Watson that, in contrast to those very difficult months of 2001 when there was a veritable flood of illegal immigrants coming to this country, the reason that has stopped is essentially a combination of three or four things. It is first and foremost the policy that we resolved upon in 2001 of intercepting and returning boats to Indonesia. That could not have been achieved without the cooperation of the Indonesian authorities in receiving the vessels back. The second element was the introduction of the Pacific solution, which the Labor Party has pledged to abolish. Let it be remembered that the Labor Party will abolish the Pacific solution, yet that played an enormous part in bringing about the turnaround and the change. The decision in relation to processing people offshore has been fundamental to deterring people from coming to Australia, to cooperation with the Indonesian security and police authorities and—might I say—to the excellent work carried out by the Australian defence forces and the Australian Customs Service. All of these things together have stopped the flow of boat people. It is only the coalition parties that had the courage then and have had the consistency since to maintain that policy. If you want a return to those bad and difficult days, vote for the Labor Party.
My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer update the House on recent measures announced by the government to assist small business? How will these benefits provide real assistance to the businesses in my electorate of Cook and across Australia?
I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question. I can inform him that small business employs about 3.3 million Australians and is absolutely critical to the success of the Australian economy. In fact, in the last 10 years there has been a 12 per cent increase in the number of small businesses in this country. In the recent budget, the government announced a number of measures to assist small business further. One was increasing the assets test so that small business could get the advantage of capital gains tax rollover. They could get the 15-year exemption on capital gains tax and the retirement exemption. Another measure was cutting the incorporation fee from $800 to $400, at an estimated cost of $216 million over the next four years, to help small business with incorporation fees.
One of the major improvements for small business which this government announced in the budget was an improvement in the depreciation arrangements by increasing the diminishing value rate for depreciation from 150 per cent to 200 per cent. Let me give the House some examples of what this will do for small business. For a business acquiring a new truck worth $230,000, this budget announcement alone would give a benefit of $15,333 in the first year of ownership. In other words, the write-off, by increasing the diminishing value, would be of direct benefit to that small business. For a farmer acquiring a tractor worth $90,000, the change in the depreciation—the diminishing value depreciation rate—will give a benefit of $6,750 in the first year of ownership. These are very strong incentives for investment in new plant and equipment and they are real benefits.
I was thinking of these real benefits to small business as I was sitting in my Canberra flat last night, cold and alone.
Opposition members interjecting—
Alone, yes; feeling unloved, yes; and watching Lateline, as I do, to cheer myself up. I saw the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations talking about the advantages to employees of $338 a week, if they were able to get a job in the retail sector. He held up the $338. It woke me up, Mr Speaker. He is a man of great financial acumen. I waited for the response from the Australian Labor Party. We had the member for Perth, who said:
... let me just respond, first of all, by making this point. My 2c trumps his Liberal Party fistful of dollars every day of the week because it’s illusory.
The $338 is illusory! And that took my mind back—
Mr Stephen Smith interjecting
Order! The member for Perth is warned!
to another payment of $600, of which when it was given to the families of Australia the Labor Party said—remember—that it wasn’t real, it didn’t exist. This is known as ‘rooster logic’. It started off with the member for Lilley, spreading like some kind of bird flu to the member for Perth. One of the symptoms of ‘bird flu’ is that you have delusional fits—speaking of which—
Mr Speaker—
Has the Treasurer completed his answer?
Government members—No!
Order! Members on my right!
Mr Speaker, a point of order on standing order 104, as you would be aware.
Has the Treasurer completed his answer? I call the Treasurer.
These are real benefits—real benefits for real people. They are real benefits on depreciation, they are real benefits on family tax benefits and they are real benefits in their wages. No amount of rooster logic will take away from the fact that this is real money, real benefits, to Australian people and they are delivered by the coalition government.
Mr Ticehurst interjecting
Order! The member for Dobell!
Mr Ticehurst interjecting
The member for Dobell is warned.
My question is to the Prime Minister and it also in part relates to Lateline last night. But I refer the Prime Minister to the comments made by Annette Harris on 25 May, about how she felt when offered the Spotlight 2c an hour AWA.
I thought it was an insult; absolutely disgusting. I voted Liberal all my life, but there’s no way I’d sign up to this.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: standing order 98 permits questions to be asked at this time of the day. More and more, we are hearing prose readings from the other side. There is no question being asked. They are merely reading other people’s—
The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. I ask the member for Perth to come to his question.
I also refer the Prime Minister to his remarks to Laurie Oakes on Sunday when he said:
She refused to sign the AWA.
The member for Perth will come to his question.
I am, Mr Speaker—
So the whole basis of the allegation that has been made is false.
Is the Prime Minister aware of Mrs Harris’s comment on Lateline last night where she said:
No, John, wake up. It hasn’t. It hasn’t blown a hole in their argument at all ... I’m just getting a flat rate.
The member for Perth will come to his question.
She said:
So I’m behind the eight ball. ... I’m absolutely disgusted with John Howard.
The member for Perth will come to his question.
Prime Minister, isn’t Mrs Harris right?
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on that long statement, which is not a question. But, Mr Speaker, 300 jobs have been created during the process of this—
The member for O’Connor will not debate his point of order.
Mr Speaker, I have a terrible confession to make: I did not watch Lateline last night. I obviously missed all the fun. I will not be able to watch it tonight either—
Ms Gillard interjecting
The member for Lalor is warned.
courtesy of our friends up there. Let me remind the member for Perth that there are 1.8 million reasons in Australia as to why people would always rather trust this government to run the Australian economy than the motley mob opposite.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister update the House on improvements in Australian workplaces. Is the minister aware of attempts to undermine this progress?
I thank the member for Mitchell for his question and for his interest in creating jobs in Australia. Australia now has a workplace relations system which recognises that employers and employees want to work out the wages and conditions which best suit their needs—
Ms King interjecting
The member for Ballarat is warned!
rather than having them imposed upon them by remote industrial tribunals and third parties. Indeed the best workplace arrangements are those which are developed and agreed to by employers and employees alike. Australian workplace agreements, which the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite want to abolish, are an essential part of that workplace relations system and they deliver significant benefits. On average, Australian workplace agreements deliver benefits that are 13 per cent more than those on collective agreements, and very significantly they deliver 100 per cent more than those on—
Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Lilley is well aware of standing order 62. He will resume his seat or I will deal with him.
I was saying to the chamber that AWAs deliver substantial benefits—13 per cent more, on average, than those on collective agreements and 100 per cent more than those on awards. We have had the Labor Party and their union bosses running around Australia, seeking to highlight instances where, they claim, people are losing benefits as a result of Work Choices.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The problem has resolved itself, but I note you sat the member for Lilley down when there were four members on the other side standing.
The member for Shortland will resume her seat. All members should be well aware of standing order 62. When they come to the chamber they are expected to assume their seats as soon as they arrive, unless they are leaving.
We had the member for Perth come into this chamber and claim that workers at Esselte would be worse off because of a proposed AWA, because they would lose Saturday penalty rates. The only problem with this claim is that Esselte does not actually roster workers to work on Saturday.
Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting
The member for Gorton is warned.
If workers do on occasions work on a Saturday voluntarily, they are paid overtime rates.
Ms Macklin interjecting
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!
If the member for Perth does not understand even this basic point, it is no wonder that some of the union bosses want him stripped of his shadow portfolio.
Ms Macklin interjecting
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.
Before coming into this place and making these claims, did the member for Perth bother to check the facts for himself? No. He simply relied upon the biased and inaccurate information provided to him by the unions. We had another example last week when the Leader of the Opposition came into this place and asked the Prime Minister why a Melbourne grandmother had been sacked with no recourse. The problem is that, at the very time the Leader of the Opposition came in here to ask this question, the union representing the lady in question had already said that it was commencing unlawful termination action on her behalf.
The Leader of the Opposition must have known that yet he chose, as the member for Perth chose, to misrepresent the facts of this case. So what we see here once again is Labor’s pattern of deceit. That is what we are seeing here. The Leader of the Opposition cannot understand that these policies are about creating jobs for Australians. He would not have a sense of that because when he was responsible for employment in this country we had over a million people on dole queues; we had an unemployment rate of 10.9 per cent. The sad reality for the opposition is that the Leader of the Opposition is interested in only one job: his own.
Mr Speaker, I would ask the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to table the document from which he is quoting.
Was the minister quoting from a confidential document?
Yes.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I again refer the Prime Minister to the comments of Annette Harris on ABC Lateline last night when she said:
No, John, wake up ... If I work a Saturday or a Sunday or a public holiday, I’m behind the eight ball every time I go to work. So you can’t tell me they’ve—
that is, Labor—
got it wrong and I’m absolutely disgusted with John Howard.
Order! The member for Parramatta will come to her question.
Prime Minister, isn’t Mrs Harris right?
I am sure Mrs Harris is a very nice lady, but I beg to differ with her.
Order! The member for Makin will resume her seat!
My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister update the House on the government’s support for better transport infrastructure in Queensland, particularly the Bruce Highway, which is so important to the daily lives of hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders?
I thank the honourable member for Fairfax for his question. He will probably have heard that a group of south-east Queensland mayors are proposing to come to Canberra to complain that the Australian government is not contributing enough for infrastructure works in south-east Queensland towards the state government’s south-east regional plan. Putting aside whether or not the Commonwealth government should be paying for a state government plan, most of it probably would not be necessary if the state government had not neglected infrastructure in south-east Queensland over recent decades. They have not yet got over their period of neglect. In fact, in last year’s Queensland budget they put in $296 million for transport infrastructure but in fact spent only $164 million—a 33 per cent underexpenditure and yet they are asking the Commonwealth for more money.
The mayors were particularly concerned about having some additional funding for the Ipswich Motorway. But of course we have committed $556 million for the Ipswich Motorway; $160 million for the Logan Motorway junction—that money has been available to the state for at least a year but they have not got on to spending it yet—$320 million for widening the Wakool to Darra section; $66 million for the Granad road intersection; and $10 million to do the work for the northern section between Dinmore and Goodna, being the planning work so that we can get on with those projects. They also asked us for some money for around Caboolture. There is $200 million being spent around Caboolture, and I am sure the honourable member for Longman and others would be very pleased to see the progress that is being made there. They wanted money for the Pacific Highway. There is $120 million in the budget for our commitment to the Tugun bypass. We have paid off the $163 million commitment to the Pacific Highway two years early, and of course there is a whole range of other projects which we are funding as well. So when the state government has spent the money that we have already allocated, that will be the time to come and ask for some more.
The mayors would also like some money for the Bruce Highway. The honourable member for Fairfax and I would like to see some money spent on the Bruce Highway as well but, as I have reported to the House previously, we cannot spend any money on the Bruce Highway because the Beattie government are intent on flooding it. They are determined to go ahead with the Traveston Dam, which will flood at least nine kilometres of the Bruce Highway, plus all of the favoured options for upgrading. Beattie is still determined, it seems, to build this dam. He was actually quoted as saying the other day that he will build the dam no matter what. The fact that he has not done any environmental, engineering, social or feasibility studies is beside the point; he is going to build it and he is going to build it in spite of the fact that the University of Queensland has told him that half of the water will evaporate or leak away because the dam is being built in country which is not suitable for a dam.
Indeed the minister has now admitted that, from their drilling, the wall cannot be built on the site which the Queensland government has located for this dam. In addition to that, they have also had to admit that this dam was only rated fifth on the list of priorities for the preferred site for a dam for south-east Queensland. It was rated fifth but it was elevated above everything else. In spite of all the evidence, Premier Beattie is going to build it. Despite the fact that it is going to flood 900 farms and it will require a bund to be built around the town of Kandanga so that the town does not go under water, despite the fact that the cost has blown out to $2 billion, $3 billion or $4 billion, it is still going to be built and the road is going to be flooded irrespective of what the sense might be. I think that if the south-east Queensland mayors want some road funding for the Bruce Highway, the first thing they had better do is persuade Premier Beattie to stop flooding the road so we can get on with building it.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the question asked of him yesterday about his answers to Laurie Oakes on Sunday about annual leave loadings. Has the Prime Minister seen Laurie Oakes’s column in the Bulletin magazine today where Mr Oakes also recalls his interview with the Prime Minister? Has he read what Mr Oakes has had to say? He says:
But there is no point questioning John Howard about any of this. He obfuscates.
Order! The leader will come to his question.
I want to see if he has seen this. He says:
The reason ... was to confuse the issue and stupefy both audience and interviewer. It enabled him ...
Order! The leader will come to his question.
Has he seen the point that Laurie Oakes makes? He says:
It enabled him—
that is, you—
to avoid the central issue in the debate over his Work Choices laws: that a lot of people are going to be worse off.
Prime Minister, isn’t Laurie Oakes right?
The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part of the question is that I believe Australians will be greatly better off as a result of our policies.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister update the House on the Australian government’s defence capability plan?
I thank the member for Wakefield for his question and a very deep interest in and commitment to defence issues. The defence capability plan refers to the long-term strategic commitment that the government makes to investment in Australian defence infrastructure. Yesterday, on behalf of the government, I released the defence capability plan for the decade from 2006 until 2016. It contains $51 billion in fully costed defence projects and, in addition to that, $31 billion in projects to be funded over the next 10 years.
It includes, for example, the government’s restated long-term financial commitment to the construction of three air warfare destroyers in Adelaide, South Australia, at a cost of $6 billion and, in addition to that, two LHDs, or amphibious ships, at a cost of $2 billion. The government has restated its commitment to the new air combat capability arrangements, at some $15 billion, and in addition to that, amongst many projects, the government will be replacing all of its Army land vehicles at a cost of around $2½ billion.
It is important to note that in our naval commitment, for example, there is more than half a billion dollars of new projects to improve the effectiveness of our naval air-surface capability. On Monday morning, the Prime Minister, amongst these projects, announced on behalf of the government—at a cost of $4.2 billion in total—that the Black Hawk helicopters will be replaced, as will the Sea King helicopters at Nowra, with the multirole helicopter, the MRH90.
Those investments are not just in the helicopters but are for the average Australian. People in Townsville, for example, will see another $30 million invested in infrastructure to support the 24 helicopters that will go there. The people of Gilmore will see a $40 million investment in Nowra to accommodate six MRH90s; at Oakey there will be a $30 million investment. Also, as the member for Hughes knows, we are investing $100 million in fully restructuring the Holsworthy facility to take 12 MRH90s. What is extremely important is that Australians recognise that the Howard government has made a very strong political commitment to the defence of this country and that, thanks to its leadership in economic management, has significant resources available to invest in the protection, security and defence of our country for the next decade and beyond.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of yet more official complaints which have been lodged regarding the alleged misuse of the government’s 457 guest worker visas, this time in relation to the Kilcoy meatworks in Queensland? Can the Prime Minister confirm that the department of immigration has been requested to investigate whether at least 25 of the 40 Filipino workers on 457 visas at this plant—
Mr Tuckey interjecting
Order! The member for O’Connor!
Mr Tuckey interjecting
Order! The member for O’Connor is warned.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that the department of immigration has been requested to investigate whether at least 25 of the 40 Filipino workers on 457 visas at this plant are actually employed in unskilled labouring jobs? Didn’t Kilcoy apply for visas for these workers, stating that they would be employed as slaughtermen?
Mr Speaker, in reply to the member for Oxley, I do not have direct knowledge of that. I will find out and I will write to him with what information I can get.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister inform the House of the results contained in the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s latest report? In particular, Minister, I want to know what the report has to say about our rates of youth suicide. Also, Minister, what does it say about the health of Australians today?
Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting
The member for Batman is warned.
I certainly do thank the member for Bass for his question. I acknowledge that he has been long concerned about these issues, particularly the issue of youth suicide from his days as a schoolteacher in the Tasmanian system. We have had a landmark report released today by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and it confirms the joint view of the premiers of the Labor states and the Prime Minister that Australia’s health system is amongst the best in the world. Certainly it is not flawless—the government is working with the states to address the problem of Indigenous ill health and the obesity epidemic—but it is a very good system by international standards.
I can report that at just over 80 years, Australians’ life expectancy is among the top five countries in the world. Cancer death rates have declined by 14 per cent since 1986; deaths from strokes have declined by 30 per cent since 1995; coronary heart disease deaths have declined by 40 per cent since 1995; and infant death rates have declined by almost 50 per cent since 1983. Importantly, for the member for Bass, the youth suicide rate has almost halved since it peaked in the mid-1990s, and suicide rates generally are at their lowest rate since records were first kept in 1907.
These good results did not happen by accident; they happened in part because this government has invested the money needed to make a good system even better. I think this government, on these figures, is entitled to say that it is the best friend that Medicare has ever had. By contrast, since 3 May, the Australian Labor Party has officially been a policy free zone when it comes to health. I looked at the website today and the nearest thing to a hard policy on health that I could find was a commitment to spend $5 million on food allergy research. That was the nearest thing to a hard policy I could find. I can tell the members opposite that this government spends more than that already through the National Health and Medical Research Council. Mr Speaker, let me just say this: if you have no policy on health, you have no hope of ever forming a government in this country.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister claim that his skilled migrant visa program is operating properly or effectively, given the breaches and abuses of 457 visa conditions, including at ABC Tissues in Sydney, T&R meats at Murray Bridge, Teys Bros meats at Naracoorte, Kilcoy meatworks in Queensland and another Western Australian case referred to by Senator Vanstone? How can the Prime Minister possibly claim that the government’s temporary skilled migration system is operating in the Australian national interest or in the interests of hardworking Australians?
Mr Speaker, I can claim it for a number of reasons. I can claim it first and foremost because, demonstrably, we do have a skills shortage at the present time. Clearly, with the economy in many parts of the nation running at or near full capacity, with an absolutely voracious demand for skilled tradesmen in areas such as the resource sector, there is overwhelmingly a need to have a policy that allows skilled tradesmen to come into this country on appropriate terms and conditions.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot seriously argue that, if you have a skills shortage—which she has been running around the country saying that we have; and I agree with her on that—and you have in many parts of the country effectively full employment, it stands to reason that you have to close the gap in the short term until you can bring more tradesmen on stream from the local area by bringing in people from overseas. It is elementary that you would have to do that. I might remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that, in many cases around Australia, the certifying authorities for the people who get the visas are state Labor governments, and they are amongst the most passionate advocates of this system.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition quoted four companies, one of them Teys Bros. She has been demonstrated to have misled this House in relation to Teys Bros. So, in those circumstances, I do not think her argument carries any weight at all. We need to have a balance in this country, certainly in the short term, between bringing in people from overseas with the requisite skills and bringing on more skilled trades men and women in Australia. This government has struck the balance. Where there are abuses, we will investigate. Where there are breaches, we will sanction them. But we do not intend to throw out a system that is clearly meeting an urgent need and is important to the continuing growth and development of Australian industry.
My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General advise the House whether the government is taking appropriate measures to protect the Australian community from the threat of terrorism? Is the Attorney-General aware of other views on the relevance of those measures?
I thank the honourable member for Greenway for her question. The fact is that this government has demonstrated a very strong commitment to protecting Australia’s national security. The government has funded over 200 national security related measures at a total cost of more than $8 billion over 10 years. Our national security agency, ASIO, is being well resourced. Currently, there is a recruitment campaign which is attracting, as I think we have seen in some reporting today, the best and the brightest. While it is not appropriate to go into detail, some of these measures have resulted in successful prosecutions for terrorist related offences. The government has been taking firm measures because we are concerned about the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Bali bombings, in which Australians lost their lives and the London and Spain train attacks, where thousands of people have lost their lives over time. But it appears that there are other views.
The member for Fremantle, who is the senior vice-president of the national executive of the ALP, has written a new book. It is always interesting to look at her views. The member for Fremantle in a radio interview—I think yesterday—suggested that our concerns about terrorism are bordering on the irrational. She went on to suggest that security measures such as we have here are almost frivolous. She feels that we have overreacted to attacks such as September 11, the Bali bombings and the attacks on London and Spain. Why? Because more people are killed in road accidents. Her logic seems to be that, where attacks are deliberate and on our way of life and might be able to be dealt with, they are the same as road accidents, where there is often no deliberate intent of taking innocent lives. Yet we pay considerable attention to those matters. We run prominent campaigns on road safety and we have legislated for vehicle safety. Perhaps she says those matters are an overreaction or perhaps an invasion of civil liberties.
But I am pleased about the very high level of cooperation that we have between the Commonwealth and the states of Australia. Quite clearly, Labor premiers do not support her views. They have welcomed and embraced the antiterrorism laws that we have. I want to assure the House that this government will protect the community. We will take appropriate action to prevent terrorists achieving their role in Australia. And the Leader of the Opposition should be concerned that the member for Fremantle, a member of his own executive, appears to have given up the fight against terrorism, something which this government has not.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. In a pre-election statement released on 1 October 2004, the then National Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, gave horticulturalists a promise that a coalition government would, within 100 days of being re-elected, introduce a legislative mandatory code of conduct covering all sales transactions within the fruit and vegetable industry. This statement specifically included large supermarket chains. Is the minister aware that it is now 620 days since the election? Is the minister further aware that, according to the ABS report prepared for the fair trading inquiry, Woolworths and Coles now have 77 per cent of the retail market? Since it is public knowledge that the draft proposals, in direct contravention of this express election promise, have excluded the retail chains, could the minister advise the House: (1) is it the intention of the National Party to honour their specific promise to horticulturalists and small retailers to introduce a mandatory code? (2) If so, will the code cover all parties, including the large supermarket chains, as promised? (3) When will the code be introduced?
Order! The member for Kennedy will conclude his question.
Mr Speaker, I have one sentence to go. Finally, if, as is asserted, the major retail chains already subscribe and adhere to a voluntary code, could the minister explain why they should then object to become part of a mandatory code?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I fully appreciate his vital interest in the code of conduct, as do so many members on my own side of the House. The honourable member will appreciate the complexity of the issues surrounding the introduction of a code and the need to avoid unforeseen consequences to the detriment of growers and others throughout the whole of the supply chain. I can advise the honourable member and the House that discussions are not concluded and are continuing.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Would the minister outline to the House the importance of the handover to the Royal Australian Navy of the 10th and final Anzac-class frigate, the new ship Perth?
I thank the member for Casey for his interest in defence and defence industries. It is timely, as many of the nation’s defence industry representatives are here in Canberra today for the 14th annual Defence + Industry Conference. As the Minister for Defence has outlined, the government has a defence capability plan, but a key support of that is the capability of our defence industries.
Last Friday was a special occasion. The last frigate built by Tenix at its iconic Williamstown shipyard was delivered on time, on budget as part of a 17-year fixed-price contract worth over $7 billion. It is important to recognise the quality of that work and it shows the capability within our defence industries. The ships are of outstanding quality. In fact, the Chief of Navy said it is the finest ship he has ever taken receipt of. It is a credit to Tenix, its workforce, the expertise of its subcontractors, the dedication of the Anzac system project office and the collaboration between the Royal Australian Navy and the Defence Materiel Organisation.
I sense there is an interest for metrics and numbers in the House, so I will provide a few. This project has benefited two economies—that is, Australia and New Zealand. On both sides of the Tasman there have been 1,300 companies involved, with 73 per cent of local content, producing about 8,000 jobs. I am sure the House would be interested to know that the Perth is 3,600 tonnes of ship with a top speed of more than 27 knots and a range of about 6,000 nautical miles. It is very highly equipped and it has already proven itself to be of considerable value to the nation, with an effective contribution in the Persian Gulf and off the north coast of Australia.
Some of those in the House would be aware that the ship was tested in the Middle East as part of the Navy’s contribution to the Gulf War. It was off the Al Faw Peninsula, and the Anzac was identified as the ideal ship to support the commando assault on that peninsula. The passage to the fire support area was shallow, most likely mined, yet the Anzac made it through safely. It was the first of several ships called upon to fire, with the target being a major Iraqi military installation. For the first time since the Vietnam War, our Navy provided combat gun support. Those 45 rounds of five-inch shells, otherwise known as bricks, were precisely delivered and it is thought to be one of the most effective operations of its kind for accuracy and support in naval history. I commend the project to the House, congratulate Tenix and its workforce and recognise that the Anzac ships continue to evolve and have their capability increased. To the Perth and all those who sail on her, we wish you fair seas and a following wind.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.
The Prime Minister may proceed.
I would like to add to the first answer that I gave in question time today, when I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition as to whether I had changed, altered or doctored the Hansard. Since giving my answer, I have received a note from Trevor Fowler, the Director Committees of Hansard, which reads as follows—and it is addressed to my media adviser, David Luff:
Concerning our recent conversation I can confirm that neither Mr Howard nor anyone else requested changes to the relevant answer in question time yesterday.
I will not waste my time on asking the Leader of the Opposition for an apology, but many Australians would think he owes one.
I wish to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 51. I received a letter from the now Second Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Kevin Fitzpatrick. Mr Fitzpatrick wrote to inform me that had he written to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit concerning comments I had made in a submission to the committee’s inquiry on the administration of the Australian Tax Office. This inquiry is entitled ‘Inquiry reviewing certain taxation matters within Australia’. My submission was dated 28 March 2006.
Mr Fitzpatrick’s objection was that I had stated that he on several occasions had made it clear that he does not accept court decisions. He also complained that I stated that ‘it seems a dangerous move to place someone with so little regard for the decision of the court in the position of chief legal adviser to the commissioner and the ATO administration’.
I stand by my submission, which was not made lightly or without due consideration. As a result, I seek to formally raise a matter of privilege for the following reasons. Firstly, the whole text and context of my comments are to be found in my submission, which was accepted and authorised for publication by the committee on 24 May this year and is therefore a document covered by privilege. Secondly, I can confirm that there were several other people in attendance at the 17 June 2003 meeting where Mr Fitzpatrick made these comments. Senator Coonan, as the then Assistant Treasurer, had convened the meeting to assist in resolving the outstanding issue of employee benefit arrangements and hear the views of various members of parliament, senior taxation officers and several aggrieved taxpayers.
When Mr Fitzpatrick’s comments were made, Senator Coonan had left the meeting to attend the Senate chamber. Those who remained were me, as the member for Canning; Senator David Johnston from Western Australia; the member for Mackellar, Mrs Bronwyn Bishop; and five other taxpayers. The other tax officers also in attendance were commissioners Michael D’Ascenzo and Gary Marizza. Senator Coonan had a staff member at the meeting. I am advised that Mrs Bishop, Senator Johnston and the five taxpayers are able to confirm Mr Fitzpatrick’s statements in the meeting. Mr Clive Ross was also present at the meeting and I am advised that notes as to Mr Fitzpatrick’s statements were taken at the meeting.
I believe that in all of the circumstances of the matter, my integrity and the accuracy and veracity of my submission have been questioned. I have consulted the House of Representatives Practice at page 670, where the giving of false evidence to committees is listed as a contempt of parliament. I contend that Mr Fitzpatrick, by virtue of these matters contained in this letter to the joint committee, has misled a standing committee of the parliament. In addition to this, I contend that the attack upon the veracity of my submission may be an improper interference with my capacity to carry out my duties as a member of this House. I am able to provide formal support for my position as it relates to this matter. I present a copy of my submission to the joint committee and Mr Fitzpatrick’s letter to me. I therefore seek your support in a formal reference of this matter to the Privileges Committee for further inquiry.
I thank the member for Canning. I will look closely at his fairly detailed points and give careful consideration to the request that he has made concerning privilege.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am loath to raise a point of order on privilege but, if there has been a contempt of a committee or a process of a committee, is it not up to the chair representing the committee to raise that matter rather than the individual member?
I thank the Chief Opposition Whip. I will give careful consideration to all the points that have been raised by the member for Canning and take note of his point.
Mr Speaker, I was wondering whether you were aware that, during our winter recess, a worker of 31 years standing in this parliament will be retiring: Diane Hawke from the Parliamentary Library.
I thank the member for Lingiari. I am aware that Ms Diane Hawke retires this week after 32 years of service to the Parliamentary Library. During those years she has been the face of the library at the front desk. She has assisted senators and members by sending out information from the library’s diverse collections and elsewhere. She has provided a wonderful service. Her commitment to meeting the demands of parliamentarians for very rapid delivery of information has been outstanding. Her enthusiasm and positive outlook have benefited all who worked with her and brightened the day for many of the library’s clients. She has also been an active contributor to the social life of the library and the parliament through membership on social committees and other groups. On behalf of all the parliament I wish Diane Hawke very well in her new challenges.
Hear, hear!
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I would like to endorse your remarks and say that I have known Diane Hawke, who is up in the gallery now, for close on 35 or 36 years. Diane followed a rugby team that I played for, St Christopher’s, which is just down the road.
Opposition members interjecting—
She was never disappointed with the rugby! And there she met her later husband, Edward, a fine gentlemen who unfortunately passed away in 1991. She has been an ornament to this place. She is a great family person and a great contributor to our community. On my own behalf and on behalf of my family I wish her all the best.
Hear, hear!
Mr Speaker, I have two questions to you. The first one flows from your responsibilities as Speaker under page 604 of House of Representatives Practice in terms of Hansard. I refer to the Prime Minister adding to an answer. Will the Speaker now ensure that the Hansard of yesterday accurately reflects what the Prime Minister stated before the parliament, that is, ‘productivity will always be higher, and growth will always be stronger under a Labor government—under a Liberal government rather than a coalition government’? I seek leave to table the transcript from ABC news last night, which reflects accurately what the Prime Minister said.
Leave granted.
In response to the member for Grayndler I first of all draw his attention to page 603 of House of Representatives Practice, which states:
The parliamentary debates are the full reports of the speeches of Members of the House. The debates are substantially the verbatim reports, with no unnecessary additions, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected ...
In relation to yesterday, I have viewed the tape of proceedings and I have sought advice from Hansard on this matter. I am advised that, consistent with Hansard practice of correcting obvious mistakes or slips of the tongue, the text was corrected by Hansard prior to the greens being sent out and posted on the senators and members portal. I might add that I think this courtesy is extended by Hansard to all members. I am quite certain that most occupants of this chamber have been the beneficiary of this courtesy at some time or other.
Mr Speaker, I have a further question to you. I refer to the limits which are referred to in House of Representatives Practice of seeking to correct remarks in this place. Yesterday, the Minister for Defence released an official transcript of a doorstop interview that members of the press gallery were entitled to believe was accurate. However, the transcript was not an accurate record of what he said. The transcript was changed to conceal a critical error. While the doctored version of the interview had our troops operating on the Saudi border, Dr Nelson actually stated that our troops would be operating on the Syrian border. Mr Speaker, could you please investigate this matter and report back to the House before we rise for the winter recess? I seek leave to table the transcript as it appeared on Dr Nelson’s official website of the parliament on Tuesday, 20 June, and a transcript of what actually occurred at that doorstop.
Leave not granted.
In response to the member for Grayndler I have to say to him that what he raises is not a matter for the Speaker because it was not a matter raised in this chamber. Therefore, I will not be taking the matter any further.
Mr Speaker, my point is that it is on the Parliament House website of the minister, for which you do have, as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, some responsibility in terms of the Department of the House of Representatives.
I thank the member for Grayndler. I remind the member for Grayndler that the Speaker cannot take responsibility for statements that are put on websites by members.
Mr Speaker, I also have a question to you about a similar matter. Could the Speaker please check the tape of the Prime Minister’s answer in question time today when he said that the government is investing ‘$1 zillion’ in schools? Would the Speaker please check that the Hansard is not altered?
I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that Hansard will be looking closely and, if necessary, I will review it further.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do—
Please proceed.
most grievously, by the Williamstown, Altona, Laverton Star on 20 June. Unfortunately, the Star has incorrectly covered my campaign to extend the subsidy that is paid, as many members in this House would know, to students to travel to Canberra. I am campaigning for needy students in my electorate to also have access to this subsidy, but unfortunately the journalist at the Star contacted St Monica’s School in Moonee Ponds—not in my electorate—instead of St Monica’s Primary School in Footscray, in the heart of my electorate. So, not surprisingly, this other school was not aware of the issues that I was raising on behalf of St Monica’s, who actually would like that assistance.
The member has made her point.
Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do, Mr Speaker.
Please proceed.
In the Canberra Times today, in an article entitled ‘House Rules’, coalition MPs are reported to ascribe certain views to me in relation to AWAs and certain other media comment. For the public record, I have always opposed AWAs, both publicly and privately, and I did not make the comments that formed the substance of the article and comment by coalition MPs in the chamber yesterday.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do.
Please proceed.
My attention has been drawn to a story I think on ABC television news last night and several stories in today’s printed media about comments I allegedly made in the joint party room yesterday. I think the allegation was that I spoke about the refugee bill in the joint party room. Let me clear the record and say that I made a broad statement to the party room yesterday but did not speak about the refugee bill at all. No journalist rang me to get my comments and I think it reflects poorly upon the ethics of the journalists.
I have a question to you, Mr Speaker. The member for Corio in his personal explanation has just used the phrase ‘deposed AWAs’. If Hansard corrects that to ‘opposed’—in other words, if Hansard corrects the slip of the tongue that the member for Corio made—will you, Mr Speaker, require members opposite who have made scurrilous accusations against the Prime Minister to apologise?
I thank the Leader of the House. I trust that commonsense will prevail.
Mr Speaker, I have a question to you in relation to standing order 105(b). Could you write to the Prime Minister and seek a response to my question 2230 of 5 September last year concerning Senator Ross Lightfoot’s register of pecuniary interests and involvement in the Kurdistan oil industry?
I thank the member for Wills and I will follow up his request.
Mr Speaker, in a similar vein, could I seek your assistance in getting answers to question 507, to the Treasurer, dated 8 February 2005; 1139 and 1140, to the Prime Minister, dated 10 May 2005; and 2274, to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, dated 6 September 2005?
I thank the member for Cunningham and I will follow up her request.
I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 47 of 2005-06 entitled Performance audit: Funding for communities and community organisations: Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
That the House take note of the following documents:
Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned.
I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s arrogant approach to the Parliament, and the Australian people, with its own political self interest now being given absolute priority over the national interest.
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—
This is an arrogant government with total control of this parliament. It is an arrogant government out of control in its behaviour. It is drunk on its own power and its own self-satisfied arrogance. It is governing now in its own political interests. It is not governing in the national interest. Democracy is under threat from this arrogant, out-of-touch government, drunk with power, as I said, and using that total power now to attack democracy. Accountability, fairness and honesty: they are the casualties of this government’s 10 long years, and its victims are the hardworking families of Australia.
When I say 10 long years, it has been in office now for a very long period of time, and it is not unusual for a government that has been in power for this long to develop a shorthand way of dealing with the democratic processes, a shorthand way of dealing with the truth and a propensity to utilise the public funds of this nation in its own political interests and to assume that there is nothing wrong with what it is doing. That is when a government needs a very big wake-up call.
Generally speaking, and in the case of this government, it will get it from the electorate. However, what it will not get it from—unlike most governments in the country in the political lives of most of these members of parliament—are the checks and balances which the Senate has from time to time managed to provide. There was always a situation when we were in office where the Senate would hold us accountable, and now the capacity to do that is no more. It is not possible for the Senate to do that at precisely the point of time the government feels free to give free rein to the worst of its ideological prejudices and obsessions—we see that in industrial relations—at a point of time when the government is most conscienceless about the way in which it handles public funds—and we see that in the utilisation of government advertising, which I will get onto—and at the point of time when the government is most haphazard with the truth and its willingness to mislead, confuse or, as Laurie Oakes would say, obfuscate as it seeks to evade any form of accountability for the actions it has taken and as it puts in place legislation which is manifestly against the interests of the Australian people.
A bulldozer has been put through the industrial relations system. Absolutely nothing of what has been done in industrial relations was foreshadowed by this government during the last election campaign: not the removal of penalty rates, not the removal of leave loadings, not the removal of shift allowances, not the removal of the no disadvantage test from the AWAs, not the determination to deprive workers in companies of up to 100 employees the provisions of unfair dismissal—nothing. Absolutely none of this was indicated to the Australian people during the course of the last election campaign. Indeed, when he was questioned on the possibility of this, Howard, the Prime Minister, was absolutely certain to make sure that anyone with whom he spoke got the view that the opposite applied.
These were parts of the settled elements of the way in which Australians were remunerated in this country—the settled elements of the way in which Australians were rewarded—but a bulldozer was put through that in a state of maximum deceit from this government of the Australian people. It was a complete collapse of any form of accountability, and now in this place the government seek to mislead repeatedly, as we raise these issues with them, as to the real consequences of the actions that they have taken. They use the fact that, in question time, they get the last word to produce grossly misleading information as they seek to explain away the various contracts and events described here in question time. That is the only place where this unaccountable Australian Prime Minister appears to argue the case for what he has done on industrial relations. Twenty-one debates in this chamber in the aftermath of the introduction of that bill, and not a single word from the Prime Minister in any one of them. Question time, where you have the right of reply, where you can say anything you like and you have the numbers behind you, is not accountability.
That bulldozer which went through the industrial conditions of the Australian people has now gone through the parliamentary process. The government that hid its punishing, divisive IR agenda from the Australian people in the last election is now driving that same bulldozer through democratic principles. It manipulates the electoral regulations to stop kids from voting. It did not get much commentary in this place. There are many elements of our society, I am afraid, that are loath to hold the government accountable in these things, and often it seems too hard to sit down and properly analyse the consequences of what government does. A certain ennui, a certain boredom with politics, has well suited the agenda of John Howard over the course of the last 10 years.
What happened when that legislation went through was as close to a political crime as you could conceivably find. Recollect this: the government, with its propositions on AWAs, has basically hit first and hardest at new employees joining the labour market. They are the youngsters coming out of training. Just as the youngsters come out of training to work, so the youngsters come out of their teenage years to vote. What happens to them now, under the changes that are being put in place? The government has determined that the rolls will close the day the writs are issued. Four hundred thousand people at the last election enrolled or re-enrolled between the day the writs were issued and a week later when the rolls were closed. The vast bulk of those 400,000 were young people. Note the cynicism of this government: as it attacks their wages, it attacks their capacity to vote!
In addition to that, the government determined that the origin of political donations up to the amount of $10,000 could be concealed and that those $10,000 could be arranged in a multiplicity of donations in a way that would permit a great deal more than $10,000 to be concealed. This is corrupt. There is no other way of describing it. You know that, when you are in office, you have a special opportunity to sit down and have conversations with people about their interests, and this government does that frequently. Now it has an opportunity to accompany those discussions with an implicit assumption that very large sums of money can pass across into the hands of that political party and help it secure a propaganda effort during the course of an election. These are large sums of money and, when they are capable of being dealt with in multiple ways, they sit at the heart of a very great set of potential acts of corruption.
This act moves away from two decades worth of improving and enhancing the accountability of political parties in electoral acts. It also has to be seen alongside other acts of shutting down accountability in this place or of using power to enhance personal interests. $1 billion has been spent on advertising this government’s position. When the industrial relations act was introduced, $55 million was spent in three weeks—more than all political parties spent in the entire last election period and campaign. That is simply theft. There has been $1 billion worth of such instances. We also find in the way other forms of accountability are handled that laziness that comes with 10 years in office and the sloth and determination to avoid proper scrutiny. We see that, of course, in the terms of the commission of inquiry into the weapons for wheat scandal, which effectively excludes any judgment on the role of ministers, the involvement of ministers or the ability of ministers to uphold their obligations under their terms of office. Those judgments have been removed from the commission of inquiry and any questioning associated with the detail of the issues before that commission of inquiry has been removed from consideration by the estimates committee process in the Senate, which is necessary to take in the way in which these accountability mechanisms have been undermined at each level.
All these things are interrelated; they are not events that need to be seen in singular terms. The commission of inquiry does not have the appropriate powers. The estimates committee process in the Senate, which previously has been the most effective mechanism of accountability in this place, is not permitted to handle those issues. The single greatest instance of corruption in federal politics and the ministerial turning of a blind eye to it at a minimum—culpable neglect by ministers—is not subject to analysis in any place. That was an ad hoc act against the authority of the Senate estimates committee process, and the ad hoc act has now been joined by a systematic attack. The mechanisms of accountability through which governments are placed under scrutiny—put in place when we were in office, with the strong support of the Liberal Party at that point in time—are now removed and the Senate is gutted at precisely the right point in time, a year before the next election.
That laziness which goes to an unwillingness to render themselves accountable also goes to the way in which they conduct themselves in areas of much greater importance in many ways to the national honour and interest. I think of their performance in reclassifying the mission of the Army in Iraq. Yesterday we witnessed here in question time a minister in government prepared to change the mission and place our forces in arguably much greater danger with simply a dorothy dixer in the House as the statement. The Prime Minister in the end was shamed into agreeing to make a public statement on this, but he had no intention of doing so. We know he had no intention of doing so because the Minister for Defence sat there red with embarrassment. He looked like a bottlebrush planted on the front bench of the Liberal Party as he recognised he had been humiliated by the Prime Minister. But how extraordinary it is that when they place in danger the armed forces—which are utilised for so many photo opportunities by the Prime Minister and his minister—there is no explanation, no parliamentary statement, no answers to questions about the capacity of those troops to be supported properly in country and a dismissal of any form of revelation in broad detail of the intelligence estimates associated with the position in which they placed them.
For me, as a former Minister for Defence of this country—I suppose we all have our own prisms by which we assess growing arrogance, sense of entitlement and determination to avoid accountability—I guess I look at a lot of that through the prism of the handling of the defence forces, and that prism presents a very ugly refraction indeed. It is time this arrogant government had its comeuppance. (Time expired)
I certainly would be the last person to say that this government never makes mistakes and I would be the last person to say that this government does not occasionally do things that, in the cold light of day, it might wish it had not done. But to be accused by this Leader of the Opposition of attacking democracy, and of arrogantly approaching the parliament, is pretty rich given that he was Deputy Prime Minister in a government whose Prime Minister and half the ministry did not front this parliament two days out of four. He was Deputy Prime Minister in a government which in 1993 answered on average just 10 questions in question time.
Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting
The member for Reid has already been warned. He is in a precarious position.
He was Deputy Prime Minister in a government which went to the Australian people in 1993 saying that tax cuts were not just a policy, they were l-a-w law, and then ripped them up shortly after being re-elected.
By all means, if this government makes mistakes, if this government gets it wrong, hold us to account, but do not engage in the high-pitched hyperbole and in the completely over-the-top bluster that we have seen today from the Leader of the Opposition. If I could dwell briefly on some of the specific points that he made, he claimed that there has been some kind of abuse of democracy going on in the Senate. For the benefit of members opposite, let me simply remind them that all that has happened is that a system that was good enough for Labor between 1983 and 1994 has been restored—that is all. What is so outrageous about having government members chair Senate committees? Between 1983 and 1994, government members chaired Senate committees and that government did not even have a majority in the Senate. There is no reason whatsoever that this democratically elected government, this government with a democratically elected majority in the Senate, should not chair those committees.
It was alleged that there was some kind of vicious deception going on in workplace relations prior to the last election. I think that this government ought to be judged on what it does. So far, we have delivered 1.8 million new jobs. There has been a 17 per cent real increase in basic award earnings under this government. Strikes are at the lowest level since records were first kept. The government is convinced that the further industrial relations changes that we have made will build on that record. We could be wrong. It may be that doom and disaster will follow these changes, as it was predicted to follow the previous changes that we made. If doom and disaster follows, we will be judged by the Australian people and they will be entitled to judge us harshly. But let us judge this government by results and we are perfectly prepared to be judged by those results.
Another of the accusations hurled at us by the Leader of the Opposition was the ludicrous suggestion that we are in some way stripping young people of their right to vote. We are doing our best to tighten up the conditions under which people go on the electoral roll. It has been said in this House before but let me say again that, under the rules as they did pertain, it was harder to take out a video than it was to go on the electoral roll. There is nothing antidemocratic about trying to ensure that you cannot rort the electoral roll.
It is an old furphy—oppositions raise it all the time—that this government, or any government for that matter, is rorting the system every time it advertises a government service. I suppose, if I am going to be absolutely honest, when we were in opposition we may even have made similar accusations about the government, but let us be fair dinkum about this: governments do advertise; governments have to advertise. The state Labor governments between them massively outspend the advertising budget of this government. There are some things which are illegitimate—there is no doubt about that—in the kinds of ads that governments might be tempted to run, but let all of the advertising of this government be judged on the particular merits of the campaign. The fact that it happens is really a simple function of government.
Finally, there is this hysterical campaign that the Leader of the Opposition has been embarked on for the large part of this year about the AWB. I would be the first to admit that, on the face of the evidence that has been presented to the Cole Commission of Inquiry, things that should never have been done were done and the whole point of the Cole Commission of Inquiry is to get to the bottom of these matters. To be honest, I think that what we have seen consistently from the Leader of the Opposition over the last six months is virtually in contempt of the Cole Commission of Inquiry. Nothing will satisfy the Leader of the Opposition but a judgment from Commissioner Cole that every single government frontbencher who has ever had any dealing with the AWB should be, if not hung, drawn and quartered, certainly expelled from this parliament for dishonesty. Let us not have the hyperbole from members opposite. Let us have the dispassionate judgment of Commissioner Cole, and certainly the Australian public will decide this matter based on his judgment.
One of the things I have found a little interesting in the formal wording of this MPI is the government’s alleged ‘arrogant approach’ to the parliament. Let us consider just who is and who is not trying to uphold the best standards of this parliament. Disrupting the House is not a sign of a disciplined opposition; disrupting the House is a sign of a desperate opposition. What we have seen from members opposite consistently in the course of this year but particularly over the last few weeks is consistent, deliberate, planned and premeditated conduct to disrupt this House. Let me give you just a few examples, Mr Speaker. There were 36 opposition suspension motions in the entire year of 2005. There were just seven opposition suspension motions in the last six months of 1995 and there have been no fewer than 16 opposition suspension motions in the first six months of this year. In 1995 the then opposition leader, John Howard, took 18 points of order in his last six months as opposition leader. So far, since January, the Leader of the Opposition has taken at least 55 points of order.
There have been all sorts of complaints from members opposite about bad language, abusive language, in this chamber from the government. Let me for the record remind members opposite of the language of the Leader of the Opposition that has been recorded in Hansard. He referred to a government minister as ‘a sleazy, dummy-spitting little git’. He referred to a minister—
The Leader of the House cannot read into Hansard, even from a quote, unparliamentary language.
Let me simply remind the House of the poor language, the entirely unworthy language, that the Leader of the Opposition has been using consistently across the table over the last six months. In fact, as any fair-minded observer of this House would know, the Leader of the Opposition maintains a constant barrage of schoolyard chatter across the ministerial table. Some of it is picked up in Hansard, but much of it is not. Yesterday, for instance, he even said of the Prime Minister, ‘Turn your hearing aids up, you old man.’ Frankly, this is completely unworthy of someone who is the alternative Prime Minister of this country.
I have been a student of the Leader of the Opposition for much of his long and not undistinguished public life. I would say of the Leader of the Opposition that he is intelligent and articulate. He was, in some respects, one of the more competent ministers in the former government. But he has badly let himself down in the 18 months since he has resumed the leadership of the opposition. He has sold out his intellectual principles with things like the AWA rollover. AWAs were good enough for him in his previous incarnation but, because the unions said no, he sold out his intellectual principles in the last fortnight. He has sold out his personal principles for much of the 18 months that he has been Leader of the Opposition in this second coming. The kind of childish, juvenile interjections that we are consistently getting from the Leader of the Opposition are the strongest possible proof of that.
Even many of the Leader of the Opposition’s own supporters realise that he is far from his best self at this time. The Australian people used to regard the Leader of the Opposition as decent but indecisive. After watching him over the last 18 months, they are entitled to conclude that the Leader of the Opposition is both shrill and easily bullied. He is a lesser man today than he was 18 months ago. The very worst thing about it is that he is not only a lesser man but a man who has been less true to himself—his real self—in the last 18 months than in previous parts of his career. He has let himself down. He has tried to be what he is not because he has been told by the pollsters that there has to be more ‘muscle-up’. He has been told by the union heavies that he has to ‘show more mongrel’. That is what he is trying to do. In the process, he is disillusioning the Australian people about himself and not doing his political prospects any real good.
Members opposite often get upset when I quote back at them the words of their former leader, the former member for Werriwa. But it is interesting, isn’t it, that the only time members opposite had to judge between the member for Brand, their current leader, and the former member for Werriwa, their former leader, they chose the former member for Werriwa? We all know that the former member for Werriwa had many grave faults. There must even be many members opposite who privately breathed an enormous sigh of relief that the former member for Werriwa never became Prime Minister of this country. He might have been rough, he might have been wrong in many respects, but he had a few clues about the Leader of the Opposition. The longer the Leader of the Opposition lasts in his current incarnation, the more the judgment of the former Leader of the Opposition about him seems right. Listen to this about the current Leader of the Opposition, from page 112 of The Latham Diaries:
... putting a tough surface on a blancmange is bound to backfire. What they should do is pick an issue ... A big, bellowing cow in Parliament will never fool the public.
Another quote, from page 87:
People think Beazley is a big angel, but behind the scenes, he’s in the gutter. He and his allies reflect the worst instincts of the Labor movement: all gossip and muck.
We have seen far too much gossip and muck from the Leader of the Opposition over the last six months across this ministerial table. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition attempting to give his political persona some definition with his frantic and hysterical campaign against AWAs. All we can say is that we might know a few of the things he is against, but we certainly do not know anything that he is actually for. Stop acting like a big bellowing cow in the parliament. Tell us what you believe in and stop all this prating about democracy. (Time expired)
We’ve settled this parliamentary language issue, have we?
Order! The member for Rankin.
We saw at the start of that performance from the Leader of the House his trying to exhibit a demeanour of a reasonable man. It was interesting to see that it could not last a full 15 minutes. He struggled with reasonable man mode for the first seven or eight minutes and, of course, degenerated into the normal, wild-eyed mode where he was just throwing accusations against the opposition.
Mad monk!
The member for Rankin will be dealt with if he does not abide by the standing orders.
I would give the Leader of the House some advice. He took the liberty of trying to psychoanalyse the Leader of the Opposition. I would say to the Leader of the House: if he wants to go into the business of psychoanalysis, he should start a lot closer to home than that. He might want to apply some of that ability in psychoanalysis to himself before he tries to apply it to anybody else. You could see—as the man stood at the dispatch box—through the man to the small boy who in school would have engaged in some act of naughtiness, some act of misbehaviour, and when called to account by the nuns would have gone with the defence, ‘But I’m not the worst boy in the world.’ That was the quality of the defence of the Howard government that he gave at the dispatch box today. ‘We’re not the worst government in the world,’ was about as high as the defence got. This government should be judged against the standards that it has set for itself. We do not ask for anything more or less than for this government to be judged by the standards it set for itself.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I did something unusual today: I got the Federal Platform of the Liberal Party of Australia off its website. That is not something that I ordinarily do, but it is a very interesting document. Of the 22 pages of the document, five are blank and then there are two title pages. So, if you take those out, basically a third of the document is blank. But in the bits of the document that actually have some writing on them the government says, in its own Liberal Party platform:
The Commonwealth Parliament has an important role as a balance to the Executive, and the Senate should operate as a House of Review without obstructing the will of the elected Government.
It talks about safeguarding the public interest and says:
To safeguard these goals, Liberals support governments open to public scrutiny and with effective mechanisms of accountability.
That is in the Liberal Party Platform. The Prime Minister has also had cause to pontificate on these questions. On 2 April 2005, in respect of the government winning a majority in the Senate, the Prime Minister said:
And I make the simple promise to all of you that we will not let you down. We will not squander the mandate. We will not dishonour the loyal support that Liberals have given to this Government over the last nine years by wasting the opportunity of control of the Senate. But I make another promise to you—that we won’t use that authority in a reckless and arrogant fashion.
How has the government gone, against these lofty standards? We know that, against these lofty standards, the government’s track record is one of failure. In this House—and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would be well aware of this—we have seen the rights of members to speak on bills just thrown out of the window, with 15 gags on bills moved in the last sitting fortnight. And we had the amazing spectacle of a government that had come in and moved a gag motion on a bill having to lift the gag motion because it could not get agreement in its own party room. It was going to guillotine itself, and then it had to get the blade off its neck because it was about to chop its head off and it did not even have a bill ready to go. But we have seen the rights of members of this parliament trashed by this government. It does not want members to be able to speak to bills that come before the House.
I turn to question time under this government—one of the key accountability mechanisms of this parliament, a mechanism to hold executive government in control. We all know that question time has degenerated into being questions without answers and answers without content. In terms of questions without answers, we now have a stage where government ministers get up and, if they are anywhere near the subject matter of the question asked by the opposition, that is deemed to be good enough. Under the current regime—and this is a hypothetical example—if I got to this dispatch box and asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services: ‘Did you take a million-dollar bribe from a shipping company?’ it would be ruled as a relevant answer if the minister talked about shipping. That is where we have got to with standards in this place in terms of getting answers to questions that have been asked.
And then, when the government asks itself questions, what we get is answers without content, because the questions are largely a thinly disguised attempt to be able to bash the opposition. In this budget sitting of parliament since we came back from the Easter break, there have been 32 questions from government backbench members which were really all about bashing the opposition and there were three occasions on which government ministers were allowed to bash the opposition even though the question had not asked them to. So we have got to the absurd situation where we have questions from this side that never get an answer and we get questions from that side that are not about anything the government is doing—they are just about bashing the opposition. And it is no wonder that when standards are like that one of the few things that members of the opposition can do is interject. We are not alone in that; every day the government sends a barrage the other way. But, when we look across the House this year and ask what has happened, we see that 24 members of the opposition have been ejected from the House for interjecting and only one government member has been ejected from the House. I do not think that on any standard that could be seen to be fair.
On top of all that, we have a government that is now closing down Senate committees—one of the few remaining avenues of accountability in this place. I ask members to consider for themselves whether we would ever have got to the bottom of the ‘children overboard’ incident—we did not get all the way to the bottom but would we ever have got as far as we did—if it had not been for the Senate inquiry. The Senate inquiry is very important as an accountability mechanism. It is also very important as a public policy mechanism and, even though the government treats many of the outcomes of the public policy inquiries of the Senate with contempt, they are still important to the public debate. It was still worth while for Senator Peter Cook to have his cancer inquiry whilst he was dying of cancer, even if the current Minister for Health and Ageing does not have the simple courtesy, the simple competence, to respond to it. It was worth the Senate committee looking into petrol sniffing in Indigenous communities even if this minister for health is out pontificating about what Indigenous communities should do but not responding to the recommendations of that bipartisan committee. But it is that kind of work that this government now wants to shut down.
When it comes to standards, we all know you lead from the top and the Leader of the House is not a man who knows how to lead standards from the top. Mr Deputy Speaker, in deference to you, I would not want to take you through the ‘snivelling grub’ incident, but you know the one to which I refer. This is also the same Leader of the House who, in answer to a question on illicit drugs, said:
This is typical of the Leader of the Opposition. He surrendered to the Islamists over Iraq ...
That is as much an insult to the peaceful Islamic community of this nation as it is an insult to the Leader of the Opposition. That was an extraordinary remark to make in this place, and it is not apologised for to this day. We remember that the Leader of the House was the only minister to have been ejected from this place in 39 years on the day that he lost control and started marching over to the opposition benches with a view to having a physical confrontation with the then member for Braddon.
These are the standards of this government. The arrogant face that is shown by this government in this House is shown to the community. It is shown when it breaks its word over the Medicare safety net. It is shown through the extreme industrial relations legislation. It is shown when the government says, ‘We just don’t care what the Australian people think.’ I would like to end by echoing the words of the Prime Minister and asking him whether his government has acquitted this standard. The Prime Minister said about the Australian people:
They don’t like arrogant governments, they don’t like governments that take their support for granted but I am very conscious that in the past when governments of my persuasion have had the capacity to do so, they have sometimes disappointed their supporters in their failure to implement the programs that they took to the Australian public.
This is a government that by the Prime Minister’s own standards is acting with arrogance and contempt. (Time expired)
When I saw the title of today’s matter of public importance I thought it could be a very interesting debate indeed and that we may have an opportunity to speak at some length about what goes on in this parliament. However, it has degenerated into something of a vicious personal attack on some of the personnel here.
Looking back over my 30 years in this place I think I have probably seen it all before. I have served under a number of Prime Ministers and I have served under a number of governments, and I think one of the most frustrating and dreadful things I had to contend with was almost 13 years sitting on the opposition benches. There is nothing worse than being in opposition in this place. I can understand that the present opposition are totally frustrated and why they lean towards MPIs such as this to try to get rid of some of that frustration.
I suppose I could stand here and quote chapter and verse some of the great moments of my period in this House and some of the great frustrations and dreadful things that went on from various governments of all political persuasions. I was fascinated to hear the comments made on the AWAs and how the whole world of industrial relations is about to fall down. I sat in here for month after month after month during 1989 and 1990, while the worst industrial relations dispute that Australia has ever faced, the pilot’s dispute, was under way. We had the then Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, standing at the table and threatening to destroy people, who had the capacity to destroy lives, and who did destroy lives. He sat at the table there looking at the faxes coming through, all headed ‘Ansett Transport Industries’, completely directed from Swanson Street, Melbourne. What a dreadful way that was to conduct industrial relations in this country.
When you look at the damage that was done then to people whose lives were ruined, to the companies that went to the wall, to the people who went broke, you think to yourself, ‘Isn’t it marvellous that, for the last 10 years, we have had the lowest rate of industrial disputation in our history?’ You think, ‘If we’re destroying the place, isn’t it marvellous that in my electorate’—which admittedly is based on the Gold Coast—‘the unemployment rate is just under four per cent?’ It is sad that we do not have enough trained personnel to take up those jobs that are demanded in my electorate but this government, a government of great action, said to itself that it is not going to allow the Queensland government to take this over. We have said that we are going to build our own technical college and that we are going to train people for industries such as boat-building and food preparation.
Isn’t it marvellous when you look at the trade results and the way in which our export markets have blown out to such tremendous proportions? Isn’t it marvellous about this chamber? That is an interesting thing, Mr Deputy Speaker. The additional chamber for this place has allowed the whole process of democracy to be expanded tremendously. If we are talking about how dreadful this parliament is, it is interesting to note that members of parliament have the capacity to speak on just about anything they like because of the extra time we are given in that additional chamber. But none of that has been mentioned. The fact that we have extended the hours comprehensively to allow private members to bring up all sorts of issues about all sorts of problems their electorates might have and to have additional debate on bills and some of the reports of this place has of course not been mentioned during today’s MPI.
Isn’t it marvellous, as I say, when you look at how exports from this country have gone through the roof? In the other chamber the other day I mentioned a couple of industries in my electorate. The fact that Australia is exporting pate to France really is quite amazing, but that is happening. All of this has happened in the last 10 years. I would think that it is a bit of a long bow to draw that this government is so bad and that the parliamentary processes have been abused to such an extent when we have these record earnings from exports, when we have record employment and the lowest unemployment rate since the early 1970s, when we have this huge demand for young people to go into industry and when we have more people going through tertiary education than ever before. If we are so bad, why the devil do people vote for us? It is interesting that we are sitting here in government with the biggest majority we have ever had—I think this majority is slightly larger than in 1975, or about the same as in 1975—and that the two record majorities to have been held in this parliament since World War II have both been held by a Liberal-National Party coalition.
I think of the expansion of the committee system that has happened under this government, yet the opposition talks about not enough scrutiny of what goes on. Look at the work that is now done by our parliamentary committees and at the fact that we have been able to get into areas that were once virtually taboo. It is my great privilege to be the Chairman of the Joint Statutory Committee on Intelligence and Security, one of the most vital committees that this parliament has ever established, especially in this time of terrorism alerts since September 11 2001. The fact that we have oversight of what is a very important part of our security infrastructure speaks volumes for this government and for the fact that we have now had our parliamentary oversight expanded to cover all our security organisations and various divisions.
There’s the Treaties Committee too.
The Chief Government Whip reminds me of the Treaties Committee, which is a new one. We were always hearing great tales about how dreadful it was that Australia was going into all these strange treaties with overseas countries on all sorts of things. Now this parliament has oversight of those treaties and determines which particular areas we are going to go into—and it just goes on and on.
I was absolutely staggered to hear the Leader of the Opposition make reference to the change to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, saying what a dreadful thing it was that this government was going to tighten up the registration process for new enrolees and for changing people’s names on the roll. The reality is that at the last election 400,000 people had defied the act and had not registered or changed their address, and this is what is going to be done to make sure that people who have the legitimate right to vote are on the roll in time. It is interesting that, when he was talking about the early closure of the roll, the Leader of the Opposition really did not tell us all that is involved in this new legislation. It is true that the roll will close at 8 pm on the day the writ is issued for people not already on the roll. But he did not say that it will close at 8 pm on the third working day after the issue of the writs for people updating their address details and he did not say that people that turn 18 or are due to be granted citizenship during the campaign will also have three working days to update their enrolment. I thought that would have been regarded as sensible and responsible and as being far from anyone trying to corrupt the electoral system.
There are checks and balances in this place. The Senate is performing its role. Yes, it is the first time in many years that the government has a majority in the Senate but that is not being abused. Goodness gracious me, all you have to do is listen to the ABC every night of the week—it is almost as though it is a national disaster—to find out that the Senate is in revolt and that there are government senators challenging government legislation. But at least we on this side of the parliament have the right to challenge legislation and those decisions, and it is something that every member of my particular party is proud of. This MPI has really been a bit of a joke and I am sorry that it came up in this form, because what I was hoping to be debated—the predominance of this parliament—could have been aired today. Unfortunately, it has not. I proudly believe that this is one of the greatest political democracies in the world and that this parliament itself is one of the great institutions of the world.
I have the greatest of respect for the previous speaker, the member for Fadden. Like me, he had a long career in the media before entering this place and I know he is an objective and well respected individual. But I think his speech was a brave attempt to justify the increasingly unjustifiable. We have seen in this MPI discussion today a blame game—‘You’re worse than we were’—and the public is sick and absolutely tired of the posturing and posing of both major parties in this parliament.
The Prime Minister said in question time that this is the most accountable government since Federation. It certainly is with due regard to some welcome reforms: this government is accountable to the top end of town; accountable to the media barons, especially News Ltd; accountable to the mining lobby at the expense of renewable alternative energy; accountable to Indonesia on border protection; accountable to the US at the expense of an independent trade and foreign policy, accountable to no-one who would challenge the increasingly narrow economic and social agenda of the government. We could also talk about the Labor Party and previous governments as accountable to unions, which they still are, and their special pressure groups.
The Prime Minister attempted to draw a parallel between his government’s performance and that of the former government, when he pointed to former Prime Minister Paul Keating’s famous statement that ‘question time is a privilege extended by the executive to the parliament’. What an absolutely arrogant statement that was from an essentially arrogant person. But I would suggest that the proper debate and scrutiny of bills is now a privilege extended by this government to the parliament, so there is no high moral ground on either side and that is the issue that eats at the psyche and the basic patience of the electorate with regard to the performance of parliament, particularly the performance of this place where we do not have the sort of proportionality of representation that the Senate has and has had in far stronger force over the last 20 years up until the 2004 election.
In the 10 years I have been in this place, neither side, I believe, has done justice to the role of the House. We have seen an opposition in the first parliament completely flattened and disillusioned by its huge loss, licking its wounds and not moving any motions or any amendments of substance throughout probably the first two parliaments, leaving it all to the Senate, transferring the responsibility of the people’s house to the other place, which, while proportionally representative—and that is a good thing—is not the house where the forensic debate and attention to detail should take place. The previous speaker referred to the committees of this place. We do not have legislation committees. We do not have a process that enables us to completely examine and bring recommendations to this parliament where the people are properly represented—not the states but the people—by people who are elected by and large because they are recognisable, they are trustworthy in the eyes of their electorate and they are the people whom their electorate wants to represent their best interests.
But no, we have seen a constant bypassing of the House of Representatives and we have seen the media concentrate solely in most cases, with a couple of notable exceptions over the years, on the common farce at most times of question time, with the dorothy dixers and the ministerial statements—famously underlined by that defence answer yesterday, which should have been a ministerial statement. From the opposition, you can mostly pick on any one day the line of questioning based on what the shock jocks are saying on the radio stations in our national capitals. It is not very hard to pick how and why and wherefor the questions are coming from and how lacking in any substance the process is—except, I may humbly say, when an Independent stands, you can hear a pin drop, because it is truly a question without notice.
The government’s amendment to the second reading summing-up of the renewable energy bill yesterday was a classic example of the demise of the processes in this place. It was an urgent bill for whatever reason. We were supposed to be having a debate on renewable energies—but no, it was wound up as a matter of great urgency. By whom? The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, who incorporated a government amendment about which he knew absolutely nothing with any summation of that second reading debate.
How could anybody stand in this place and say that we have a proper and improving democratic process when, in the last few days, we have had the Leader of the House moving at the beginning of each day that there will be truncated debate and also no amendments from this House by other than the government? What are we? Are we legislators or are we to sit here in mute disbelief while the executive sit there in all of their smug contentment, rubber stamping material through this place with absolute disregard for the processes.
We do not have a democracy in this country. Do not kid yourselves that we have the best democracy. ‘Rubbish,’ I hear. There is no true democracy where every person has not proper and fair representation through the voting process. We have a distorted outcome in the Senate now, by virtue of an outcome whereby a two per cent primary vote delivered a crucial extra senator favourable to the government’s processes.
We have seen changes to the Electoral Act. It is $10,000 now before you have to declare where the money is coming from. Members of parties do not have to declare anything about their spending in any campaign, a nil return. They may have had a quarter of a million dollars spent on their behalf. They do not have to say they spent a zack, a cent. What an absolute travesty of the democratic process is that?
Today the minister was again about to move that standing order 47 be suspended for the remainder of the period. That is the very order that enabled me to move a motion in this House yesterday to try and have a debate—on what? On democracy. What happened? I was gagged. There is your democracy. I was moving an eight-point motion, not only criticising the government but also pointing the finger at the media, who leave this place after the circus of question time not to concentrate on the important issues in this parliament but to write up the scorecard on who won question time. It will be on tomorrow. Have a look. It is like a soccer match. It is lazy journalism. I was in journalism for 30 years. I know something about it, and this is the supposed cream of the media sitting along the gallery. I wouldn’t give two bob but for three or four of them in terms of their commitment to properly covering this place.
We have this motion sitting here—standing order 47—that may be moved to suspend standing orders at any time; it is hanging over our heads. Okay, that means no motions from this side, no amendments and no debate. What is next? No questions? I bet that will be next. No questions from the non-government side. That is where we are heading, with all due regard to the previous speaker, the member for Fadden, who believes that we are on such a wonderful path to democratic heaven.
People are asking today: ‘How do we change all this?’ They are ringing my office and emailing me, asking: ‘How do we change it?’ I say, ‘By osmosis, not necessarily by the vagaries and distortions of the voting systems.’ By osmosis people are looking for alternatives and, at the state level, they are looking more and more at the Independents. They are going to be looking more and more, I warn you, for Independents at a national level in the people’s house.
I ask everybody to visit the ICAN website. Check out how to run a campaign and how to run for parliament and get around all those obstacles that have been put in place. Rather than being the lackeys of the major parties, rather than filling out your dues, serving your time, whether you are a ‘Shorten’ or a ‘big-en’, you do it according to the rules of the game, not according to the wishes of the electorate. I say that the lights of democracy are being switched off all over this nation and, tragically, most people probably will not realise it until they are in the dark.
As a member of the federal parliament and as the member for Ryan, which I have the great privilege of representing in the national parliament of Australia, I simply cannot let some of the remarks of the Independent member for Calare pass without their being totally rejected and repudiated. I do not know how the member for Calare can come into this chamber and say that this country is not a democracy when he has come to this parliament by virtue of the votes of his constituents. What is the member for Calare saying? That Australia is akin to North Korea? That Australia is akin to Cuba? That Australia is akin to Myanmar? It is outrageous of him to make that sort of inference. He should hang his head in shame as an Independent member of the federal parliament of Australia for making that kind of inference. His constituents should give him a big whack at the next election. I hope that his fellow Independent, Mr Windsor, the member for New England, will not go into such ridiculous, absurd and preposterous language. I hope that the member for Calare has not got too much of the Labor Party bug because, if he does, he will be a very sick man.
Anyway, it is very disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition, in his remarks here in the parliament in this MPI debate, tries to condemn the government for its democratically elected responsibilities. Of course, we were elected by the people of Australia in an overwhelming fashion. The people of Australia spoke. They spoke with one strong, loud, clear voice. They very kindly and very generously returned me as the federal member for Ryan with a very strong two-party preferred outcome, and I want to thank them for their confidence in me. I will continue to represent them in the right spirit and with great commitment. I am sure I speak on behalf of all my colleagues in the coalition when I say that they will continue to uphold the confidence that their respective constituents gave to them.
But this matter of public importance raised by the Leader of the Opposition really does smack of intense desperation to become the Prime Minister of this country. The Leader of the Opposition cannot stand here in the parliament of his own volition as a man with a very good education—in fact, I think he graduated from the University of Oxford, much like the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, and they may even have spent some time together at Oxford. It is quite unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition did not acquire some of the very good ideas that the British Prime Minister has, which he has put into policy in his country. I will give one example to the parliament of the people of Australia: the British Prime Minister talks about how it is very important for people in the UK to get the opportunity of a job and about how important job security is—as opposed, of course, to what the Leader of the Opposition in this country is talking about. He is trying to flip-flop all over the place. He has no ideas, no policies of any substance, but he comes into this parliament with this matter of public importance that talks about a government that is supposedly arrogant, that is only concerned about itself.
Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party and—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—the people of Australia and of course my constituents in Ryan what this government is really interested in. This government is interested in national prosperity. This government is interested in creating jobs for young people. This government is interested in creating jobs for people throughout the length and breadth of this great country. We have had incredible growth. We have had incredible opportunities for young people, women and disabled Australians to get into the workforce. During the 10 years of the Howard government, the economy has grown by some 3.5 per cent.
Let me just make a comparison with some of the other economies of the region. This is a very good example of the leadership and the stewardship of the Howard government in terms of its focus. Its focus has been on developing policies that will maximise the opportunities of Australians. Let us just compare a country like Japan. It 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. Our good friend the United States went into recession in 2001. The Asian region of course suffered a financial crisis in 1996-97.
When this government came to office, it focused very much on policies that would make a difference to the people of Australia, to the families, businesspeople and students of Australia—to the families of Ryan, the businesspeople of Ryan and the students of Ryan, who are studying at the University of Queensland. This government is implementing policies that are making a difference to the men and women of Australia. Our focus is on what counts: the economy, jobs and important issues of employment and national defence; as opposed, of course, to members of the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition. He comes into this parliament, trying to muscle up—as the Leader of the House said—and trying to be someone that he is not. He is not at heart a Lathamesque figure. He is not at heart someone who can muscle up and stand shoulder to shoulder with someone like the former member for Werriwa. He cannot come into this place and pretend he is someone that he is not.
Australian people can see right through this. The Australian people get it right when they go to the polls, and they will see through someone who tries to be someone that they are not. As I said, the people of Australia re-elected the Howard government in October 2004 with a very comprehensive mandate to govern in the national interests of this country. As part of that mandate, they gave the coalition parties a majority in the Senate.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone in the opposition, any members who come to this parliament, including the members who are elected independently and do not belong to any political party, can come into this parliament and say that they have not been legitimately and democratically elected. Of all people in this chamber, the Independent members should acknowledge the democratic voice of the people. The people of Australia have spoken. They have spoken very clearly. They have spoken very comprehensively. They gave the Australian government an opportunity to lead the economy, to make decisions that would make a difference to their lives. Until the opposition get any inkling of this, they are condemned to stay in opposition for many more years to come, because, quite frankly, the people of Ryan and the people of Australia are interested in good governments—strong governments.
I will continue to represent my constituency in this parliament by pointing out how the Leader of the Opposition, the members opposite and indeed the two members of the Independent minor caucus come to this parliament and carry on with all kinds of over the top, extreme language. They say that we are a Cuba; we are a North Korea; we are a Myanmar. They ask: where is the voice of democracy in this country? For goodness sake, get a life. Get a reality check. You of all people come into this chamber, elected by men and women of your constituency, and you talk about this country not being a democracy. That is absolutely absurd.
I want to talk about this matter of public importance. The Leader of the Opposition is someone who—as the Leader of the House has said—has developed a reputation in the country for being a man of probity, a man of goodwill, a man of high regard, a man of popularity. Most regrettably, he is now in this job as the Leader of the Opposition for the second time. With his desperation to become Prime Minister of this country, he has fallen very far short of the high standards that I would like to think he has for himself. He comes into this parliament trying to portray himself as someone with the credibility and the credentials to lead the opposition back into government. I am sorry to say that the Australian people will certainly see through this. No wonder he is quite desperate, with the likes of Bill Shorten and Greg Combet on his heels and other members of the opposition such as the member for Griffith, Mr Rudd, and the member for Lalor, Ms Gillard, snapping away at his heels, believing that they can do a better job than he can.
I am sure that some of them might get that opportunity, but it is the primary interest to the coalition parties to focus on the things that are important to everyday Australians. The Australian economy is one of some $1 trillion. It is imperative that we focus on things that count, such as employment issues. Figures have just been released that show that this country has an unemployment rate of 4.9 per cent—the lowest in three decades. The Leader of the Opposition and the Independents are not focused on how good that is for the people of Australia. They do not comment on the policies that make a difference; they come in here instead with this wishy-washy matter of public importance and talk about things that are of little interest to the Australian people rather than about their families, the economy, education and water. These are top-drawer issues for the people of Australia, and I want to encourage my colleagues in the government to keep their eye on the important matters. (Time expired)
I spent 10 years in the New South Wales parliament. When I have been asked by people over the last four years to compare the two parliaments, I have spoken of this parliament in complimentary terms in respect of the committee processes and the capacity for Independent members to speak on many issues—although from time to time I have been gagged. By comparison I would have to say that, in the four years that I have been here, this has been a better parliament in respect of scrutiny and committee processes than the New South Wales parliament was in the 10 years I was there—which included four years of a hung parliament when, quite obviously, the various systems changed and scrutiny was much closer and better.
What we have seen in recent weeks—and I think the member for Calare hinted at this as well—should serve as a warning to the Prime Minister and to some of the executives within the government. There is no need to go down this road. This parliament does not have to continue down the path it seems to be taking. In the last few weeks the Prime Minister initiated debate on nuclear energy and renewable energy resources, and I applaud him for that. He then brought into this place important pieces of legislation on renewable energy and a whole gamut of issues. On two occasions he used the guillotine to gag debate. There is no need for this parliament to do that. Although the Labor Party did it some years ago, it should not be an excuse for this Prime Minister and the executive to follow suit. Although the numbers provide the capacity to do these sorts of things, it does not mean that they should be done—for example, to guillotine debate and to rearrange Senate committees so they are more favourable to the government of the day.
In my view, one of the great strengths of this parliament compared with the New South Wales parliament is that, under the current government—and I compliment them—there has been scrutiny. No doubt people would say that numbers in the Senate have changed and therefore the government has the capacity to make changes and to stick it into the Labor Party—that the government can stick it into the Labor Party because Bob Hawke or whomever, as the member for Fadden mentioned, did it to them.
I have just spent some time with the William Cowper school—a very good school from my electorate—where I talked about the parliamentary processes. I did not mention the capacity for the government to use the numbers to stick it into the opposition because I do not think the general public, and particularly the children, want this parliament to do that. Just because it happened in the past, I do not think they think it should happen in the future. The mandate that this Prime Minister has been given provides an enormous opportunity to send a different message to the public, for which he would be rewarded at the ballot box. However, if he maintains this path he will not be rewarded at the ballot box. The member for Calare and other members have made some important points. There are messages out there. People are searching for alternatives, and they will eventually find them. It is a great shame that the opposition is not up to the game and that it is allowing the government to pursue this course. But the penny turns—the wheel turns—and there is an opportunity for the government to maintain a degree of integrity by allowing the committee processes to work in such a way that they are not blatantly political, which they were in the New South Wales parliament to the extent that it was just a waste of time being on them.
This place should not go down that path of creating an institution where everybody who goes to a meeting knows the outcome before they go through the door; otherwise the participation in the processes becomes degraded and that flows into the general public arena. So there are warning signs for the government. I would suggest to the government that it does not have to go down this path. Two wrongs do not necessarily make a right. It is no wonder that others in the community are looking at various voting options. If this parliament goes down this path, I will do my level best to assist people in the Senate next time.
The government has been given a great opportunity in the Senate. I was involved in a very small way back in the early eighties, when Malcolm Fraser came in and controlled both houses of parliament. That provided a lot of opportunities—some of which did not happen and some did. Here is an opportunity for the government to do good things. It should not develop a wedge agenda to stick into the opposition. There is a real opportunity to do some good things for this nation. Do not waste that time with the stupidity that is going on in this place at the moment. Prime Minister, if you want an energy debate, let us have one. Do not play wedge politics out there in the public arena by saying, ‘It’s all about Kim Beazley and three mines’ and then not allowing the issue to be debated in the parliament. You have that opportunity in the Senate to set up committees to really look at the energy needs of this country.
Just in the last weeks we have had the absurd reaction of the Treasurer talking in this place about the mandating of ethanol and how that will cause the price of petrol to increase. Then the leader of the National Party, Mark Vaile, went to a conference on the coast and said, ‘We’re in there arguing for ethanol and it will lead to a decrease in the price of fuel.’ We are having all these mixed messages. Let us have a debate about energy—one that has some meaningful purpose for the people of Australia.
The other act of dishonesty that occurred in recent months was by the Prime Minister and the then Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, saying to water users that there will be a compensation arrangement made for them to adjust their water entitlements to a sustainable level for the environmental, long-term good of the nation. I applauded them for doing that; it is something that I had argued for many years. But now we find that income tax will be placed upon those compensation arrangements.
In conclusion, there will be a test for the Senate as to whether or not the changes have been appropriate. Currently, the Australian Electoral Commissioner is investigating Tamworth businessman Gregory Maguire because of some issues he has with the Electoral Commission, and those findings will be referred to the Senate for determination. I ask members of the media, many of whom are gathered in the gallery today, to examine this issue when it is referred to the Senate to see whether the government uses its numbers to cover up the issue or whether the reconstituted Senate committee uses the appropriate means at its disposal to examine the issue.
My final words are to the Prime Minister. There is no need, Prime Minister, to go down this road; you can do it differently. You do not have to do it the old way because they had the numbers; you do not have to stick it into the opposition. The people of Australia want you to do it differently. If you do, you will be rewarded; if you do not, in my view, you will be punished and you will deserve to be punished.
The honourable member for New England was very charitable and optimistic about the Prime Minister’s attitudes to the parliament. I hope that through this matter of public importance some people in government will listen to and take on board some of the criticisms. This is a time when this government is seen to be out of touch and arrogant, and its arrogance is seen very much in the way it treats the parliament.
I want to go to two aspects of the way in which this place operates. I return to a theme I have raised on many occasions, and that is the lack of ministerial statements. The honourable member for O’Connor led with his chin yesterday when he asked a question about the number of ministerial statements issued in the Hawke-Keating years compared with the number of statements issued in the Howard years. During the 13 years of the Hawke-Keating government there were 349 ministerial statements—on average, 27 a year. During the 11 years of the Howard government, there have been 100 ministerial statements—on average, nine a year. But more telling, how many ministerial statements do you think there have been this year—2006—when we have deployed troops to the Solomons, when we still have troops deployed in Iraq and when we have had discussions of great moment about matters to do with immigration and asylum seekers? There have been zero, zip, nil, none—and I think that that is outstandingly despicable. I regret that the Attorney-General is in the chamber, because he has often borne the brunt of my criticism about ministerial statements. Perhaps, because of his long service in this place, I have set the bar of his performance higher than I should have, but when he was minister for immigration and oversaw the great changes that were made in immigration policy I believe that he should have been in here more often than he was, making ministerial statements.
The final matter I want to raise is the issue of responses to committee reports. Another person I respect because of his longevity in this chamber, the member for Fadden, also raised this matter. If you look at the list of the last published government responses—one is due tomorrow; the last was published on 8 December 2005—you will see listed 74 reports that should have had their responses within the time limit, which is six months. Of those, two had been received and 72 had not been received within the time limit. In fact, only another 26 had been responded to. If you look at the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which the honourable member for Fadden championed, you will see that the responses there are four out of five. Matters concerning Aboriginal affairs and Indigenous affairs have been raised, and a report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Affairs, tabled on 21 June 2004, Many ways forward: report of the inquiry into capacity building and service delivery in Indigenous communities, has received no response to date. These are examples of things that must be improved.
Shame!
On the response to reports—for the honourable member for Calare—I gave the same criticism during the Hawke-Keating years as a backbench member of the governing political party. I think that it is important that executive government understands that it should not display arrogance to the parliament and, through that arrogance to the parliament, arrogance to the people of Australia.
Order! The discussion is now concluded.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the 11th report for 2006 of the committee relating to the proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission at 120 Collins Street, Melbourne.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—This report examines the proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the Victorian Regional Office of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission at 120 Collins Street, Melbourne, at an estimated cost of $9.85 million. ASIC has occupied 8,810 square metres of office space at 485 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, since its inception in 1991. According to ASIC, its current fit-out is dated, inefficient and ergonomically poor. The current lease expires in December 2006.
In November 2004 ASIC sought expressions of interest to lease suitable premises in the Melbourne central business district. Seventeen submissions were received and following extensive assessment these were reduced to a short list of five options. Two options were identified for detailed exploration, with the site in Collins Street selected as being the most suitable. The new leased premises will physically locate ASIC among its major external stakeholders and will provide a level of fit-out comparable to other ASIC premises. The office design will allow for a collaborative working environment, readily accommodate change and will allow for the speedy utilisation and redirection of technology and resources.
ASIC intends to lease seven contiguous floors as well as ground floor space at 120 Collins Street for 10½ years. A service centre will be constructed on the ground floor, with security controlled access to ASIC’s leased floors. A reception area, investigation evidence rooms, meeting rooms, storage facilities, a computer room and a first aid room will also be constructed. Each floor will include utilities and a kitchen.
ASIC have negotiated a $6.5 million lease incentive, which will be used to offset the cost of the fit-out, bringing the total cost to the Commonwealth down to $3.35 million. Items from the current tenancy, such as whitegoods, some audiovisual and technical equipment and some loose furniture are anticipated by ASIC to be re-used in the new premises. ASIC assured the committee that the fit-out would meet the minimum requirements of the Building Code of Australia and all relevant state and Commonwealth occupational health and safety and equal employment opportunity legislation.
The building at 120 Collins Street has an Australian building greenhouse rating of three stars. Whilst the age of the building has an impact, the committee heard that the lessor is endeavouring to improve this rating. Environmental issues considered by ASIC include the provision of cycle parking, the use of motion-sensitive lighting, minimising the use of after-hours airconditioning and utilising waste management strategies. ASIC are also receiving advice on methods to reduce electricity use. The lease includes a section dedicated to green issues and describes and quantifies the commitment of both ASIC and the lessor to ensuring environmental performance criteria are met and exceeded. ASIC anticipate that the project will be completed by mid-November this year.
Having given detailed consideration to the proposal, the committee recommends that the proposed fit-out of the new leased premises for the Victorian Regional Office of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission at 120 Collins Street, Melbourne, proceed at the estimated cost of $9.85 million, noting that the $6.5 million lease incentive will be used to offset the cost of the fit-out. In closing, I wish to thank those who assisted with the inspection and public hearing, my committee colleagues and staff. I commend the report to the House.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services I present the committee’s report entitled Corporate responsibility: managing risk and creating value together with evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—I am pleased today to be presenting such a large, detailed, important and timely report. I would like at the outset to thank, most particularly, Kelly Paxman, the secretary of our committee, and Mr Stephen Palethorpe, the principal research officer, who did an extraordinary amount of work on this report during some difficult private circumstances. He managed to produce an outstanding report. We heard from many extraordinary witnesses over many days. It is a report that I hope many people in this place will take note of. I would like to start by quoting from one of the witnesses:
Under this shareholder-oriented model ... no more is expected of businesses than that they obey the rules as they go about their core function of generating profits. ... Positive advocates of the shareholder-oriented firm assert that maximising profit within a framework of laws is both the most ethically appropriate behaviour of business managers and the most socially desirable, because it leads to the best economic and social outcomes. This view has been stated by Milton Friedman, who argued 40 years ago that “... there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.”
The negative view of shareholder orientation presumes that corporate ethics is an oxymoron. In this view nothing better than greed can be expected of business operators and pursuit of owners’ interests will be at the expense of the wider community, so a system of laws and regulations is necessary to force corporations to behave according to the community interest. An oft-quoted observation from the 18th century British jurist Edward Thurlow sums up this view summarising the hopelessness of expecting unselfish behaviour from business: “Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?”
I think fundamentally that sums up what we were looking at in this inquiry: do corporations have social responsibilities and do we need to look at expanding the roles of directors’ duties to take them beyond their fairly narrow bounds of creating profits for shareholders or to the more extended end of enlightened shareholder interest?
I think many witnesses said that corporations today are very different from corporations of the past. They are now larger, create more assets and are more influential than ever before. The influence of corporations now extends well beyond economics and wealth creation and includes significant social, cultural, environmental and political impacts. The pervasive growth of business and international trade make the external impacts of corporations greater than ever, and with this has come costs as well as benefits to society.
Indeed, today we see some corporations with a greater asset base than some countries, and I am not talking about just small countries. They have also had an impact upon many communities in no small way. Some corporations have made very significant environmental impacts. Nowadays we require businesses to be more than just generators of profits; we need to see businesses being good corporate citizens. They need to take that to heart not just in the sense of social responsibility but also in the sense of business responsibility. Recently, Lord Browne, BP Group Chief Executive, in a speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated:
Good, successful business is part of society, and exists to meet society’s needs. That is the purpose of business at the highest level.
I think this rings true throughout business. Corporations need to do more than just make profits. They need to actually examine the impacts they have upon a greater stakeholder group. Obviously, defining ‘corporate social responsibility’ is a fairly onerous task. Many people think it is merely a philanthropical exercise: a corporation donates a large amount of cash to someone; therefore, they are a good corporate citizen. Or, in the more extreme example, they donate their staff’s time and they call themselves a good corporate citizen. Corporate social responsibility is greater than that. We need to ensure that we have directions for businesses to follow.
We have some very good examples of businesses taking their initiative and lead. We have seen some good examples coming out of Europe, but inside Australia there are some businesses which are acting upon this. But business leaders must introduce a systematic approach to managing and improving the consequences of social and environmental outcomes of their business operations. If we are to continue achieving economic growth and want to ensure that that growth is sustainable, business will be called on to better integrate sustainable behaviours into their operations. It is in their interests to do so. It is also in the interests of directors to go beyond the narrow definition that we saw during the James Hardie dispute where they said, ‘No, we can’t provide compensation because it would be in breach of our directors’ duties.’ They need to go beyond that and they need to understand that they have a duty to all stakeholders. I think that was the worst example we have seen of directors’ duties being used in that very narrow frame. We do not have a lot of corporate law to demonstrate what are or are not directors’ duties. While it stays as is and the report has not recommended we change that, we need to take a watching brief on it.
Labor initiated the inquiry into corporate responsibility for three reasons. First, parts of the business community in Australia were actively engaged in the re-emerging debate about the role and responsibilities of the corporation in society but government was not. Second, progress by Australian business on the whole regarding integration of corporate responsibility approaches appeared fragmented and lagged behind that of comparable international economies and trading partners. Thirdly, widespread progress by Australian businesses in the integration of sustainable business practices is expected to lead to greater social and environmental benefits, equip those businesses to better manage impending non-financial business threats and prepare them to seize emerging market opportunities.
The report is very long and there are very detailed recommendations. I would recommend that people read the report. It is very disheartening to go to all this trouble and find that nobody reads it and that the government does not reply to it. It is a very good model for businesses and corporations to look at. I think most businesses want to do the right thing. They want to be socially responsible, but they need to understand what that is. It is more than just saying, ‘We’ve donated money.’ It is more than just filling out another prospectus or report and saying, ‘We’ve done this.’ The outcomes need to be measurable. We need to see more than them just stating, ‘These are the things that we have done.’ We need to see the statements they make with respect to the environment, society and, more particularly, that their staff is looked at and is measured and that what they are asserting is true.
Nowadays, investors are looking at companies for ethical investments. They are actually making decisions about where they will place their money. They need to know that it is going into ethical businesses. Employers are also looking to go to corporations where they believe that they have good social responsibility and that they are good corporate citizens. We need to know that people are making judgments on fact and not based on just some nicely written documentation. I commend the report to the House. I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
by leave—I move:
That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the resumption of the debate on the motion to take note of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services’ report entitled Corporate responsibility: managing risk and creating value , be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed.
The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
I move opposition amendment (1):
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 7), omit “ea”, substitute “eaa”.
The Attorney has advised that the government is prepared to accept this minor amendment, although there has been one small change. The amendment that was circulated stated that the substituted lettering for the paragraph should be ‘eb’. In fact, we have been advised through the Attorney that the Parliamentary Counsel says it should be ‘eaa’. Accordingly, I have moved that amendment. I thank the Attorney for consenting to those changes.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move opposition amendment (2):
(2) Schedule 1, page 21, (line 31), after “Interception”, insert “and Access”.
This is an issue that we were dealing with today during the second reading debate on the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006. The government accepted that this change was appropriate, so it has been moved and passed in the primary bill. We move it again for this consequential amendments bill. I understand, although the Attorney will no doubt make his views known, that he has advice that these changes are not necessary. I would urge the Attorney to consider the matter—we should make sure that we are being consistent. If the changes are not needed, we do not want to be in the position where one bill is changed and the other is not. Perhaps he will enlighten the House as to why it is different in these circumstances.
I thank the honourable member for her observations. She is, in fact, correct. I have taken advice on the matter and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel has advised that the change is not necessary. The consequential amendments bill does recognise the change in name of the telecommunications act in the commencement provisions, but the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 had not. Because of this difference it is not appropriate to agree to the opposition’s amendment. It would present further complications. Otherwise I would be obliging.
Question negatived.
by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2):
(1) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 14), after item 46, insert:
46A After section 35
Insert:
35AA Disclosure of information and documents to Integrity Commissioner
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the Ombudsman, of his or her own motion, investigates any action as mentioned in paragraph 5(1)(b); and
(b) in the course of the investigation, the Ombudsman obtains information or a document that is, or may be, relevant to a corruption issue.
(2) Subject to section 35B, nothing in this Act precludes the Ombudsman from:
(a) disclosing the information; or
(b) making a statement; or
(c) giving the document;
to the Integrity Commissioner.
(3) In this section:
corruption issue has the same meaning as in the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006.
Integrity Commissioner has the same meaning as in the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006.
(2) Schedule 1, page 15, after proposed item 46A, insert:
46B Subsection 35A(1)
Omit “section 35B”, substitute “sections 35B and 35C”.
I table an explanatory memorandum to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006. This bill is the second element of the package of three bills that will introduce major reforms for handling corruption issues and other issues relating to misconduct in Australian government law enforcement. The government introduced this legislation late in March. The bills were referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for examination and report. I have already spoken generally about the committee’s review when introducing government amendments to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006.
In this case, amendment (1) implements the committee’s recommendation 7. It will ensure that a corruption issue that becomes apparent through an own-motion investigation undertaken by the Commonwealth Ombudsman can be referred to the commission. This supplements item 42 of schedule 1 of the bill, which already provides for referral to the commission of corruption issues identified by the Ombudsman in the course of investigating complaints. Amendment (2) remedies an omission from the bill by clarifying that a certificate issued by the Attorney-General under the proposed new section 35C to prohibit disclosure of particular ACLEI information would override the Ombudsman’s right to disclose information under section 35. This complements the existing provision protecting Australian Crime Commission information from disclosure under section 35. I commend the amendments to the House.
We support these amendments. They are improvements to the bill and Labor is happy to support them. They clarify the requirements of disclosure to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner when the Ombudsman becomes aware of a corruption issue in the course of an investigation, so obviously we are happy to support them. In fact, it was a change called for under recommendation 7 of the report by the Senate committee that dealt with this bill. This is logical. If we want to give the new body primary responsibility for investigating corrupt conduct of law enforcement agencies, then this is a sensible change.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed.
The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (12):
(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 7) to page 2 (line 6), omit the clause, substitute:
2 Commencement
(1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.
Commencement information | ||
Column 1 | Column 2 | Column 3 |
Provision(s) | Commencement | Date/Details |
1. Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table | The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. | |
2. Schedules 1 to 3 | At the same time as section 3 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 commences. | |
3. Schedule 3A, Part 1 | At the same time as section 3 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 commences. However, the provision(s) do not commence at all if Schedule 1 to the ASIO Legislation Amendment Act 2006 commences before, or at the same time as, the time at which section 3 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 commences. | |
4. Schedule 3A, Part 2 | The later of: (a) immediately after the commencement of the provision(s) covered by table item 2; and (b) immediately after the commencement of Schedule 2 to the ASIO Legislation Amendment Act 2006. | |
5. Schedules 4 and 5 | At the same time as section 3 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 commences. |
Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally passed by the Parliament and assented to. It will not be expanded to deal with provisions inserted in this Act after assent.
(2) Column 3 of the table contains additional information that is not part of this Act. Information in this column may be added to or edited in any published version of this Act.
(2) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 18), after item 27, insert:
27A Section 39
Repeal the section, substitute:
39 Compliance with Commissioner’s Orders
An AFP appointee must comply with Commissioner’s Orders.
(3) Schedule 1, page 7, after proposed item 27A, insert:
27B Section 40
Repeal the section, substitute:
40 Compliance with specific directions, instructions or orders
An AFP appointee must not:
(a) disobey; or
(b) fail to carry out;
a lawful direction, instruction or order, whether written or oral, given to him or her by:
(c) the Commissioner; or
(d) the AFP appointee under whose control, direction or supervision he or she performs his or her duties.
(4) Schedule 1, page 7, after proposed item 27B, insert:
27C Subsection 40A(1)
Omit “an AFP employee, a special member or a special protective service officer”, substitute “an AFP appointee”.
(5) Schedule 1, page 7, after proposed item 27C, insert:
27D Subsection 40A(2)
Omit “the employee, special member or special protective service officer”, substitute “the AFP appointee”.
(6) Schedule 1, page 7, after proposed item 27D, insert:
27E At the end of section 40H
Add:
(4) Without limiting subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Commissioner may at any time revoke in writing a determination made under subsection (1).
(7) Schedule 1, item 28, page 10 (line 24), after “Deputy Commissioner”, insert “, or senior executive AFP employee who is at a level equivalent to that of a Deputy Commissioner,”.
(8) Schedule 1, page 49 (after line 13), at the end of the Schedule, add:
30 Determining categories of AFP conduct issues
For the purpose of subsection 40RM(1) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (as inserted by this Schedule), the Commissioner and the Ombudsman must try to jointly determine, within 3 months after the commencement of this Schedule, that conduct of a particular kind is to be:
(a) category 1 conduct; or
(b) category 2 conduct; or
(c) category 3 conduct;
for the purposes of that Act.
(9) Schedule 3, items 4 and 5, page 51 (lines 17 to 20), omit the items.
(10) Schedule 3, item 22, page 53 (line 6), after “any action”, insert “(other than action to terminate employment under section 28 of this Act to which the Workplace Relations Act 1996 would otherwise apply)”.
(11) Schedule 3, items 25 to 32, page 53 (line 14) to page 55 (line 28), omit the items.
(12) Page 64 (after line 24), after Schedule 3, insert:
Schedule 3A—Consequential amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979
Part 1—Amendments that may not commence
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979
1 Subsection 34D(4) (note 2)
Omit “and the Ombudsman”, substitute “, the Ombudsman and a person referred to in paragraph 40SB(3)(b) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979”.
2 Subparagraph 34E(1)(e)(ii)
Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:
(ii) to the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976 in relation to the Australian Federal Police;
3 After paragraph 34E(1)(e)
Insert:
(ea) the person’s right to give information orally or in writing, under Division 2 of Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, to a person referred to in subsection 40SA(1) of that Act in relation to the Australian Federal Police;
4 Paragraphs 34F(9)(b) and (c)
Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:
(b) subsection (8) does not affect the operation of sections 10 and 13 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 in relation to contact between the person and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; and
(c) anyone holding the person in custody or detention under this Division must give the person facilities for contacting the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to make a complaint orally under section 10 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 if the person requests them; and
(d) subsection (8) does not affect the operation of section 7 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 in relation to contact between the person and the Ombudsman in respect of a complaint, or proposed complaint, about the Australian Federal Police; and
(e) anyone holding the person in custody or detention under this Division must give the person facilities for contacting the Ombudsman to make a complaint orally under section 7 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 if the person requests them; and
(f) subsection (8) does not affect the operation of section 40SB of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 in relation to contact between the person and a person referred to in paragraph 40SB(3)(b) of that Act; and
(g) anyone holding the person in custody or detention under this Division must give the person facilities for contacting the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to give information orally under section 40SA of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 if the person requests them.
5 Subsection 34F(9) (note)
Repeal the note, substitute:
Note: The sections mentioned in paragraphs (9)(b), (d) and (f) give the person an entitlement to facilities for making a written complaint or for giving written information.
6 Paragraph 34NB(4)(b)
Omit “paragraph 34F(9)(c)”, substitute “paragraph 34F(9)(c), (e) or (g)”.
7 Section 34NC
Repeal the section, substitute:
34NC Complaints and information about contravention of procedural statement
(1) Contravention of the written statement of procedures mentioned in section 34C of this Act may be the subject of:
(a) a complaint to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security under the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986; or
(b) a complaint to the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976; or
(c) information given under Division 2 of Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to a person referred to in subsection 40SA(1) of that Act.
(2) This section does not limit:
(a) the subjects of complaint under:
(i) the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986; or
(ii) the Ombudsman Act 1976; or
(b) the subject of information given under Division 2 of Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.
8 Subsection 34T(2)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(2) This Division does not affect a function or power of the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976 in relation to the Australian Federal Police.
(3) This Division does not affect a function or power of a person under Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.
9 Subsection 34VAA(5) (subparagraph (a)(iv) of the definition of permitted disclosure)
Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:
(iv) exercising a power (including a power to make a complaint or to give information), or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, the Ombudsman Act 1976 or Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979;
Part 2—Amendments contingent on the ASIO Legislation Amendment Act 2006
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979
10 Subsection 34G(5) (note 2)
Omit “and the Commonwealth Ombudsman”, substitute “, the Ombudsman and a person referred to in paragraph 40SB(3)(b) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979”.
11 Subparagraph 34J(1)(e)(ii)
Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:
(ii) to the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976 in relation to the Australian Federal Police;
12 After paragraph 34J(1)(e)
Insert:
(ea) the person’s right to give information orally or in writing, under Division 2 of Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, to a person referred to in subsection 40SA(1) of that Act in relation to the Australian Federal Police;
13 Paragraph 34K(9)(b)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(b) the person informs the prescribed authority that the person wants:
(i) to make an oral or written complaint of the kind referred to in paragraph 34J(1)(e); or
(ii) to give oral or written information of the kind referred to in paragraph 34J(1)(ea); and
14 Paragraph 34K(9)(c)
After “the complaint”, insert “or give the information”.
15 At the end of subsection 34K(9)
Add “or giving the information”.
16 Paragraphs 34K(11)(b) to (e)
Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:
(b) subsection (10) does not affect the operation of sections 10 and 13 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 in relation to contact between the person and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; and
(c) anyone holding the person in custody or detention under this Division must give the person facilities for contacting the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to make a complaint orally under section 10 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 if the person requests them; and
(d) subsection (10) does not affect the operation of section 7 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 in relation to contact between the person and the Ombudsman in respect of a complaint, or proposed complaint, about the Australian Federal Police; and
(e) anyone holding the person in custody or detention under this Division must give the person facilities for contacting the Ombudsman to make a complaint orally under section 7 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 if the person requests them; and
(f) subsection (10) does not affect the operation of section 40SB of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 in relation to contact between the person and a person referred to in paragraph 40SB(3)(b) of that Act; and
(g) anyone holding the person in custody or detention under this Division must give the person facilities for contacting the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to give information orally under section 40SA of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 if the person requests them; and
(h) subsection (10) does not affect the person’s right to make a complaint to a complaints agency in relation to the police force or police service of the State or Territory concerned; and
(i) anyone holding the person in custody or detention under this Division must give the person facilities for contacting a complaints agency to make an oral or written complaint of the kind mentioned in paragraph (h) if the person requests them.
Note: The sections mentioned in paragraphs (11)(b), (d) and (f) give the person an entitlement to facilities for making a written complaint or for giving written information.
17 After subparagraph 34R(13)(b)(ii)
Insert:
(iia) the person to give information of the kind referred to in paragraph 34J(1)(ea); or
18 Paragraph 34ZF(4)(b)
Omit “paragraph 34K(11)(d) or (e)”, substitute “paragraph 34K(11)(c), (e), (g) or (i)”.
19 Section 34ZG
Repeal the section, substitute:
34ZG Complaints and information about contravention of procedural statement
(1) Contravention of the written statement of procedures in force under section 34C may be the subject of:
(a) a complaint to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security under the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986; or
(b) a complaint to the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976; or
(c) information given under Division 2 of Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to a person referred to in subsection 40SA(1) of that Act.
(2) This section does not limit:
(a) the subjects of complaint under:
(i) the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986; or
(ii) the Ombudsman Act 1976; or
(b) the subject of information given under Division 2 of Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.
20 Subsection 34ZN(2)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(2) This Division does not affect a function or power of the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976 in relation to the Australian Federal Police.
(3) This Division does not affect a function or power of a person under Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.
21 Subsection 34ZS(5) (subparagraph (a)(iv) of the definition of permitted disclosure)
Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:
(iv) exercising a power (including a power to make a complaint or to give information), or performing a function or duty, under the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, the Ombudsman Act 1976 or Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979;
22 After paragraph 34ZX(5)(a)
Insert:
(aa) any information the person gives that is of a kind mentioned in paragraph 34J(1)(ea); or
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. This bill forms the third element of the package of three bills that will introduce major reforms in the handling of corruption issues and other issues relating to misconduct in Australian government law enforcement. The government introduced this legislation late in March. The bills were referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for examination and report. I have already spoken generally about the committee’s review when introducing government amendments to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006.
Before discussing the proposed amendments I would like to comment briefly on the committee’s recommendations 13 and 15, which are not expressly addressed in the amendments. Recommendation 13 proposes that the lower level disciplinary matters, categories 1 and 2, should be subject to internal review while more serious matters, category 3, should be the subject of external review—for example, through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The government considers that adequate provision for review can be effectively achieved without express provision. An AFP internal review mechanism for category 1 and category 2 issues is planned. This does not require legislative backing, especially in view of the non-punitive character of the responses. There are existing mechanisms for external review under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 of decisions to terminate employment in response to recommendations arising from category 3 investigations. The proposed amendments of item 10 will ensure that these will be preserved. Review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is therefore not required.
Recommendation 15 is that the bill clarify that the professional standards regime applies to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. The government agrees in principle with the proposition that the commissioner should be expected to comply with professional standards; however, because of the unique position of the commissioner within the AFP and the regime established by the proposed new part 5 of the act, it is impractical to legislate specifically for this purpose. Under the AFP Act the commissioner may be dismissed by the Governor-General for misbehaviour. It is not desirable to define misbehaviour, but a failure to comply with professional standards that the commissioner requires others to meet would clearly be relevant to the possible use of the dismissal power.
Amendments (2) to (5) and (9) remedy an omission from the bill. They effectively substitute references to ‘an AFP appointee’ for references to an AFP employee, a special member or a special protective service officer in the relevant sections of the AFP Act. This change helps to give effect to the government’s intention that the new professional standards regime should apply to all AFP appointees. The definition of AFP appointee that the bill will insert in the AFP Act will include not only AFP employees, special members and special protective service members but also a deputy commissioner, a person engaged overseas, a consultant or a contractor designated by the commissioner as an AFP employee and a secondee to the AFP.
Amendment (6) will remedy an omission from the bill by inserting a new item in schedule 1 expressly providing that the commissioner may at any time revoke a determination that an AFP employee is to perform duties at a place outside Australia. The amendment clarifies that the commissioner has power to recall an AFP employee from an overseas posting at any time despite any indication in the initial determination that the posting was intended to be for a specified period.
Amendment (7) schedule 1, item 2 constitution of a unit undertaking professional standards functions: this item amends proposed new section 40RE of the AFP Act to provide that if the commissioner so directs, the head of the AFP professional standards unit is responsible directly either to a specified deputy commissioner, as at present, or a specified senior executive AFP employee of equivalent level. It will provide administrative flexibility in an organisation where non-sworn staff may now serve at all levels and reflects the fact that the regime administered by the professional standards unit governs the conduct of all AFP employees, not only sworn members.
Amendment (8) partly implements the Senate committee’s recommendation 12. It requires the AFP Commissioner and the Ombudsman to try to make a determination as to particular kinds of conduct that are to be categories 1, 2 and 3 conduct for the purpose of the bill within three months after commencement of schedule 1. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to compel the Ombudsman and the commissioner to make a determination of categories of conduct within three months of the commencement of the act. The government’s view is that it is not practical to legislate to compel agreement.
Amendment (10) implements the Senate committee’s recommendation 14 and will ensure the current position on review of action to terminate employment under section 28 is preserved. Section 69B of the AFP Act currently provides that the Workplace Relations Act, with certain exceptions, does not apply in relation to discipline of AFP employees. This does not preclude appeals under the Workplace Relations Act against termination of employment under section 28 of the AFP Act.
The amendment to amendment (22) of schedule 3 of the bill would replace the reference to discipline in section 69B with reference to a matter covered by the proposed new part 5 of the AFP Act or any action taken in relation to a matter covered by that part. This amendment will clarify, by inserting an express provision, that the new wording of section 69B is not intended to preclude the operation of the Workplace Relations Act in relation to terminating employment of an AFP employee under section 28 after an investigation under part 5 of the Workplace Relations Act, if the Workplace Relations Act would have otherwise applied.
The main purpose of amendments (1), (11) and (12) is to allow the impending amendment of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1969 by the ASIO Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, which completed its passage through parliament on 13 June 2006. Amendments (25) to (30) of schedule 3 of the bill provide for an amendment to various provisions of part 3 of division 3 of the ASIO Act in its present form. Part 3 of division 3 deals with the special powers relating to terrorism offences. The relevant provisions of the ASIO Act are intended to ensure that persons in custody or detained for questioning under part 3 of division 3 are advised of and entitled to facilities to exercise their rights to complain about actions taken by the AFP, despite the general prohibition on their contacting outside persons. The rights referred to arise under the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, which will be repealed by the present bill.
The effect of the existing amendments (25) to (32) of schedule 3 of the bill would be to replace references to making a complaint to the Ombudsman under the complaints act with references to making a complaint to the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act or giving information to the commissioner or an investigator under the proposed new part 5 of division 2 of the AFP Act.
Amendment (11) would omit existing items 25 to 32 of schedule 3 and item 12 would substitute a new schedule 3A in two parts. Part 1 would replicate the omitted items from schedule 3. Part 2 would make similar amendments to the ASIO Act as amended by the ASIO Legislation Amendment Bill. Item 1 amends the bill’s commencement provisions to ensure that, subject to the commencement date of this bill, part 1 of schedule 3A will operate before the commencement of the ASIO Legislation Amendment Bill and part 2 of schedule 3A will operated thereafter. The opportunity has been taken to correct a small number of errors and omissions in the existing items 25 to 32 of schedule 3 and the process of translating them to schedule 3A. The details of these changes are set out in the explanatory memorandum but their general purpose is to ensure that the bill does not distort the intended operation of the ASIO Act provisions. I commend these very detailed amendments to the House.
We have a number of views on this range of amendments that have been moved together. There are those that Labor certainly commends, like amendment (10), which goes directly to implementing a recommendation of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. There are a number of others where we are still a little bit perplexed about the changes that are being moved. For example, we moved an amendment to the first bill which made sure that the Australian Protective Service was not going to be included in the remit of the first bill and the work that the new commission will be able to do. Now we are moving amendments in this bill to make sure that the Australian Protective Service is going to be covered by the new professional standards that are in place. It seems to me that there is some inconsistency between these pieces of legislation, and moving these amendments at the last minute does not really give the opposition much opportunity to see if these are fitting appropriately together or not. But no doubt that attention will be given in another place.
I might ask the Attorney if he is able to confirm, given the significant extent of the changes that are being proposed in this bill, whether he or his officers have taken the opportunity to talk to the Australian Federal Police Association about these amendments and whether there has been any consultation. I can see some nodding from the advisers box, which is a good sign. Obviously they are a key stakeholder and among the people who will be affected by this new regime, so it is worth while for us to get that information.
I am also concerned about whether the Attorney is able to tell us about another amendment which I think he referred to—the last item—which means that some of the provisions will not commence until a later date, I think, given their interaction with the ASIO Act. I am not sure why those provisions have not been given any attention. They were not part of the Senate committee’s review of this bill. The Attorney might be able to confirm whether the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security has been involved at all and how it is that the timing will work with those delayed provisions.
That might be something that can be cleared up, but we obviously have some reservations about the fact that we have not had the opportunity to fully understand where these amendments from the government are coming from. If the Attorney can clarify for us, that would be useful. We will not stand in the way of them being moved in this House, obviously, but, in consideration of wanting to be able to get a substantially agreed position between the parties smoothly through both here and the Senate, it would be useful, if the Attorney cannot answer those questions now, to make sure that there are discussions between our offices before the debate in another place.
I will deal with the issues as briefly as I can. The APS is included in the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006. We do not believe there is any inconsistency: the APS employees are AFP employees. In terms of consultation, as you noted, there has been consultation with the police association. In relation to consideration by any other committee, I am informed there has not been. That means there has not been any consideration by the joint intelligence and security committee, but these amendments as proposed were a product of advice from those who work in this area.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 20 June, on motion by Mr Hardgrave:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Ms Macklin moved by way of amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:
Australia is facing a critical skills shortage. I note, however, that in the budget brought down on 9 May there was nothing remotely addressing the skills needs facing Australia. There was no new money for TAFE; an overall reduction in the percentage of the budget spent on vocational education and training; a $13.7 million cut from a program to encourage apprenticeships in rural and regional areas; the abolition of a $38.5 million program aimed at getting more women in non-traditional apprenticeships like construction, automotive, engineering and mining trades; the abolition of a $23.2 million program to give IT skills to low-income older workers; and no extra money in the next four years for the National Skills Shortages Strategy. In fact, as a percentage of the federal budget, that figure will fall over the next four years from 0.75 per cent in 2005-06 to 0.67 per cent in 2009-10.
The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to bring forward the funding for the proposed Australian technical colleges from 2008-09 to 2006-07. Labor will not oppose this bill, as we will support any move by this government to improve the skills base of our nation. Nonetheless, I would be remiss if I did not raise the matter of the potential waste of money that this bill proposes. This is particularly pertinent against the background of the recent budget. When the original bill was debated in June 2005 my colleagues raised concerns about the nature of the technical colleges the government intended to introduce. One of the chief concerns was the ludicrous duplication of resources the bill proposed. I find it hard to believe that this was the solution the government came up with to solve Australia’s skills shortage.
Of course, the concept of Australian technical colleges crystallises the government’s agenda on two fronts: industrial relations and education. ATCs further privatise our education system and have the potential to damage enrolments and course offerings at nearby high schools. Individual contracts and performance pay appear to be the hallmarks of the colleges. I will refer to this again shortly. The government talks about the fact that local industry and communities will have a leadership role in the governance of the colleges. The colleges will teach the skills required by local business. There is a real danger that the courses will become enterprise based rather than industry focused, resulting in young people gaining qualifications that cannot be transported across the industry. The real ideological attack is on public education and the government’s underhanded attempt to deregulate the national training system. In abolishing the Australian National Training Authority, the government is increasing the already heavy influence of peak industry bodies such as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Business Council of Australia.
The biggest influence on schools and colleges is coming from industry to the extent that their perceived needs overwhelm any other purposes of schooling. Every state and territory has a viable technical skills training structure. These colleges have been severely constrained since 1996 by the massive cuts in Commonwealth funding. Investment in our universities and TAFEs has fallen eight per cent since 1995, which is a poor testimony to this government’s commitment to vocational education. Australia is now only one of three countries in the OECD where public expenditure accounts for less than half the spending on universities and TAFEs. We are in the company of the Czech Republic, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Sweden. We are below the average among developed countries for public expenditure on education per student. In March 2006 the OECD issued its Factbook for 2006. Figures show that spending for each Australian tertiary student fell seven per cent since 1995, compared to an average 12 per cent increase between 1995 and 2002 for those other OECD countries for which data was available.
The government is seeking to replicate its assault on universities with this attack on technical colleges. The public sector is hollowed out by the creation of selective, better funded alternatives which leave the public system behind. This is what the Australian Education Union had to say in 2005 in a briefing paper entitled ‘Australian Technical Colleges: not the solution to the skills shortage’:
They are designed as elitist institutes—selective VET schools. They will have selective entry and preferential funding. They are intended to head hunt the best VET teachers from existing schools and TAFE through higher pay.
Demand for labour is peaking now. The community is experiencing skills shortages now. These shortages are holding Australia back from potential investment, undermining job creation, reducing exports and reducing the size of the economic pie to be shared by all Australians. The shortage of skilled tradespeople is becoming a real barrier to Australia’s economic prosperity.
None of this is new. It comes as no surprise that the country is short of tradespeople. The labour movement has been saying this for years. Yet the government’s approach is to fiddle at the margins, not to confront the real obstacles to apprenticeship training in Australia. This government seeks to impose new technical colleges across the country yet continues to underfund those that do exist. These colleges will not produce a single tradesperson until 2010. At the current rate of enrolment, they will not produce too many even then. There are only four colleges operating in 2006, and these enrolled fewer than 300 students. Many regions are still without a preferred tenderer and the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education has threatened to scrap several of the planned colleges.
I fail to see the logic of providing funding for new college infrastructure. On top of that, what about staff? TAFEs are currently finding it difficult to ensure appropriate levels of staffing, and this proposal simply spreads the available qualified teachers even more thinly. Commonsense alone says this is wrong. Of course, let us not forget the other side of the agenda in establishing these colleges. This is to establish the thin edge of the wedge in industrial relations. Funding for the colleges is conditional on specific industrial arrangements, including the provision of AWAs, individual contracts of employment and performance pay. In its submission to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee inquiry into the original bill, the Independent Education Union stated:
The governance arrangements of ATCs are not totally clear, yet the ideological motives are transparent. Where the government can do so it will tie funding to ensuring that employees are offered Australian Workplace Agreements. Employees who staff these colleges will come from both the government and non-government sectors.
The IEU expressed its philosophical position on the ideological motives of the legislation and continued:
It is a false assumption that AWAs will somehow achieve higher rates of pay for teachers employed in ATCs.
If the government is truly focused on solutions to address the national skills shortage, why is there the need to tie in employment conditions? It is no doubt to continue its foul industrial relations agenda from another angle.
The government also fiddled at the edges of this crisis by importing apprenticeships through the introduction of the trade skills training visa, subclass 471. This gives apprenticeships to unskilled migrants rather than to young Australians. These visas are in a range of Australian regional areas where young Australians face chronic unemployment—up to one in three are unemployed. Do not get me wrong: I support immigration, but in this scheme employers are not even required to advertise apprenticeships locally. We must fund those people in Australia wishing to undertake apprenticeships, not turn them away from TAFE and not create new colleges when those that exist are inadequately funded.
There are many ways that this ideological decision will affect the public vocational sector. I summarise a community leaflet produced by the New South Wales Teachers Federation in August 2005. There will be fewer publicly funded places and fewer courses as TAFE is forced to increase its commercial activities. On entrepreneurialism, there will be a less capable workforce as quality in TAFE qualifications is reduced by an increase in student-teacher ratios, significantly less course duration, reduced student access to teachers and reduced access to preferred courses, especially in rural areas. There will be questionable qualifications as each year more vocational education is privatised and given to profit-making trainers. Apprenticeships will be cut short by tampering with the state apprenticeship system. There will be fewer expert teachers, as industrial rights disappear and teaching loses its attraction. There will be a higher cost of tradespeople, other skilled workers and services due to worsening skills shortages.
I support the second reading amendment proposed by the member for Jagajaga which highlights the incompetent handling of this matter. Labor will support this bill despite its blatant disregard for the needs of young Australians. The government have been in office now for over 10 years and sooner or later they are going to be held to account. This is not the only area where they are bringing up some half-baked schemes and creating a smoke and mirrors situation to overcome their incompetence and ineptitude and to fool the public into believing that something is going to be done to fix the problem. Sooner or later it is going to catch up to them. They are going to be held to account on their rhetoric, and that is why I think that in this area they have done the wrong thing. I think there is an ideological mindset against TAFEs, the states and the state system. We should have picked up the existing infrastructure, worked with the states and used existing TAFEs to boost apprenticeships and skills instead of these colleges. Time will tell. We will see what is produced by this government, but I predict that not much will come of this venture. A lot of money will be poured in but there will not be a lot of results.
I would like to invite the member for Banks to come to Townsville for the opening of the Australian technical college North Queensland in early 2007 and then he might understand just how good ATCs are going to be for this country. I would also remind the member for Banks that the good people of the technical college North Queensland sought to work with the Queensland government and the TAFE in Townsville and they were basically turned away. The ATC North Queensland would have used some spare premises at the TAFE college in Townsville but the TAFE said, ‘No, we would prefer to see them remain unused than have you there.’
Empty?
Absolutely empty. Those facilities are at the old Townsville High School site in the city, which is currently occupied by TAFE and is surplus to requirements. That is the ideological driver that has been going on with the Labor Party and that is really unfortunate.
The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 is about flexibility. It is about allowing the government to bring forward the opening of new technical colleges as soon as possible. It is about being able to properly fund the new technical colleges—because they are all different. This is a fantastic model because it allows regions to decide for themselves what is best for their region. It allows regions to decide which skill sets should be covered in the ATCs. It allows regions to decide where colleges might be located and what facilities might be provided. That is what then results in every college being different from every other college. Surely that is a good thing. It is in line with the government’s thinking on industrial relations where we do not believe that somebody sitting in a centralised place in Melbourne can decide how an employee is going to work in North Queensland, because working conditions can be quite different in different regions of Australia and to have employees subject to the same conditions right across the country is clearly a nonsense. That is how we feel about the Australian technical colleges—that in fact regions should be able to have the flexibility to design a college and the courses necessary to suit that exact region.
But it has gone on from there. In Townsville, industry has positively embraced 110 per cent the concept of an Australian technical college in North Queensland. They have given hundreds of hours of their time to work with the board to make sure that we get the best result. Do you know what the result is? The college was going to open with 100 places. Those places are already fully filled. The college is not yet built and they are already filled. Industry has said, ‘We will have 100 places in that college.’ I note that the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education is at the table. I am not certain whether we have advised the minister formally yet—
I can’t wait.
but we intend to do even better. Although the minister might think we are going to have 100 places—
But wait, there’s more!
But wait, there’s more—we reckon we can get 130 places starting early next year. What a great deal that is for North Queensland. I am sure the minister and the government will not object to the fact that industry is so supportive of this particular technical college that we will be able to fill 130 places.
I congratulate the board members of the ATCNQ: the chair of the board, John Bearne, who has been a true community leader in this project, Lawrie Martin, the deputy chair, Roslyn Baker, Shayne Blackman, Stephanie Giorcelli, Angela Hill, Bruce Lean, Barry May, Alan Morris and Lyn Russell. I thank the Townsville City Council for their help in securing and agreeing to the land arrangements for where the college is being built. I thank the Thuringowa City Council for their leadership in the early days when they recognised how important this would be. I thank you, Minister Hardgrave, for the work you have done on the technical colleges. The Thuringowa City Council were certainly leaders. They saw the vision and it has happened. I really appreciate the support of Les Tyrell and his councillors.
The North Queensland region is eagerly waiting the opening of the student applications for enrolment. Those applications will be opened on 17 July 2006 and my message to the mums and dads out there who would like to see their youngsters, both male and female, involved in technical training is that they should get in there and get involved in the inaugural intake. Positive word of mouth is going around our region and community support and involvement has exceeded expectations very significantly. Applications for places will close on 30 September 2006 and the opening of the college will be made possible by the passage of this bill through the parliament.
I am really sorry to see one of the points in the amendment that the Labor Party has moved. It is point (4) covering what the Labor Party alleges:
Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you we have had no more hardworking minister than Gary Hardgrave in pushing these 25 proposed colleges through to opening their doors. You cannot just start with a greenfield site and open immediately. It takes time. In the case of Townsville, we turned the first sod on 2 June—the minister was present as I was; there was very strong representation from the community—but we now have to spend of the order of $2 million a month to make sure that the college is open early next year and that is a significant ask. We are going to do it, it will happen, the college will open; but you cannot open colleges without a lot of hard work going on and a lot of effort through the community. I am disappointed to see that paragraph of the amendment that the ALP have moved and I reject it out of hand.
Another major factor in the widespread support in North Queensland is the direct and regular engagement by the ATCNQ of industry highlighted by the formation of four expert industry reference groups in the target trade areas of the construction, automotive, engineering and electrotechnology industries. There are representatives from each of those segments on the board and they work very hard. Approximately 40 regional industry leaders have volunteered their time, knowledge and resources to ensure the young persons that graduate through the ATCNQ program possess the necessary skills to immediately contribute to the workplace and the regional economy. The ERG model is a best practice example of industry and educators working in harmony to achieve a collective beneficial outcome. The role of the ATCNQ, in working with the broader community in projects that benefit the region, should not be underestimated in the generation of regional goodwill. The ATCNQ is providing its own expertise and resources to community based programs, such as the North Queensland Job Shop, the NQ Smart Trades Expo and a number of other community groups that work tirelessly for the benefit of young people.
This has been a terrific model. It is already a terrific success. When the college in North Queensland opens, it will be a double success. It will be a credit to the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education for his achievements in this particular area. I will close now with a good all-round set of congratulations to all of those involved in the Australian Technical College North Queensland and I would like to particularly thank Stach. Rudi Stachow has been extraordinarily good in clearing all the difficulties that arise in greenfield sites and I think that we are going to have to make sure that, when the college opens, he is there to help cut the ribbon.
I too rise to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. I rise to express my concerns for the Australians who need to develop skills with which they can earn a decent living and pay for the sorts of things most of us here take for granted—that is, a home that we can own, a family and the prospect of saving for the future and inevitably retirement without being crushed by debt, which is becoming a greater burden each year. We saw recently interest rates get higher, together with household debt, and petrol prices will climb even higher in the very near future. Young Australians need opportunities to engage in the workforce. They need to find their niche and, through the development of their skills and experience, establish a career that is going to ensure for them a decent day’s pay for a decent day’s work.
I also rise to express my concern for people’s ability to do business in a skilled labour deprived environment. Shortages of skilled labour will only lead to frustrated growth and inflated costs—not a situation that is likely to reap rewards for Australia and most of its people. I spend a lot of time listening to the views of my electorate, as most members do in this place. I listen to all the views that I can hear. I listen to people that I meet in the street, I listen to radio et cetera. On talkback radio recently, in particular, the Leon Byner program on 5AA, I heard Leon talk—and I must thank him for raising a very good point—about a former South Australian Premier, and a Liberal Premier at that, Thomas Playford, who earned the respect of all South Australians regardless of their political persuasion. Leon Byner spoke on the 5AA program of Tom Playford’s belief—it is a very important belief—that, if you have a skilled workforce, the investment and the jobs will follow; without a skilled workforce, you are praying for rain.
Like many regional areas in Australia, Adelaide has experienced a drain on our youth in the past—a drain that has thankfully been reversed thanks to the Rann Labor government in South Australia. In years gone by many young people have been lured interstate to further their education and training and, ultimately, careers and family lives. The state Labor government has managed to turn this around. What South Australia has needed to retain its young people is opportunity—opportunity to develop skills, to secure gainful employment, to save for a home and a family and to continue to develop skills that will keep a person in good stead within the workforce. Any community will want to retain its own young people—the people who have family in the area, a connection with the community, a history of shared experiences, a stake in its future and a commitment to that area. Surely, there are no better people in whom to invest education and the development of skills and career than our very own young people, who are most likely to stay within a region and continue to contribute long into the future.
The government’s New Apprenticeships scheme has been in operation for some time now. The government counts it as one of its great successes. But many would argue that it has failed young Australians and failed our workforce requirements. The National Centre for Vocational Education Research report Australian qualifications framework lower-level qualifications: Pathways to where for young people? shows that only 33 per cent of people enrolled in a certificate I qualification and 43 per cent of people enrolled in a certificate II qualification complete their courses. Of the few who do complete, over a third of participants said they saw no real job related benefits in the training they received. This government pays out over $76 million to employers as incentives to take on certificate II trainees, including $18 million for retail courses and $6 million for hospitality. Research shows young people in these courses have been used as cheap labour and have not been given the skills they need for future full-time employment. It may well be that the government has identified a stale smell coming from the New Apprenticeships scheme, as it is reportedly going to spend $24 million to give it a facelift—renaming it Australian Apprenticeships, according to yesterday’s Advertiser.
The government’s claim that it is tremendous at managing the nation is at odds with its history and its apparent addiction to coming up with means by which greater numbers of people can come in from overseas to take paid employment. Year after year, more and more people are coming in through skilled labour, unskilled labour and regional programs. This government has managed the situation such that it confesses to require a flood of imported labour just to keep the economy ticking over and for the skills shortfalls to not cause it acute political damage. This government’s management philosophy is identified in Australia’s being the only developed country that is reducing public investment in institutions such as our TAFEs and universities. That investment has been reduced by eight per cent since 1995. The OECD average is a 38 per cent increase. This management philosophy is also evident in its hypothesis that, if you decrease people’s packages of pay and conditions, they are likely to work harder and smarter.
The government has not only allowed the overall percentage of the federal budget spent on vocational education and training to fall but reinforced this decline by allowing the percentage to continue to fall over the period of the forward estimates. The government’s latest solution was thrown at the Australian public in a $6 billion, $100 million per minute grab bag of policies that came streaming out in the Liberal and National parties joint 2004 campaign launch—such is the attention this problem received. It is a political problem to which the government has attempted only a political fix, with no substance and no expectation of delivering what the country needs—just like the New Apprenticeships scheme’s expected make-up job.
The government’s policy of brand new technical colleges springing up around the country is not delivering what young people, industry and the nation require. Of the 25 Australian technical colleges that have been promised, only four are open for business, enrolling fewer than 300 students. As at 30 May 2006, $185 million had been committed to the Australian technical colleges but only $18 million had been spent. I have to wonder whether the government is going to spend what it has made provision for—$343 million over five years. While the construction of a new institution such as this is interesting to watch, the opportunity costs of slow progress, protracted negotiations and the effects of tying this initiative to its obsession with AWAs are too great for Australia to gamble with. This is not the time for experimentation, for trying to stare down the public. It may, I hope, see them buckle to its insistence on AWAs.
The prospect of AWAs being forcibly inflicted upon public sector agencies, riveted into the agencies’ very existence and forcing themselves upon more Australians, betrays the government’s belief that the creeping advance of AWAs is a higher political priority than training our kids for work and providing the economy with the skilled workforce that it needs. Isn’t this amazing, coming from the self-appointed patriarch of personal choice? The continuing skills problem is evident in the skilled vacancies May 2006 index, which shows vacancies in electrical and electronics trades rose 3.3 per cent, in construction trades 2.1 per cent, in automotive trades 2.9 per cent, for chefs 3.9 per cent and for hairdressing 6.3 per cent. That is in a single month. That is one month’s slide backwards.
Australia needs a more systematic approach to promoting trades and science and technology education than the government’s 25 technical colleges. If this is the best this government can do, Australians will no doubt look to Labor’s plan. Labor will work collaboratively and constructively with the state and territory governments, not start a federal versus state hissing match—as we have seen—to tackle the problem at its base. Labor will provide for sound training opportunities, building on what already exists and what needs to be ratcheted up to increase not only the take-up of such training but successful completion that establishes long-term careers and benefits to industry.
Labor’s skills blueprint, released in September 2005, outlines what I believe Australia needs to build our skills base through the secondary education system. We must offer young people better choices by teaching trades, technology and science in first-class facilities that encourage participation and the desire to engage and learn; establish a trades-in-schools scheme to double the number of school based apprenticeships in areas of skills shortage and provide extra funding per place; establish specialist schools for the senior years in areas such as trades, technology and science; and establish a trades taster program so that years 9 and 10 students can experience a range of trade options, which could also lead to pre-apprenticeship programs. These are real benefits for young people. Only Labor is focused on increasing the number of young Australians who successfully complete their apprenticeships. The next Labor government will achieve this through the establishment of an $800 per year skills account, which would abolish up-front TAFE fees, and a $2,000 trade completion bonus, under which traditional apprentices would receive a $1,000 payment halfway through their training and a further $1,000 payment at the completion of their apprenticeship. The aim of this scheme is an 80 per cent completion rate.
There is a very clear choice before the electorate. There is a clear point of difference between the Liberal government opposite and the party that is committed to improving young Australians’ access to and long-term success within the workforce. This government has nothing to hang its hat on but the radical increase in skilled migration. It clearly cannot fix the skills shortage and it has largely given up, preferring to pull people from other countries and other training systems. I think we all want to see young Australians take available jobs. I want them to have access to affordable training, to incentives to work hard and complete their training, to employable skills and to a great future serving their own communities and taking pride in both their work and their contribution to their community and to Australia.
I am certainly very pleased to rise to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. This bill signifies the great success that the Australian technical colleges have been in Australia. This bill signifies that success because, at its core, this bill is about changing the funding distribution for Australian technical colleges because the government’s roll-out of ATCs has been more successful than we anticipated. Because there has been more demand for ATCs in the Australian community than was forecast by the Australian government, it has been necessary to alter the distribution of funding to ensure that there is more money up-front for the roll-out of highly successful colleges—like the one in my electorate of Moncrieff, which is solving, in very large part, skills needs in my electorate and in the city of the Gold Coast—and that there is capital available for the establishment of new ATCs.
From the beginning—and I was there when this announcement was made by the Prime Minister—I have been very supportive of the need for a roll-out of ATCs. I am supportive because I have seen the high price that Australia has paid as a consequence of a failing TAFE system under various state Labor governments and of the complete lack of investment in this over a very substantial period of time. That was started and contributed to most significantly by the Australian Labor Party who, despite their rhetoric, have done so very little in any meaningful way to ensure that Australians have the skills sets necessary for the future.
Under a super-strong Australian economy—a ‘miracle economy’, as the Economist magazine labelled it—some stresses have arisen. High demand for jobs, for workers and to ensure that Australians are able to maximise their dollar, in all forms of employment, has meant the creation of many jobs in this country. And the creation of those jobs under the Howard government has seen our unemployment rate fall to record lows. That stands in stark contrast to the situation under the Australian Labor Party, where one million or so Australians were unemployed.
Because of this high jobs growth, we have seen, as I just mentioned, some stresses with respect to labour force shortages. In meeting the stresses that flowed from labour force shortages, this government recognised the problem and acted swiftly to correct it. Australian technical colleges are part of how we are ensuring that future generations of Australians have access to a trade, to a vocation, to an apprenticeship, to ensure that they will be able to not only meet the skills required by employers in the future but also have a meaningful career that they can apply themselves to, take forward and take great pride in.
I went to a number of meetings several years ago on the Gold Coast, when various consortia were sitting down and talking about putting in expressions of interest in tendering for the Australian technical college that had been allocated to the Gold Coast. I took great delight in hearing some of the fantastic plans that the various consortia had for meeting the need for the skills sets required in our local community.
My approach, from the outset several years ago, was to provide advice and direction where I could as to what it was that I thought this policy that the Australian government had announced was directed towards. I did so with the full intention of being 100 per cent behind the successful tenderer for an Australian technical college. I was delighted when the member for Moreton, the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, who is in the chamber this evening, telephoned me and advised that TAIT, The Australian Institute of Training, was the head of the successful consortium that had sought and been delivered the opportunity to roll out an Australian technical college on the Gold Coast.
It was a collaborative exercise, incorporating, as one of the key members of the consortium, AB Paterson College. The principal there, Dawn Lang, whom I know very well and who I know is passionate about training young Australians and ensuring they have opportunities, worked together with other members to ensure that their bid was successful. Their bid was successful because it directly addressed the policy focus that the minister had from the outset: to ensure that the ATC that was established was supported by local industry; incorporated local industry into developing curricula, so that students were learning skills sets that were required by employers; and encouraged young Gold Coasters to sign up to gain trade skills that would ensure they had a career they could be proud of into the future.
I had the pleasure, together with the member for Fadden, David Jull, of attending the official opening of the Australian technical college in Nerang, on the Gold Coast. It sits between the Moncrieff and Fadden electorates, and has been going from strength to strength. I have spoken to many parents whose children have gone through the ATC on the Gold Coast and have heard first-hand anecdotes from them about how their children are faring in undertaking the ATC courses. I have spoken to employers involved with the ATC on the Gold Coast and have heard their pride in contributing something back to the development of young, talented Australians who are developing a trade by undertaking their studies at the ATC.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that those students in years 11 and 12 who are enrolled in any Australian technical college—but my interest is of course in the one on the Gold Coast—are earning their senior studies certificate while they are undertaking their school based apprenticeship. So when they leave their ATC training course they are already well and truly on the path to developing a meaningful career in a trade. That is something I believe is worth more than the popular rhetoric that we hear from the Australian Labor Party.
It’s not very popular.
The minister at the table makes a very good point: it is not very popular. They think it is populist, but it is not. From my perspective, the great irony of what we have heard from the Australian Labor Party is the criticism that there are not enough ATCs being rolled out across the country. But the reality is that the bill is before the House tonight because there is so much demand in the community for these ATCs. This is what the Labor Party fails to understand. We would not be having this debate if it were not for the fact that ATCs are so popular and are being demanded by communities all across Australia. Part of the reason there is such strong demand for these colleges is that the Australian Labor Party has dropped the ball in every state and territory in this country. Part of the reason young Australians are choosing to go down this path is that they can look ahead a couple of years and see a TAFE system that absolutely does not meet their needs or the needs of current employers in the kinds of skills training it provides.
That is the reality of this debate. That is the reason the Howard government and the minister at the table tonight moved forward with this policy. It is policy that has been welcomed with open arms by various businesses and employers throughout Australia. As someone who talks with local employers in my local community I hear first-hand from them about the meaningful contribution that the ATC on the Gold Coast is making to their future labour force requirements.
With respect to the ATC Gold Coast, there are a number of areas in which the Gold Coast labour force is in short supply. Construction is one and hospitality is another, particularly the restaurant and catering requirements in hospitality, and the boat-manufacturing industry is a third. In these three areas the ATC on the Gold Coast is making sure that the kids who go through are developing skill sets that will directly mean that they can step into an apprenticeship, be it in a restaurant perhaps as an apprentice chef, be it as an apprentice carpenter at a boat-building facility or be it as a carpenter on a construction site. In each of these areas, the Australian Technical College Gold Coast is making a direct contribution to the employability of young Australians so that they can go into these areas of labour force demand. In my city of the Gold Coast this means there is a direct contribution through the roll-out of these ATCs to the strength of our local economy.
I have to say that it is crucial that this government be concerned not only with young Australians who may choose to undertake tertiary study at a university but also with young Australians who want to undertake vocational education. This bill, together with the original bill, directly addresses that demand. It stands in contrast to the Australian Labor Party, for whom this debate really is secondary. We see that question time after question time when the Australian Labor Party comes into this chamber and focuses only on universities. We do not see any real regard paid to the issue of vocational education for young Australians. We do not see any criticism from the Australian Labor Party about the appalling state of many TAFE colleges around Australia. We do not hear any real plan from the Australian Labor Party when it comes to ensuring that young Australians have vocational education pathways. In fact we hear from the Australian Labor Party the deafening sound of silence when it comes to vocational education.
I believe this bill is much more than any kind of populist rhetoric. It is an on-the-ground demonstration of the meaningful delivery of government programs, government infrastructure and government facilities. It is not a top-down approach. This bill is about facilitation. It is not a top-down approach where the Prime Minister or the minister go around and say to the Australian people, ‘This is what you will do and this is how it will happen.’ In stark contrast, this bill and the original piece of legislation are about empowering local communities to incorporate their business community, to incorporate educators and to incorporate various employers so that they can work together, with the assistance of taxpayer funds, to develop an Australian technical college that meets the needs of their local community.
That is exactly what occurred on the Gold Coast with the establishment of the ATC Gold Coast. That is what should be occurring around the country. It is not happening as quickly as we would desire, but that is a consequence of the fact that there has been so much demand for these ATCs, and in particular for the creation of new facilities, that we will see a big take-up of 25 ATCs across the country over the next 12 months.
This program sees the commitment of more than $343 million over five years, fulfilling the election commitment that was made by the Australian government, by the Prime Minister when he launched our campaign in 2004. This is in addition to the general recurrent funding that colleges will also receive from the Commonwealth and state and territories under the usual school funding arrangements. So it is a program that sees the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars into the creation of these very worthwhile and important ATCs across various communities in the country.
I am pleased that this government has not been blinded by industrial relations ideology, like the Australian Labor Party has been, when it comes to the labour force arrangements that are being incorporated into ATCs. The fact is that ATC industrial relations requirements are predicated on one key principle. One key principle lies behind the industrial relations requirements for ATCs: flexibility, something that the Australian Labor Party completely misses. Its notion that in some way we are dogmatic about industrial relations is almost farcical. It is the Australian Labor Party that is doctrinally blind to the fact that when you say, ‘No, we’ll only have enterprise bargaining or collective agreements when it comes to ATCs,’ you are actually trying to stifle flexibility when it comes to the roll-out of these kinds of colleges. It is a great shame that the Australian Labor Party would deny communities flexibility when in fact the whole purpose of this bill and of the legislation that creates these colleges is to empower local communities.
I am very pleased that the Australian Technical College Gold Coast is operating so successfully. I commend the students that have gone through that ATC for having the vision to recognise the great benefit that flows to them through their involvement. I absolutely commend those employers and small businesses on the Gold Coast who have worked hand in hand to make sure that a modern, flexible and focused ATC has been established. This is a key part of ensuring that the labour force requirements of our city will be met in the future. But what I am most proud of is that this legislation demonstrates that the Howard government—the member for Moreton, as the minister, and I, together with my colleagues—listened to the Australian people when they told us that they want the opportunity to ensure that young Australians have a career path in the trades. That is what this bill is about. That is what the Australian technical colleges are about. I commend this bill and the entire principle of ATCs to the House.
I rise today to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 and support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. But I must also note that the previous speaker, the member for Moncrieff, is obviously wearing his white shoes today. The legislation before us seeks to bring forward funding for the proposed 25 Australian technical colleges from 2008-09 into 2006-07. While the total funding amount from 2006 to 2009 remains the same, some $88 million is being bought forward.
Labor does not oppose the move to bring this funding forward—heaven knows the Australian technical colleges scheme needs it after the way the Howard government has bungled its implementation. What we do oppose is the systematic way in which this government has underinvested in the skills of this nation’s people over the past 10 long years. Even with bringing forward this funding, these Australian technical colleges will not produce their first qualified tradesperson until 2010. That is 3½ years away. That seems a funny way to address what everybody else in the country is calling a massive, immediate, shortage of skilled workers. Indeed, the skills crisis has got so out of control under the Howard government that by 2010, according to the Australian Industry Group, this nation will need an extra 100,000 skilled workers. The Howard government’s Australian technical colleges will have produced just 300 skilled workers by that time. What a pathetic outcome for the $350 million the government is spending on this.
Only four Australian technical colleges are currently operating, despite their being one of the centrepieces of the Howard government’s election campaign back in 2004. Indeed, looking at the locations of the technical colleges does give a clue as to why that might be. Nineteen out of the 25 proposed colleges are located in Liberal or National Party seats, many of which are marginal. Eighteen months after the election, only four of these colleges are up and running. And with recent reports suggesting that four are in danger of being scrapped altogether, it is clear that skilling our workforce is not the high priority that the Howard government pretends that it is. Apparently, it is interested in the skills crisis only around election time when it can pork-barrel with proposals to build these new colleges in its marginal seats.
The government cannot say it has not been warned about the skills crisis. The Reserve Bank of Australia’s latest statement on monetary policy clearly stated that the national skills crisis is holding back our economy. The RBA said:
... that lack of suitable labour was a bigger constraint on—
business—
... activities than more traditional concerns about the adequacy of demand or sales.
Most recently, an international survey found that half of Australian businesses felt constrained by a lack of skilled staff. Comparing us to other nations, it found that only Botswana had a bigger skills crisis. And the government also has its own report into skills shortages and the ageing population, the Workforce Tomorrow report. This report deals with Australia’s ageing population and its projected shortfall of skilled workers. Unfortunately, since its release in November last year, the government has done nothing but use Workforce Tomorrow as a justification for its Work Choices package. That is a shame because the report actually raises serious questions—but the government has got the wrong answer. The response by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Mr Andrews, to this report, that that is why we need Work Choices, would be laughable if it were not so serious for the workers of this country. How driving down wages and conditions, doing away with penalty rates, removing protection from unfair dismissal and all but abolishing collective bargaining creates a skilled workforce is anyone’s guess. In fact, it defies logic. What it actually creates is a new class of working poor, vulnerable to exploitation and dependent on the goodwill of the boss, not the law of the land, to maintain their dignity as workers.
Unfortunately, the Howard government has no plan for sustaining this prosperity in the future. It has wasted its opportunity to do something in this latest budget. It has wasted the past 18 months when it should have been getting these technical colleges up and running. It has wasted the past 10 years when the looming skills crisis was brewing on its watch. Australia is the only developed country which has actually reduced public investment in TAFEs and universities. Public investment in Australia’s universities and TAFEs has fallen eight per cent since 1995. The OECD average is an embarrassing 38 per cent increase, yet all this government can manage, when it comes to investing in knowledge, is a measly eight per cent decline.
On budget night we saw yet another wasted opportunity, with all serious commentators and economists crying out for the Treasurer, Peter Costello, to use his $17 billion surplus to invest in the skills of our workforce—but the Treasurer did nothing. So the budget was all about the Howard government giving up on increasing productivity by not acting on this skills crisis. It was the Howard government saying that importing 270,000 skilled workers from overseas is an adequate response to that crisis. It was the Howard government saying that technical colleges, with their paltry 300 graduates in 2010, is an adequate response to the skills crisis.
Mr Hardgrave interjecting
It was the Howard government saying that an eight per cent decrease in public investment in universities and TAFEs is an adequate response. And it was the Howard government saying that stripping the rights of workers through its extreme industrial relations regime is an adequate response.
That is not true either.
Well, it is not an adequate response.
Order! The minister will have an opportunity to respond at the end of the debate.
The Howard government would know this if some of them came out into the real world and asked some real people about it. They should perhaps ask the 8,000 people aged between 15 and 24 who are unemployed in my electorate of Newcastle whether they think it is an adequate response. Ask the 300,000 Australians that the Howard government has turned away from university and TAFE whether it is an adequate response.
That’s not true either.
Order! Minister.
Ask the 40 per cent of people who do not finish their New Apprenticeships training whether it is an adequate response. That is not true either? No, I think it is true. Ask all those workers around Australia who have been sacked and rehired for lesser pay and conditions whether that is an adequate response. The answer is clearly no, it is not an adequate response; it is an absolutely pathetic response.
A real response would be to take up Labor’s proposals to promote skills training in our schools. Under Labor’s skills blueprint, trades technology and science would be taught in first-class facilities; a trades-in-schools scheme would double the number of school based apprenticeships and provide extra funding per place; specialist schools would be established to teach trades technology and science in senior years; and a trades taster program would allow years 9 and 10 students to experience a range of trade options. We need to give our kids a go at trades in our schools. We need to get to them early and get them involved. Labor’s skills-in-schools plan would get them in. Labor’s plan to overhaul the New Apprenticeships scheme would keep them in.
Under Labor’s apprenticeship plan, a range of incentives would be offered to increase the number of young Australians completing their training. These would include an $800 per year skills account, which would abolish up-front TAFE fees. They would also include a $2,000 trade completion bonus under which apprentices in traditional trades would receive a $1,000 payment halfway through their training and a further $1,000 payment at the completion of their apprenticeship. This scheme aims to lift the Howard government’s woeful 40 per cent apprenticeship completion rate to at least 80 per cent.
Labor is also committed to abolishing the Howard government’s skilled migration visa so that young Australians are given the opportunity to train first. Labor’s plan recognises that young Australians are crying out for opportunities and that Australian businesses are crying out for skilled workers—tradespeople, chefs and child-care workers. This is particularly true in my electorate of Newcastle, where our industries are building a growing reputation for innovation, value adding and excellence. This reputation can only be maintained and enhanced if they have access to a skilled workforce and the means to train young apprentices.
The Howard government’s proposed technical college in my region is expected to enrol year 11 students in October next year. That is three years after it was promised at the 2004 election.
What rubbish. That is total rubbish!
Order!
Minister, we look forward to you altering that.
The minister will have an opportunity to respond at the end of the debate. The member for Newcastle has the call and will be heard in silence.
These year 11 students will finish their training by around 2010. That is what this government’s commitment to skills and training in our region adds up to. Yes, the Howard government has given up. Fortunately, though, Labor has not given up on training our young people and nor have our local businesses and training organisations. The Hunter Institute of TAFE has a well-deserved reputation for training people in the areas which our local industries need. The institute’s electrical engineering department provides a recognition program for avionics technicians from RAAF Williamtown. This process enables current technicians to upgrade their skills and qualifications to meet current aerospace industry demands and standards. This section also provides advanced training in electronics and communications to RAAF students.
The Hunter Institute engineering faculty is providing training for new apprentices in recognised skills shortage areas that are required for the manufacturing, engineering, mining and defence industries. Last year its apprentice enrolment in trades included 568 in metal fabrication, 432 in fitting and machining, 687 in electrical, 119 in electronic and 120 in detailed drafting. To assist all local industry to meet the need for skilled workers, the Hunter Institute has provided prevocational training. These courses equip young people with technical training and also provide them with vital work placements and assistance with communication skills.
In 2005, a total of 373 positions were offered across relevant trades, funded through a combination of state and federal programs. An additional 225 prevocational places will be made available under the federal government’s New Apprenticeships Access Program funding. These courses are delivered through an innovative partnership between Alliance Training Solutions and the Hunter Institute and provide a five-week accelerated training program in metals or electrical trades. The focus of these programs is placement in real work, and it has resulted in 82 per cent of graduates gaining employment in engineering or related fields. I say to the government: give us more of that and then we might make an impact. The technical colleges certainly will not do that.
An additional 50 prevocational places in metal trades have been offered to long-term unemployed people in partnership with Job Network members, and a further 45 prevocational places in metal trades and electrical trades have been offered through the state government’s TradeStart program. That is a total of 693 young people who are gaining skills that are highly valued in the workforce in preparation for employment—an investment in the skills future of our region.
Some time ago, the Hunter Institute also played a leading role in providing training for workers using composite materials for the minehunter project. At present the institute is providing further composite training for apprentices based at RAAF Williamtown in aerospace companies and tailors training courses for individual firms who are carrying out defence work. With Sensation Yachts and Azzura Yachts opening business in the Port of Newcastle, we know that that training is a real investment in the region’s future that will sustain our prosperity.
Because our TAFE works with local industry in such a strategic way, it is not surprising that demand for enrolments at TAFE increased by about 6.5 per cent this year, following a 30 per cent increase the year before. Construction and engineering were among the areas of highest demand and that is great news. It shows our young people are eager to learn a trade at our excellent local TAFE.
Unfortunately, the Howard government is not so eager to have these kids learn a trade, allocating no new funds to our TAFE or indeed to any TAFE in this country. Instead of putting up some money to meet a clear demand in a well-established institute of TAFE, the government is trying to starve it to death by diverting funds to a private technical college that will only produce graduates by 2010. The minister said that I am wrong; I hope he can prove it. We will track the number of graduates from that college, if it ever gets off the ground.
I would also like to put on the record my admiration for other local organisations involved in skills training. A significant cluster group, HunterNet, was established in 1992 and is an innovative cooperative of small and medium sized Hunter based manufacturing, engineering and consulting companies. It promotes advanced networking to combine skills, resources and industry knowledge to reinforce the Hunter’s reputation as a prime national manufacturing region. HunterNet led the way with group training initiatives based on industry needs. The results of HunterNet Group Training’s work has been outstanding. More than 80 per cent of the apprentices and trainees who go through their system complete their indentures and remain in full-time employment with the host or parent company that they trained with.
Another great example from our region is the Hunter Skills Development Program, initiated by the Australian Industry Group in 2004. The program has been able to boast a number of successful outcomes in its first year, including a 40 per cent increase in manufacturing and engineering trade apprenticeships. It also provided assistance to over 60 industry members with upskilling and training advice for employees. It facilitated the participation by over 200 people from business, schools and training providers in two industry school forums, and established a 10-week marketing campaign on manufacturing and engineering pathways, run by Rural Press newspapers and circulated to over 323,000 readers across the Hunter region.
The Army Reserve Traineeship and Apprenticeship Program enables young people to undertake a traineeship or apprenticeship through HunterNet Group Training and to concurrently enlist with the Army Reserve for the duration of their training. Apprentices spend 75 per cent of their time with a civilian host employer and 25 per cent of their time with the Army Reserve. At Adamstown Barracks there are currently 20 heavy vehicle drivers, four armourer fitters and two chefs in training. This program is a partnership between the Army Reserve, HGT Australia and the Hunter Institute of TAFE. This regional skills commitment would be the envy of many regions in Australia. It certainly creates a culture of excellence and has allowed businesses in our region to cope with the skills deficit much better than most.
Last week, Jessica Paton, a chef at Wests Leagues Club at New Lambton, was named apprentice of the year at the New South Wales Group Training Awards. Jenna Doherty was named school based trainee of the year. HunterNet Group Training Australia, based in Broadmeadow, won the best practice category in the state, while the Hunter Valley Training Company was highly commended. But these dedicated organisations cannot do it on their own. They also need real support from the Howard government if we are going to fill all the skill shortages that currently exist. Instead, the Howard government has recently withdrawn funding from two of the key training groups in Newcastle. The Department of Education and Training New Apprenticeship Centre, DETNAC, and the Australian Business Ltd New Apprenticeships Centre have not had their contracts renewed in the latest round of tenders to provide apprenticeship services. This is despite the fact that DETNAC has been providing excellent support and services to local apprentices and businesses since 1998. Instead, contracts for the region have been awarded to MAS National, MEGT and Mission Australia.
It should be noted that the Newcastle region also covers the New South Wales North Coast, so I would hope that these new contractors will establish offices in our city. I know that both Mission Australia and MEGT have offices in Newcastle delivering other services and that Mission Australia intends to open its Newcastle new apprenticeships centre soon. MAS National appears to be a Melbourne based company, with no existing or prior links to our region. I would not like to criticise these companies before they begin their work, and I wish them well. However, with the determination of the Howard government to drive down costs in its contracting arrangements, or perhaps support some favoured companies, the needs of local communities are often ignored, as are the local knowledge, expertise and networking track record of existing companies. Between them, DETNAC and ABL currently provide 90 per cent of the services in the Hunter, so the government’s tendering process will see almost all of the services that exist having to go through a new provider. That does not sound efficient or sensible to me. It seems a very unnecessary shake out of services that have been delivered very well up until now.
DETNAC has an apprentice, trainee and employer satisfaction rating of over 90 per cent, yet has not been considered worthy of a new contract. Both groups also have a great deal of experience, a high profile and the essential contacts and commitment to our region to enable them to work effectively within our community. I understand that one major user of new apprenticeships centres in Newcastle will now access services out of Sydney so that they do not have to change providers. Other users have reported concerns about proper arrangements being in place at the time of the new arrangements coming into force on 1 July. We cannot afford a six months delay or a three-month delay in getting these services going.
At a time of severe skills shortages, if these new arrangements do not work out for apprentices or for businesses who rely on new apprenticeships centres, it will be necessary to hold the government to account. It will be their fault. In areas such as migrant health support services we have seen what happens when the government bungles its contracts to the detriment of the Newcastle community.
To go back to the legislation at hand, we support bringing forward funding to try to do something—anything—to get the government’s private technical colleges off the ground. But we know it is a limited response that has had more to do with pork-barrelling than building the skills of the nation. Newcastle is a region committed to training its workers; it always has been. Our dedicated local organisations will continue their good work. It is time the government came on board with some real solutions of its own. Unfortunately, the Australian technical colleges are not a real solution and will not build the future of this country.
Today, Australian industry faces a skills shortage in a number of traditional nation-building trades. If we fail to meet this issue head-on, our economy will suffer. Therefore it is imperative that we encourage more young people to continue with vocational and technical education. At the outset, I would like to remind the House that, during 13 years of Labor government, Labor’s answer to skills shortages was to place young Australians on the dole queue and provide Australia with ‘the recession we had to have’ and record interest rates which resulted in record bankruptcies and high inflation. We had house mortgage interest rates of 17 per cent and company overdrafts of 23 per cent. In direct contrast, this Australian government has provided an environment of strong economic growth, record low unemployment, low interest rates and low inflation.
Through the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006, the government is encouraging young Australians into trades and to continue on to trade based self-employment or to open their own small businesses. That is what the Australian government is all about. When Labor was in office, no strategies were in place to provide opportunities for trade training or vocational education. In fact, the opposite was true. It was as though academic qualifications were the only thing a young person should have to face the world. The coalition government thinks differently. We are committed to building a nation in which a high-quality technical education is as valued as a university qualification.
Some 70 per cent of young people do not go directly from school to university and many choose to undertake vocational and technical education and apprenticeships. The Australian government values and respects these choices. The government is determined to ensure that the choice to enter a trade is valued by a young person’s peers and the broader community. The government is achieving this by working to turn around cultural attitudes, especially among young people, in relation to the traditional trades. Students will graduate from Australian technical colleges with a head start in their working lives. Technical colleges are an important part of the Howard government’s approach to meeting our nation-building skills needs; they are an investment in the longer term.
The main purpose of the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill is to allow the movement of moneys for the establishment of ATCs. The total funds of $343.6 million appropriated to fund agreements are in place with 13 consortia, and this is expected to grow to 16 by June 2006. Negotiations are continuing with other consortia with respect to moving towards funding agreements on a continuing basis. Given that the passage through the Senate of the original act, the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act, was delayed by the Labor Party until October 2005, and therefore access to funds was not possible, it is an outstanding achievement to now have over half the funding agreements completed. The significant progress in putting in place funding agreements simply means that more expenditure will be needed in 2006-07.
In my electorate of Dobell on the Central Coast, trade qualifications are vital. The abolition of technical colleges by the states many years ago has meant that over the past few decades our young people have lacked training and skills pathways. The price we have paid is the severe skill trade shortages we are currently experiencing in many of our key industries. Members opposite do not seem to know that Labor caused this problem. Indeed, when I went to school at Granville we had a technical college. Many technical colleges existed around the Sydney suburbs. Many kids learned a lot of their hands-on trades at school. Those schools no longer exist. They were abandoned by Labor. It is the New South Wales government’s responsibility to look after the education of schoolchildren. Indeed, the additional funding the Australian government is providing represents more assistance to the state government to cover up their failures. And what have they done? They have held up the school based New Apprenticeships Access Program. Their workers compensation regimes are such that they severely limit work experience.
On top of the serious skill shortages that the Central Coast experiences, like so many areas in this country, we have a high youth population and a rapidly growing employment base. That is why the establishment of technical colleges is vital for the Central Coast. There are many students in years 11 and 12 on the coast who do not want to go on to university but want to study trades. Residents and businesses on the Central Coast are grateful that our local area has been chosen to house one of the 25 technical colleges. The unique set-up of the college, with the chance for students to undertake trade training while also completing their year 11 and 12 academic subjects, is a great opportunity for our region. It is also a good opportunity for local employers in the region to work with education providers to establish a college that responds directly to the needs of local industry—and that is exactly what we are doing.
The Central Coast Manufacturers Association, the successful proponent, is doing a fantastic job to get the ATC under way and has been fully supported locally by association members including Albany International, Sara Lee, ADC Krone, Gibbens Industries, Masterfoods, Adhesive Research, Gosfern, Thermit and Pacific Labels. These industries are further supported by the involvement of Australian Business Ltd, the Master Builders Association, the NRMA and the Gosford District Chamber of Commerce and Industry, just to name a few.
The Australian technical colleges will provide young Australians with the opportunity to commence their training in a traditional trade through a school based apprenticeship at certificate III level while at the same time completing academic subjects leading to their year 12 certificate. That is right—the ATCs are not a duplication of TAFE, as Labor likes to suggest. To so suggest is a clear indication of a misunderstanding of the program. The bill will allow up to 7,500 young Australians per year to undertake high-quality education and vocational training. It will be relevant to the nation-building trade career they choose. ATCs will be centres of excellence and the expectation is that they will employ the best possible staff. The colleges must be able to attract and retain the best teachers available, and their capacity to offer attractive working conditions such as performance pay is crucial to their success. This is unlike the TAFE system, where one size fits all—and that is why we were dumbed down to mediocrity in many cases.
ATCs will not charge additional fees. The colleges will be schools, government and non-government, and in respect of recurrent schools funding will be funded on the same basis as existing schools. The Australian technical colleges initiative is an innovative program that offers significant flexibility to allow each college to operate in a manner that best meets the needs of industry and students in the region in which it is established. Having the flexibility to expend funds as they are required is important for the continued success of the program.
In saying this, an Australian technical college must fulfil certain specifications. It must specialise in a particular trade and offer a trade or trades from at least four industries, including metal and engineering, automotive, building and construction, electrotechnology and commercial cookery; it must have links to or be a registered training organisation; it must have a governing body chaired by a local businessperson and consisting of local industry and community representatives; and it must offer flexible employment arrangements.
The New South Wales state government has an ideological opposition to school based New Apprenticeships. Instead of listening to local communities, state Labor has held up the granting of a licence in my electorate. That has meant the technical college for the coast, which by all rights should have been up and running in 2007, has now been held back to 2008. I understand it has been standing in the way of the establishment of technical colleges in various locations across the country, particularly in New South Wales and Western Australia. But this is typical of the Labor Party. Instead of spending its time and energy coming up with good policy, it prefers to play games and obstruct the passing of vital legislation and vital programs that are in the best interests of our communities.
To conclude, a technical college is great news for the people of the Central Coast and puts this region at the forefront of the delivery of vocational and technical education for students undertaking years 11 and 12 schooling. Nationally, this bill will strengthen Australia’s economic base through the introduction of a flexible, highly capable and specialised training system. It should also be noted that the funding of TAFE is a state government responsibility; it is not a federal responsibility, as we have heard many members opposite purport. It is not up to the Howard government to fund TAFEs. That is up to the state governments.
ATCs are about meeting the demands of industry and business, and these technical colleges will provide a highly skilled workforce and put an end to the skills shortage that the Labor Party at both the state and federal levels has helped to bring about. I commend this bill to the House.
The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 is directed at an issue that I think is close to the most fundamentally important question facing the future of Australia. It is a misconceived strategy on the part of the government. But the elements that are producing this approach are real, they are serious and they are something long overdue for our nation to come to grips with, and that is the future of learning in this country; the future commitment of Australia as a nation to underpinning all economic activity with skills, with learning and with a change in culture so that we as a society can continue to prosper, can continue to be a first-world nation with a diverse economic base, with a strong manufacturing sector, a strong services sector and a strong interrelationship with the rest of the world.
When you look at the basic statistics of learning in this country you see there are a number of extremely embarrassing elements. Most notorious is the fact that in recent years we have been the only country in the OECD, the only country in the developed world, where public expenditure on universities and TAFE—on post-secondary education generally—has been falling. We are the only country in the developed world where that is occurring.
There are other statistics too that we should be very concerned about. For example, in Australia only about 67 per cent of people in the age group 25 to 64—therefore, the dominant working age group—have year 12 or equivalent qualifications. That might sound like a reasonably healthy number, until we compare the equivalent levels in other developed nations, which are overwhelmingly well ahead of us. Nations like the United States, Canada and the stronger nations in Europe all have levels in the vicinity of 80 per cent or more. We are stuck at 60 per cent. In other words, on one of the most crucial measures of the level of aptitude, the level of skill and the level of capability to participate in and add value to the production process, we as a nation are significantly behind comparable nations around the world. There are many other aspects of this picture that we could look at to see that Australia is underperforming in learning and that unless we change course, unless we really dedicate a much greater degree of effort and priority to our national commitment to learning, we will start to fall behind the rest of the world.
It is well understood now, even in those who are not particularly engaged in politics or broader social and economic analysis, that the structure of work has changed dramatically in modern Western societies. In particular, the extent to which there are unskilled or very low skilled jobs in large numbers has changed dramatically. So the kinds of jobs that were there in their hundreds of thousands or millions when I was in the process of leaving school are, in many cases, simply gone. The purely unskilled job is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.
What that means of course is that we have to change to reflect those changes. They have been driven primarily by technological change, the fact that things that human beings used to do are now being done by machines or computers. That has spread from physical work, from manual labour, all the way up the chain into all kinds of other activities including skilled, manual labour and brain work, office work and clerical work. It have had a profound impact on the production process as a whole. And some of these changes are more dramatic than we really recognise. Even relatively mundane things like the introduction of the mobile phone have had an extraordinary impact on the way people work—the way we do business, the way business activities are structured, the way work is structured and the way we relate to each other economically. Some countries have been good at adapting to these changing realities and some have not. Sadly, largely, particularly in the last 10 years under the Howard government, we are in the latter category.
Although I concede that the underlying imperative in the community that has driven the government to propose the Australian technical colleges is a legitimate one and a real one, and therefore the impulse which has generated this response from the government needs to be acknowledged, I think it is a misconceived response. I think it is a response that is largely designed to enable the government to play politics with the states. It is designed to enable them to pretend that they are doing something and to try and denigrate the state governments, which of course are all Labor governments, rather than produce a big-picture, serious, comprehensive, all-embracing and open solution to the problem, engaging with the states and leading and driving the states.
Let’s face it: the state governments are not perfect. They certainly stand to be criticised over the years on a number of fronts on these issues, so I think a bit of Commonwealth leadership would be very helpful. But it has to be genuine, it has to be constructive and it has to be engaging. It should not be about simply playing politics. Essentially, that is what the Howard government’s Australian technical colleges strategy is about—simply manipulating the politics and contributing a relatively modest amount of money to ultimately a mickey mouse program which has had a very vexed commencement and is really not likely to lead to very much in the way of substantive change.
This is part of a broader pattern with the Howard government that to me is perhaps close to the most distressing feature of this government. I tend not to get angry too often, and there are not that many things that have made me really emotionally angry about this government. There are plenty of things I disagree with and plenty of things I think are wrong. One of those things is the vilification of asylum seekers, the vilification of a group of people. The way that asylum seekers have been treated has particularly angered me personally.
But the other thing that stands out for me is the deliberate denigration of learning by this government, particularly under the former Minister for Education, Science and Training, now the Minister for Defence, the member for Bradfield. He developed this technique of dog whistling to people who have not been to university, particularly less educated older people who grew up in a different era, when very few people went to university. The former minister developed this technique of appealing to them and essentially sending out a message saying, ‘Look, it’s the taxes of all you hardworking real Aussies that are paying for all these people in universities, these ivory tower types who are not in the real world, who don’t really contribute very much and who are off on all these wacky things—and we all know the sort of rubbish they get up to, don’t we?’
That message has been very overt. It has been supplemented by statements from the Prime Minister to the effect that leaving school after year 10 is perfectly reasonable, that it is a great idea, not a problem. In some cases, that is not unreasonable. Of course, in bygone eras most people did. There is nothing wrong with that and there is nothing wrong with people who 20 or 30 years ago did leave school after year 10 and in many cases went on to develop skills on the job or in different forms. But that is in the past, and it is certainly the wrong message to be putting out to 15-year-olds now—a totally appalling message.
But underneath this has been a deliberate attempt to reach out to a particular mentality that is widespread in the Australian community, which has long been there, and that is a resistance to learning and education, a denigration of learning. There is a set of values that is based on the idea that practical people do not need knowledge or learning, that things like books are basically for pointy-headed oddballs and that knowledge and the acquisition of skills and capabilities, particularly through academic learning, is somehow second rate, dirty or peculiar. That kind of mentality is a reflection of Australia of the past. It has been one of those quirks of our national character that we have been able to afford, to tolerate and I suppose in many respects to consider to be just one of those quaint, interesting little things that characterises us as a bit different from some other countries.
We can no longer afford that attitude because it is going to be a recipe for long-term economic disaster in this country. Increasingly in modern Western societies, and broadly in all economies, we are going to prosper only on the basis of genuine skills, knowledge and capability. This means that not only will people have to be literate and numerate but their problem-solving skills, their analytical skills and their ability to absorb complex information and to make decisions and choices—all of those things—are increasingly becoming important to an ever-growing proportion of jobs. I look even at simple things like the modern motor vehicle and the job that a skilled mechanic now does to repair or maintain a car compared with what that was 30 years ago. The degree of complexity and the degree of sophistication involved in that task is light-years ahead of what that task was 30 years ago, and you can see the same thing in manual jobs, in mental or brain based jobs and office jobs throughout the entire society.
So it is absolutely appalling that we have leading figures in the government sending out these powerful signals saying: ‘Learning doesn’t matter. Learning is really for oddballs, for nerds, for those pointy-headed types who aren’t practical.’ That is an appalling message and is something which the Howard government stands to be condemned for. If there is one thing that is going to ensure that Australia prospers and that we have a broadly based, diverse economy with a strong manufacturing sector and a strong services sector that will continue, it is going to be a profound national commitment to learning in all its forms: learning on the job, learning in TAFE colleges, learning through apprenticeships, learning in universities, learning in schools and learning in preschools. We need a national crusade to inculcate a much stronger commitment in our community to the values around learning.
The great irony about the government’s position on these things is that, although most of us on this side of the parliament would not give much credit to former Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies for many things, the one thing that I think he deserves enormous credit for and that history will judge him and his government very kindly on is substantially increasing the commitment of our nation to learning, most obviously through the federal takeover of universities but also through the creation of a set of values in the postwar generation of valuing learning and of understanding that for personal advancement, for family advancement and for national advancement learning is fundamental.
I am profoundly grateful for the fact that I grew up in a family with parents whose view of the world was profoundly influenced by that Menzies’ message and who, therefore, brought up a family where commitment to learning was a very strong value. History suggests that that occurred in many parts of Australia in many families. Although there would be many things we would criticise the Menzies government for, I think sending a powerful set of signals to the Australian community valuing learning is something it needs to be recognised for. The Whitlam commitment to education, which I think is equally or perhaps even more profound in the context of changing Australia’s attitude to learning, was built on the initial work that Menzies did. So I think it is both sad and reprehensible that the current government panders to antilearning prejudice in our society.
The final observation I want to make is to return to the more specific aspects of the bill to indicate that, although this is not the solution, it is certainly directed at a very serious problem. I call on the government to engage in a wider dialogue with the community and with the states—because they have some things to answer for on this front—to deal with this problem. The problem is that, increasingly, with things like the abolition of technical schools in my home state of Victoria, the merging of secondary education into a single one-size-fits-all approach—well intentioned though it was—has become a giant mistake in retrospect. What it has done—and I expect similar things have occurred in different forms in other states—is create a set of secondary education institutions that are totally permeated with signals to teachers, administrators and students that are all based on university entrance. The way the school now operates is built around the ultimate objective of maximising university entrance. That in itself is not a bad thing—it is obviously a good thing—but inevitably there are a substantial proportion of students who either do not want to go to university or have different aptitudes that will get reward and advancement in pathways other than university. They are ending up as second-class citizens in many respects in our school system.
I have a special school in my electorate called The Island, which is designed for students who have either been expelled or left school, typically around the age of 13. It has usually 60 or so students, overwhelmingly boys, and it has four streams: an automechanical stream, an engineering stream, a woodwork or furnishing based stream and a hospitality kitchen stream. They all rotate through those streams. It is designed to replicate school but in a way that is intended to prepare them for apprenticeships. The reason that these young people end up in The Island is that they are totally alienated by the school that they have been in, because they have a set of aptitudes and orientations focused on a combination of hand and brain skills—they are mechanically oriented or interested in traditional trade things—but they are taught in a context where, because university entrance is the ultimate goal of achievement for everybody, those things are inevitably downplayed and the sorts of things they are exposed to are predominantly things they are not really into.
It may not sound that dramatic. But I thought about this the other day and about doing a reverse role-play to illustrate it. When I was at school, I did woodwork in, from memory, first form and second form, which is now year 7 and year 8. Frankly, I was not very good at it. I did not really like it. I do not know whether there were rankings done in the class but, I suspect, if I was not bottom of the class, I was not far off it. I did not like it, I was no good at it and I did not have the kind of aptitude that meant I could naturally warm to it. Of course, as soon as I got an opportunity to avoid doing it, I did. I asked myself what my schooling would have been like and how long I would have hung around if 90 per cent of the subjects had been of that kind—things that I was not focused on, oriented towards, particularly good at or interested in—and if only a tiny proportion were things that I was good at or interested in. I suspect the answer is that I probably would not have hung around or I would have caused trouble or difficulty.
That is the experience that these young people have in our education system. We should not need to have a school like The Island. Great though it is, it is a manifestation of failure in the education system. When you talk to the young people at that school, as I did on a visit a year or two ago, one of the things that strikes you is how bright they are. These kids are not failures. These are not kids who are dumb or who have some problems; these are kids who basically have an orientation and a set of aptitudes that are not being adequately catered for in the school system. Although there have been some attempts in some states through greater VET in Schools programs and some recognition of apprenticeship programs in schools, it is not enough. The one thing I would say about the technical colleges approach of the government—misconceived though it is—is that at least it is an attempt to deal indirectly with what is a very serious issue and a very important question.
We have to do two things as a society. We have to absolutely reinvigorate this nation’s commitment to learning but also ensure that that commitment is to learning broadly defined—learning that is inclusive; learning that acknowledges that we are in the business of producing great professors and great plumbers, that we need people with skills and capabilities right across the board and that in varying dimensions everybody needs to be treated equally. Everybody needs to get equal recognition, even though specific institutions will be different, the way we organise things will be different and funding arrangements will be different. In an overall sense, we as a society should be saying to people, ‘We don’t particularly mind what you do; we just want you to engage in learning. We want you to better yourself, to improve your circumstances, to improve the circumstances of our society and to put yourself in a position where the children that you may have in the future will get a better start in life because of what you’ve done’ whether through a TAFE college, a university, an apprenticeship or whatever—that is detail.
We have to radically alter our attitude in this country. We do not want to see any more celebrities standing up and boasting about the fact that they have never read a book. To me, that is an insult, and people who do that should be absolutely condemned for the social vandals that they are. We do not want to see this in this country. We want to see people who are promoting commitment to learning, but we also need governments that ensure that the opportunities for learning are sufficiently diverse and inclusive and that people with all different kinds of attributes and aptitudes have genuine opportunities to learn and are not being pushed into kinds of learning that they are not suited to or not interested in. That is where we have gone wrong in the past in this country. I think we need a real revolution in learning in this country. This is not it, but at least the government is starting to address the question in some way. (Time expired)
Certainly, it has been interesting sitting here listening to the member for Melbourne talking about his aptitude and lack of aptitude for his woodworking skills and the associated hand skills required to carry out those sorts of tasks successfully. To some extent I can relate to that, having at an early age developed some dexterity in my manual skills. One thing for sure that the member does have an aptitude for is rhetoric. That is certainly a great skill to have when you are on the opposition benches. One thing about the Howard government is that it is very strong on action. There is no doubt that the Australian technical colleges will provide a great opportunity for those young people with a desire, commitment and aptitude for developing their hand skills, manual skills and their interest in trade training.
Of all of the responsibilities of governments, education and training would have to be at the top of the list of priorities. Even when you consider the other top priorities such as economic strength, health, defence, infrastructure, crime, environmental protection and essential services, it is hard to see any aspect of modern life that is not impacted dramatically by our education and training levels. Challenges like our current skills shortages ripple through the community in many ways. That is why we should leave no stone unturned and no opportunity postponed in our efforts to provide the best education and training system we can. Unlike the previous Labor administration, the Howard government is moving strongly in that direction. That is in spite of strong opposition by the state Labor governments, which are being dragged kicking and screaming to the negotiating table to ensure that we get a national approach to vocational training and apprenticeships. That is happening. The government was indeed leaving no stone unturned when it introduced the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) legislation in 2005. Now just one year later it is leaving no opportunity postponed by introducing the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 to respond to the even better than expected reaction from the community in establishing Australian technical colleges across the nation.
Vocational education and training is a particular passion of mine and I am very pleased to rise to speak in support of this bill today. Skills shortages are being experienced across the globe. Here in Australia we have skills needs across a variety of industries, including automotive, building and construction, electrotechnology, commercial cookery and manufacturing. These industries offer young Australians strong, secure, diverse, challenging and rewarding careers, yet many of the jobs and training places go unfilled. It is incumbent upon all members of this parliament, on both sides of this House, to approach this situation with an openness, a thorough understanding of the issues and a willingness to be innovative and responsive to the needs of young people, industries and employers in those industries.
It is vital that we teach skills relevant to the current and future needs of industry. It is equally vital that we help our young people find and achieve their potential in a career which suits them and offers them all a prosperous and rewarding future. This means we need new approaches to attracting more young people into training for what are sometimes called the traditional trades—although I would point out that many people who make easy proclamations about the trades have precious little knowledge of them. My own years of experience working with tradespeople and employers in various trades comes from my previous role as executive director of two trade associations—the Master Plumbers and Gasfitters Association and the Master Painters Association—and also as Chairman of the World Plumbing Council. These experiences have taught me well that we must redefine what we mean by traditional. There are certainly aspects of tradition we must retain, protect and promote, but we also need very non-traditional thinking so that we can keep the core values of trades in a modern, rapidly-changing context.
The development of the Australian technical colleges is designed to do just this. Basing them in the final compulsory school years and ensuring they are closely linked to conventional school curricula, leading vocational training practices and local industry leadership gives trades the value they deserve and the focus that young people need. Local industry and community representatives have a leadership role in the governance of each of the colleges. The direct involvement of industry and community leaders will ensure that the skills taught to students match those skills required by local businesses. Students will be trained in these skills through a school based new apprenticeship which leads to a nationally recognised vocational education and training qualification. At the same time, students will also complete the academic subjects required for their year 12 certificate. It is essential that all state and territory governments recognise the need for and the value of providing school based apprenticeships to meet the career aspirations of our young people and the skill needs of our employers.
The barriers to these outcomes in Western Australia must be removed by the Minister for Education and Training, particularly now that the Premier has stepped in to fix the OBE issue. By offering high-quality training facilities and an instruction link to workplace requirements, the colleges will raise the profile and status of vocational pathways in schools and demonstrate that these vocational courses are genuine career paths for students which should be at least as valued as going to university. The colleges will provide high-status, high-quality opportunities for young people to build a genuinely exciting career for themselves in traditional trades.
This concept has been so well received by the community that Australian technical colleges are being established faster than predicted. In 2005 the government announced that it would fund the establishment of 25 Australian technical colleges across the nation by 2009. Four colleges are already up and running. They are out there making it happen for their students in under a year. And the news gets better: at least another 20 are in development and expected to be operational some time in 2007.
This result is a credit not only to the government’s initiative in establishing the colleges but also to the industry and businesspeople who have responded so positively to the opportunity and are getting right behind this initiative. This bill is sheer good news. It does not affect the overall budget of $343.6 million for the program; it merely brings forward funding which had been allocated to the 2008-09 financial year so that it can be available in 2006-07. This is a happy obligation indeed, as it is in response to a galvanising of action in communities themselves. How short-sighted would it be for any of us in this House to turn a blind eye to these efforts and tell these people that they will have to wait because of accounting issues in Canberra? In my opinion, opposition to this bill would be exactly that: a slap in the face of people who are out there doing their best for their industry, for young people and, as a result, for Australia. If you, like me, know the sorts of people involved in establishing Australian technical colleges, you too would be inspired by their efforts and collaboration.
For example, in my own electorate the Australian technical college Perth South is set to commence in February 2007 and proposes to operate as a multicampus, non-government senior secondary college in Maddington and Armadale with a satellite campus based in Rockingham. My colleague the member for Canning and I were very pleased to be present for the signing of the Perth South ATC funding agreement by the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, the Hon. Gary Hardgrave, at the ATC site in Maddington earlier this month—a great occasion for the local community. Securing this ATC for the south-eastern suburbs of Perth has been an important goal since my election and I am proud to be involved in providing these additional training opportunities for my constituents and their families. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for Canning for his hard work and support in securing the Perth South ATC, which will benefit the residents in both of our electorates.
I would also like to acknowledge the fantastic efforts of the City of Gosnells, particularly the Mayor of Gosnells, Councillor Pat Morris, and the CEO of the City of Gosnells, Mr Stuart Jardine. The City of Gosnells has shown real leadership in improving and developing suburbs in the south-eastern corridor of Perth and has worked closely with both Don and me to secure positive outcomes for its ratepayers and our constituents. I am also very pleased to be able to advise that Councillor Pat Morris, Mayor of the City of Gosnells, and her CEO, Mr Stuart Jardine, have been visiting this parliament today. It is great to have this opportunity to speak in support of their efforts on this occasion.
Our electorates will gain enormous benefits from the presence of the new ATC, as will the member for Brand’s electorate. Despite the member’s constant carping, and despite what we heard from the member for Melbourne earlier, about the Howard government’s policies to address skills shortages, it took Phil Edman, the Liberal candidate for Brand, to work with the minister and secure the satellite campus of the Perth South ATC for Rockingham to follow shortly after the development of the campuses in Maddington and Armadale. The member for Brand made no effort to secure additional training and employment opportunities for his constituents that come with the presence of an ATC campus—in fact, he seemed rather nonplussed when commenting on it in the local newspaper. His commitment to vocational training is mere rhetoric, limited to union based training, ignoring any alternatives and certainly ignoring opportunities for his own constituents provided by the Howard government. This is somewhat underpinned by the huge level of teenage unemployment that we as a nation experienced during his period as Minister for Employment, Education and Training—34.5 per cent teenage unemployment in those years, an absolute disgrace.
Like all Australian technical colleges, the Perth South college is a model determined locally and driven by local industry and business. In the Perth South case, the college is being established by Stirling Skills Training Inc., which is both a registered training organisation and a Jobs Pathway Program provider, in partnership with the cities of Gosnells and Armadale, and the Armadale Redevelopment Authority. The college is well supported by the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Association, the Motor Trades Association and local employers. From the outset, the college will provide an integrated years 11 and 12 curriculum offering a relevant academic program, business skills training and an initial focus on the key trade areas of automotive and building and construction. Training in electrotechnology and metals and engineering will also be offered from 2009.
It is a truism that the future prosperity of our country and, indeed, the continued growth of our nation’s economy depends in large part upon the availability of a skilled and flexible workforce. The workforce must not only be world class in quality but also be capable of meeting the needs of Australia’s industry, which operates in an increasingly aggressive and volatile environment of competition at home and abroad. The resource and construction sectors are great examples of this. The Skilling Australia’s Workforce legislation introduced in 2005 created this government’s new national funding arrangements for vocational education and training.
The Howard government has committed an investment of nearly $5 billion in the future of skills training and skills development by the end of 2008. This included nearly $580 million provided to the states and territories last year, representing an increase of $175 million over the 2004 figures, which equates to an increase in real terms of 3.2 per cent. When we consider this government’s other vocational education and training initiatives, the investment over four years will together amount to a record $10.1 billion. It is important to note that this funding is not the sort for which industry associations or training providers have to jump through unnecessary hoops. Instead it is the sort of funding that enables people to just get on with the important matters at hand: facilitating the best possible outcomes for Australia’s young people and for those crucial Australian enterprises looking to develop their workforce for the future by taking on trainees and apprentices. The Australian Chamber of Commerce has said:
Without doubt ATCs mark the beginning of a bold new approach by the Australian Government as part of a suite of strategies to address Australia’s skill shortage problem.
I am not sure I can say it better. It also says:
ATC graduates will be highly skilled individuals, gaining skills from industry experience and capable of running their own businesses in the future. They will be nurtured by their industry of choice and encouraged to stay there. Future study options will be available to them and they will provide role models to younger students.
In fact, such a student is sitting in the gallery tonight. She happens to be my young 16-year-old daughter, Harriet. She is the sort of young person who will benefit greatly from this contribution to education and vocational training by the Howard government—which is providing options, providing flexibility and providing choice in the career pathways that young people may take in the future.
I also concur with the ACCI’s comment that one key contribution of Australian technical colleges is the potential to achieve cultural change on how we view vocational education and training. I feel privileged to have worked for so long with people who have been trained in the trades. Many of the most intelligent, innovative, skilled and personally successful people I have met gained their formative education through trade training. To me, it has always seemed ill informed, narrow-minded and short-sighted that we often act as if university is the be-all and end-all of education. A strong university sector is, it goes without saying, absolutely fundamental to Australia’s future in terms of both its research and its education contributions. I am only arguing that we need a way to reassert that vocational education and training is just as important for us to take seriously at a national level. It is just as important that we communicate this with educators working directly with young people, crucially with the parents of young people and, ultimately, with the young people themselves.
I have been greatly heartened by the Howard government’s consultative and constructive approach and its commitment to working towards real change. In developing the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Bill 2005, the government consulted with key stakeholders and received strong support for its direction and strong leadership for real change on vocational training. We are enjoying the lowest levels of unemployment and highest levels of economic prosperity in some 30 years; but, as I have observed in this House before, that situation brings with it a number of challenges and its own set of responsibilities. We must not allow the prosperity of the generations to follow us to be undermined by either an unwillingness to reform workplace relations or a lack of investment in developing the skills of the workforce of tomorrow.
The original bill establishing Australian technical colleges sent a strong message to the Australian community that vocational and skills based training is valued and, indeed, vital for the future prosperity of this nation. They heard us, they agreed and they responded. They got together and started making things happen, not here in parliament but in the local communities where change actually becomes real in people’s lives. Businesses, schools, industry bodies, local government agencies, training providers, employers and others are working together even better than we had hoped. This bill of amendments is a mark of respect for their response and a vote of confidence in their efforts. It says: you listened to us and responded; we are listening to you and responding. This is how it is supposed to work. As I said earlier, this amendment bill is pure good news. I wholeheartedly commend it to the House.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. I spoke on this some time back, in June last year, when the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Bill 2005 first came before us. I raised some matters of general concern about the government’s proposals then and I continue to have concerns. I queried whether directing the funds to create the 25 new colleges was in fact good public policy and to what extent it was an adequate response to the nation’s skills crisis.
You will recall that at the time the Australian technical colleges were first announced the Prime Minister himself said the colleges were the ‘centrepiece of our drive to tackle skills shortages and to revolutionise vocational education and training throughout Australia’. It seemed to me then and it is the case today that that statement was overblown hyperbole. At best, if the 25 colleges went ahead, producing in the vicinity of 7,500 tradespeople in the years 2010-12, how on earth was that revolutionising vocational education and training and tackling the major national issue of skill shortages? It was a drop in the ocean. At best there would be 7,500 trained tradespeople when everybody estimates that the skills shortage today is in the vicinity of 100,000 people.
I have listened to the contributions from government members and the constant refrain seems to be that the skill shortages that this nation faces are the consequence of a booming economy and a decline in unemployment rates. That argument does not fit the regional picture that we in the Illawarra face. For example, the most recent data shows that in the Illawarra the unemployment rate is still very high—probably the highest of all the regions—at 8.9 per cent. In May the teenage full-time unemployment rate was 36.8 per cent—an absolute disgrace. You cannot argue that the skill shortages in the Illawarra have arisen because of a booming economy and low unemployment. The facts just do not back that up. When one looked at the proposition of public funding to establish a new Australian technical college, one wondered what the efficacy of that commitment would be. At best, 300 students in the Illawarra would get the chance of doing courses in the new technical college facility, but that college is not up and running and the skills crisis that my region faces is not going away. It is getting worse every day.
What is the purpose of expending public funds to build a parallel system when the TAFE system in my region is more than adequately coping with the range of pressures that are on it? I will give you an example. If this college was established in the Illawarra, there would be 300 trained tradespeople probably by the year 2012. In the last two years, we have placed 220 unemployed young people into apprenticeships, because through our TAFE system we have been able to provide six months of pre-apprenticeship training, courtesy of the commitment made by the state Labor government. On top of that, we have had some modest funding from the federal government. But every time we go to the federal government it is like drawing blood out of a stone. An investment of $100,000 by the government each year has seen 220 young unemployed people in my region placed into apprenticeships. So I contend that there are different ways of addressing the youth unemployment issue linked with the skills crisis.
Debate interrupted.
Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Tonight I would like to draw the House’s attention to the activities of an organisation registered as the New South Wales War Widows Association Inc. and previously going under the name of Newcastle-Hunter War Widows. It is an organisation that has no connection whatsoever with the War Widows Guild of Australia New South Wales Ltd and, to the best of my knowledge, is a privately registered company owned and registered by Trevor Steele, who lives in the Shortland electorate.
I first became aware of this organisation when my office was contacted by various businesses and individuals within the electorate of Shortland and the surrounding area stating that Mr Steele was seeking money from them for charitable activities and saying that I supported him. This was towards the end of last year and earlier this year. I reported the matter to the police and the investigating officer advised me that he had spoken to the person concerned and there would be no more problems.
Unfortunately, the matter did not end there, and Mr Steele is still promoting himself as an organisation known as the New South Wales War Widows Association Inc. In fact, he registered the corporation with the New South Wales Office of Fair Trading on 29 March this year. I seek leave to table that.
Leave granted.
I have made inquiries with the Office of Charities of the New South Wales Department of Racing and Gaming and have been advised that Mr Steele has not been granted approval to raise funds from the public under the Charitable Fundraising Act. Unfortunately, Mr Steele has sought to raise funds from the public and this is of great concern to the New South Wales War Widows Guild, to me and to the department, which has once again referred the matter to the police.
The New South Wales War Widows Guild is an organisation that all members of this House would support. The work it undertakes is valuable to all war widows and to our community as a whole. The charity has been in existence for 60 years, working for and supporting war widows in New South Wales. It has 13,000 members throughout New South Wales and is highly respected. This makes the act of Mr Steele so much more despicable.
I share the concerns that have been raised by the war widows. The caring for and looking after of war widows is not the business activity which Mr Steele is making it. I query whether this business has a genuine connection to war widows, considering that the War Widows Guild itself claims that there is no connection whatsoever. He is duping the public into believing that he is actually working for war widows, but I question where the money he raises goes. I am also concerned that the business is really being used to solicit money from the public and that this is happening without the authority that he should have through the Department of Racing and Gaming. This is very serious. This man is duping the public. This man has used my name, and the names of the Mayor of Newcastle and the Mayor of Lake Macquarie, in order to gain money from the public in our area.
As I have mentioned, he has previously gone under the name of Newcastle-Hunter War Widows and I have here a piece of paper that he put out to people thanking ‘businesses and houses’ for any support they could give during the festive season to war widows and thanking them for ‘caring for the elderly’. My understanding is that the only elderly person he has any connection to is his own mother. The Department of Gaming and Racing has said that he does not have the right to collect money, yet he has advertised for telemarketers in the Star newspaper of 30 November and the Muswellbrook Chronicle of 9 December 2005. I have used this adjournment debate tonight to warn people and let them know that Mr Steele’s New South Wales War Widows Association is not the War Widows Guild of New South Wales. Beware! (Time expired)
It is great to rise to speak in the adjournment debate this evening because I have got a bit of a tale to tell. The Beattie government in Queensland is getting a deserved reputation across Australia for its incompetence. This is a government that obviously cannot run a hospital or build a road—there is very little that they can do there—but they have now come up with a new policy of devolving incompetence. They are devolving incompetence right down to the local member level. We have now got an incompetent state member for Ipswich, whose stunt, to demonstrate her own incompetence, is to create a petition on the very vexed local question of the Ipswich Motorway.
You would think that would be a simple ask—you would simply get a form and get people to sign it—but, no, the member for Ipswich has come up with a wonderful way of creating a petition. What she did was to write a postcard and distribute it all across the electorate saying, ‘Sign the petition and post it back to me.’ It is actually a postcard. She sends it out and, apparently, people sign it. But next to where you sign your name she has written, ‘I guarantee’—or something like this—‘that I will not reveal the name that is signed on this paper to any third party’. So here is a petition that is not a petition.
If people sign these ‘petitions’ and send them back, the question is what happens to them. They are expecting to sign a petition, but they cannot possibly be signing a petition because the member for Ipswich has promised them that she will not reveal their names to any third party. So she cannot present it to the government or to the Premier as a petition—though he probably would not know what to do with a petition. She cannot send it down here; she cannot send it to the Prime Minister. She has guaranteed all these people that she will not reveal their names, which is probably the most incompetent version of creating a petition I have ever heard of, and I think people in Ipswich are probably scratching their heads trying to figure out just what is going to become of this.
People locally have a right to an explanation from the member for Ipswich on this issue. If it is not a petition, then it seems as though it really is a dodgy way of creating a wonderful mailing list. I think all those poor souls who have been taken in by this process, if there are any, and who have signed the form can expect from the member for Ipswich, the Beattie government and the Labor Party is a deluge of mail through their mailbox come election time saying, ‘You sent me a petition about the Ipswich Motorway, blah, blah, blah.’
It really is a con, and I think the member for Ipswich owes the locals an explanation and most likely an apology. Locally, we need people to take seriously the question of the Ipswich Motorway. We need to have the promised solution by the state government delivered in line with the promise given by the Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Mr Lucas, when he stood on the back of the truck with the federal Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, Jim Lloyd, and promised that he would get out and build the Goodna bypass and the other parts of the Ipswich Motorway project, as outlined in the Maunsell report, with great alacrity. He gave that commitment, but now we have been left with local state members of the Labor Party pulling stunts such as this one from the member for Ipswich.
We have seen from the Labor Party on the Ipswich Motorway an incredible show of incompetence. This is the government that had a railway line drawn through the middle of one of the intersections on this great plan for the Ipswich Motorway which they had drawn up. But they drew it in the wrong place. So now we are sitting here with $320 million allocated by the Commonwealth to this project and having to wait while the state government redraws the railway line in the right place. They had this railway line going down the median strip and disappearing off forever in the median strip. It would have been terribly disconcerting to people who might have tried to get off the train now and then to be mowed down by the traffic on the Centenary Highway.
The same lot has also created a plan for the Logan Motorway interchange. The money for that was allocated in 2004, and more than two years later we are still waiting for them to announce a tender. It really is an appallingly bad situation. The member for Ipswich would do well to assist in speeding up the construction instead of confusing everybody with petitions that are not petitions and with dodgy attempts to generate mailing lists for her own political purposes instead of assisting the people of Ipswich by getting on and helping us build the Goodna bypass and the rest of those important projects on the Ipswich Motorway. (Time expired)
On Tuesday one of my constituents, Mrs Karen Palmer, sat in the public gallery during question time as questions about her unfair dismissal from her job were put by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister. In his response to the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister stated:
... I am not aware, and nor could I be expected to be, of the individual employment circumstances of the thousands of Australians ...
Whilst we do not expect the PM to be aware of every Australian’s employment circumstances, it is, however, appropriate to bring to the Prime Minister’s attention the plight of Australians whose lives are thrown into disarray as they fall victim to his government’s industrial relations policies. Karen Palmer is not an opposition stunt; she is a real Australian. Karen Palmer is one of the Howard battlers. She is a hardworking widow, a mother to four children and grandmother to seven grandchildren, and before her trip to Canberra last week Karen had never been on an aeroplane.
Prior to getting the sack from work, Karen Palmer had worked for Greer Industries in Coolaroo for 14 years. During this time she was a model worker who had never, as she said to me, been ‘sent upstairs’, meaning that she had not once ever been subject to any reprimand. On the contrary, she was highly valued by her workmates, to whom she was affectionately known as ‘mamma’. Yet on 29 May 2006 Karen Palmer upon her arrival at work was pulled aside and ‘sent upstairs’, where she was handed a letter terminating her employment and told she had only a few minutes to pack her things and get out. She was given no opportunity to say goodbye to anyone; she was simply told to leave the premises.
Karen’s job has of course since been filled by two casual workers. Not only did Karen receive no prior warning of what was about to happen to her but to this day Greer Industries have not given her a reason for her dismissal. In fact, it was in separate comments made by Greer Industries to Karen’s Australian Manufacturing Workers Union organiser that she learned that she was considered a liability. Karen had recently undergone a second round of surgery for a shoulder injury sustained at work. She had been off work for a little while and had returned, and then after getting sick with the flu she required a few days off. Both operations were covered by WorkCare, and her return to work was authorised by the company doctor. It was on her return to work after the flu that she was sacked.
Karen’s is one of many stories emerging of employees working in companies with fewer than 100 employees who will now be at the mercy of this government’s industrial relations laws that put company profits ahead of workers’ rights and welfare. Companies like Greer Industries are now free to treat their workers in exactly the way Karen Palmer has been treated, without concern about the impact of their actions on their workers’ lives and families. Karen is 60 years old and only four years out from her retirement. After her husband’s death in 1998 she moved in with her daughter, and their dream upon Karen’s retirement was for mother and daughter to buy a new house and to live together. That cherished dream is now in disarray.
Karen is a humble, dignified human being struggling to understand what has happened to her. Although she feels betrayed by her employer she is heartened by the support she is receiving from her family, her neighbours and her workmates. Karen is lucky to have the support of her union, the AMWU, which has taken up on her behalf the fight against her dismissal. While the Howard government demonises unions, the union movement across this country is busy fighting for workers’ rights and providing support for their membership because, when all is said and done, it is the unions who are left to pick up the pieces of those who are dumped as a result of the government’s IR legislation.
What underpins the union’s support for Karen Palmer and other workers is the principle of solidarity, the essential ingredient of the Prime Minister’s great Australian values, the great Aussie tradition of mateship and a fair go. These are the values that the PM is constantly telling other people to adopt if they want to be good Australians. Yet while invoking these values on the one hand, the Prime Minister and his government, on the other hand, pass IR laws that run counter to the values he claims to espouse. Karen has been a worker all her life. She is honest, likeable and decent. She is not asking for special favours and she will even take her job back to see out her last four years before retirement and make her dream of buying a new house with her daughter come true. She will take it back despite the appalling treatment that she has received. She will take it back because she knows that at her age she is unlikely to ever get another job. The mateship, solidarity and guts that the PM champions as the battling Aussie spirit is there in plenty amongst Australian workers like Karen and the union movement. Long may it live!
I would like to take the opportunity this evening to wax lyrical and boast about a community in my electorate that I am immensely proud of. It is the township of Ouyen. It is an hour’s drive south of Mildura, on the verge of the extent of the Mallee region, and it has a strong pioneering heritage and spirit. It is a community that has confronted the worst drought in our modern history and met that challenge well. It is the home of prime Mallee lamb, which has restored, through the menus of Australians and of international markets, respect for the producers of young lambs that make fine food interesting to the palate.
Ouyen has had the advantage in the last four or five years of again being on the receiving end of water—this time piped—from the supply system that once supplied it, all the way from the south, from the Grampian Mountains, nearly 250 kilometres to the north. Ouyen had previously received its water through open channels and by the time it got to Ouyen it had faced evaporation so many times that it was an extremely poor water supply. But the Commonwealth has been able, in partnership with the state government of Victoria, to fund the piping of the northern Mallee, a historic achievement that has been the subject of a 100-year debate. That has given to the Ouyen community the confidence, in the worst drought in our modern history, to maintain their stock, including their prime breeding stock, and stay ahead of the march. It has meant of course that the community is fed reasonably well, better than other communities that have not got a reliable water supply.
I was really thrilled last week to announce a Regional Partnerships funding grant to help the Ouyen community restore their old picture theatre, the Roxy Theatre, with a funding allocation of $230,450. It is amazing how positively the community has received this announcement—so the powers in the rarefied atmosphere of Canberra actually care about their circumstance! It has been a difficult situation for the community. The only community centre to which they could bring the Scouts, the youth group or the Girl Guides was the Ouyen Club, which is an alcohol and poker machine facility—not the ideal environment. Now the community, with the assistance of this funding from the Commonwealth, will be able to have a meeting place—a magnet—to bring the youngsters of the community to, where they can watch state-of-the-art modern films. They could be watching the same films that the big metropolitan communities and provincial city communities enjoy. They could be watching the latest release of movies. I am so thrilled that we have a program that meets the needs of isolated rural communities.
Contrary to the negative response and attention that has been directed towards the Regional Partnerships program, here is a classic example of a community saying: ‘We’ll buy the real estate for the old theatre. We need a facility that we are comfortable with the youth in our community attending. It’s our solution to meeting the challenges of our problems. We’re not being told from up above about what is right and what is wrong.’ And the Commonwealth has responded. I will be really pleased to get an opportunity to next visit the Ouyen community. There are a lot of people to thank for the products of their determination. The Sunraysia Area Consultative Committee has done all the work in assisting the committee to submit their application. The community itself and Ouyen Inc., which is the local chamber of commerce, comprises a number of motivated people. They deserve to be congratulated. I am looking forward to catching up with them and celebrating this great announcement.
This week is Drug Action Week, so I will take this opportunity to reflect on the impact of drug laws and, in particular, on the regulation of drug addiction treatments in Australia. New South Wales is the only state in Australia with a safe injecting room. The Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre is the first injecting centre in Australia and has been running since May 2001. The centre helps to reduce health problems and mortality associated with drug use, the transmission of blood borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis, and gives people who inject drugs better access to drug treatment and health and social welfare services. It also reduces the so-called public nuisance associated with injecting drugs in public places. An 18-month trial has seen a reduction in overdoses, a decrease in the appearance of drug use in surrounding areas and the centre act as a gateway to drug treatment for a number of clients.
As I have seen in countries like Germany and Switzerland, there are many benefits of safe injecting facilities; but, in Australia, federal, state and local governments simply want to turn a blind eye to drug treatment. Nowhere is this more apparent than in my own electorate of Fowler. Centred on Cabramatta, Fowler has a long history of drug dealing and drug use. Programs based on a policing strategy have had mixed success. Certainly reducing the supply of illicit drugs has had some effect. But, as any first-year economics student will tell you, if you reduce the demand for illicit drugs as well as the supply, you will reduce the overall market.
It is not just in the Fowler electorate but all over Australia that elected representatives simply put their head in the sand when it comes to addressing issues related to the treatment of people suffering from addiction to illicit drugs. Across Australia, more than 30,000 people are at present on some form of methadone treatment—that is around 200 people in every federal electorate. Those people come from all walks of life, from all city suburbs, as well as from regional centres and country towns. So it concerns me when officials place unreasonable restrictions on the location of treatment services. ‘Not in my backyard’ is the guiding principle for the location of treatment centres.
The effect of these policies is that, increasingly, drug treatment facilities are located at sites outside the planning powers of local government, and these facilities tend to be much larger than would otherwise be advisable. These developments result in large congregations of clients visiting the centres to obtain daily supplies of methadone. We have seen the impact of this in Barbara Street, Fairfield, and, more recently, in Liverpool, where there are frequent reports of criminal and other unacceptable behaviour. The closure of smaller facilities in surrounding suburbs has led to more and more patients visiting the larger facilities. It has been found overseas that one of the biggest difficulties in treating addiction to illicit drugs is the concentration of clients around large single facilities. By forcing clients to live close to treatment facilities, it often removes them from employment opportunities and family support. One failed strategy by local governments has been to place treatment facilities in industrial areas, presumably out of sight and out of mind, but these centres are difficult to access and, because of poor transport links, they can only make the problems of large groups gathering together even worse.
Only when communities recognise that people suffering from drug addiction are not aliens—they are definitely not aliens; they are human beings—and that they come from our own suburb, from our own street, and that they too are part of our community will we begin to appreciate the effective role that treatments can play and the way that those treatments can improve life for the whole of our community. By forcing treatment facilities to other locations, we are simply maintaining the problem by passing it over to someone else. Only when we accept responsibility for the drug problems in our own communities and in our own backyards can we expect to make progress. (Time expired)
I rise tonight to thank a number of my constituents for participating in the workings of this place. Recently, a number of petitions were given to me, containing the names, addresses and signatures of people expressing their concerns about the Work Choices legislation—legislation of which the Howard government and I have been strongly supportive.
Despite my best efforts to have the petition tabled in the usual fashion, staff at the Table Office advised me that the petition is worded in such a way that it does not meet the criteria agreed to by both sides of this House and so cannot be accepted. To be exact, I understand that the petition was deficient for several reasons: it ought to have been directed to members of the House, it should have contained a request for the House to take some kind of action and it should have been comprised of original signatures, not photocopies.
For these reasons, I have unfortunately been prevented from lodging the petition. Nonetheless, I would like to ensure that the concerns expressed by my electors are given serious treatment. So, in accordance with the standing orders which require me to seek leave from the opposition, I now seek leave to table the petition as a document.
Leave granted.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the opposition for assisting me. The document I have just tabled expresses concern in several areas. I regret to say that in every case that an initiative within Work Choices is being referred to, the language used in the document distorts the actual situation. Time does not permit me tonight to go into every one in detail; however, I would like to give some examples and explanations. For example, the person who drafted the petition has claimed that Work Choices removes conditions from awards—a claim which is not correct. There is a claim that minimum wages are to be made lower—another incorrect claim. There is a claim that individual contracts are designed to reduce pay and conditions—again, I regret to say, another baseless claim, which has been refuted time and again.
I am just sorry that people in my community are often hearing so many voices. They hear from the federal government, the unions, their state Labor government, a few churches, business groups—and the list goes on. Unfortunately, many of these voices are making dramatically different claims about the intent and the actual practical outcomes of the Work Choices legislation. Can all of them be true? Can there be an element of truth in most of them? Can the union movement and the Labor opposition really be taken seriously when they claim that the Howard government is intent, as the national government, on ruining its own people’s lives?
Through all of these voices, people do deserve to know the truth. That should not be asking for too much. The fact is that the Labor Party and the unions are making much of their fabricated claim that our country will be worse off under these new laws. They grin from ear to ear, I find, at their success in recent months in raising alarm in the community. I say instead that they ought to be hanging their heads in shame for what can only be described in many cases—not all—as deliberately frightening people, I think, in the hope that those frightened people might change their vote. I suppose that is politics and, in the spirit of debate, we press on.
Under this government, the real wages of Australian workers have increased by 16.8 per cent compared to an increase of just 1.2 per cent under 13 years of the last Labor government. In the time of the Howard government, over 1.7 million new jobs have been created. Changes to our workplace relations system since 1996 have been an essential factor in this wages growth, in the strong economy, in the low interest rates and in the low unemployment rate that all of us in this wonderful country currently enjoy.
In closing, I would like to say that I am sincerely very grateful that members of the community have seen fit to contact me as their local federal member. Prior to my election and since then, I have always promised to stay close to my community and to remain responsive to it. I thank the House.
Order! It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted.
In the Australian parliament today I wish to pay tribute to Greg Combet. On 12 June 2006 Greg Combet was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia, or an AM. It was a richly deserved award for a man still in his youthful years who has already contributed so much to the Australian community. The award was for service to industrial relations and work for the victims of asbestos related diseases which arose out of the James Hardie scandal. Obviously those victims are very grateful for the work that Greg has done with Bernie Banton. The compensation fund that had been created by James Hardie was clearly inadequate to properly compensate the families of the victims of asbestos related diseases. Greg performed those duties in securing decent compensation in his capacity as Secretary of the ACTU, a position that he has now held for several years.
The striking feature of Greg Combet is his good values. He is always committed to protecting the vulnerable in our society. Greg is committed to the basic rights of working people. He is committed to the rights of working people to bargain collectively and to be represented by a union and he is committed to the concept of freedom of association. Having said that, Greg understands very well the business imperatives of achieving efficiency and profitability and understands that we need profitable businesses to create employment. He is therefore a union official more in the consensus mould, following the sort of example set by Bob Hawke. But, if Greg is put in a position where he needs to protect the vulnerable, he will fight very hard for them—just ask the asbestos victims.
If you do take on Greg Combet, do not expect him to crumble under pressure; he will not. He is very resolute and a great advocate for working people. Greg plays the guitar and he keeps Gouldian finches at his home. In the middle of winter I am sure they are pretty cold little Gouldian finches, but, as Greg has said, in the Combet household you have to be tough, and those are tough finches. I also acknowledge his partner, Petra; daughter, Anna; and stepchildren. It is a beaut family. Greg has made and will continue to make a wonderful contribution to our society. (Time expired)
I rise today to inform the House about Timbarra Estate in Berwick in my electorate of La Trobe. The Victorian state government has indicated that it intends to sell off a large tract of vacant land in Timbarra adjacent to the Timbarra Primary School. It is this plan I wish to discuss. Timbarra Estate falls squarely within the Melbourne south-eastern growth corridor.
When Timbarra Estate was established in the early 1990s the land was set aside as a site for a new secondary school. Many families moved into Timbarra under the expectation that there would be a local primary school and a local secondary school beside it. Unfortunately, now the state government have reneged on their promise to local residents and we are no longer going to see a secondary school. As the matter stands, once this land is sold, the proceeds of the sale will go into the state treasury coffers, which are already brimming with GST revenue.
As one could easily imagine, residents in this area are very unhappy about this state of affairs, and a number of constituents have contacted me to voice their displeasure. They ask, ‘Why should the site which we were previously promised was to have a secondary school built on it now be sold and the money go into state government coffers when there’s no need for this?’ As these constituents have pointed out, with no other government school in the vicinity, children must go to private or Catholic schools or travel to the other side of Berwick across the highway.
My understanding is that the land is currently in abeyance while the City of Casey carries out a feasibility study. It is not certain that the City of Casey will be able to come up with the money to fund whatever proposals result. Without the state government support, the City of Casey will bear both the cost of buying the land off the state government and the cost of building the facilities. In all likelihood, it could cost between $5 million and $10 million. This would then place pressure on the council to deliver other essential services, such as local roads, upgrades and infrastructure. The Victorian state government have saved as much as $20 million by not having to build the secondary school and, with a recent surplus for the state government, there is no economic reason why they cannot just hand over the land to the local community.
I have also raised my concerns with the state Labor member for Narre Warren North, and I must congratulate the Liberal candidate for Narre Warren North, Mick Morland, who is fighting this fight, and also Councillor Brian Hetherton. But true thanks must go to the Timbarra Residents Association, led by Brian Miller and his committee, who are passionate about ensuring that justice is delivered to the residents of Timbarra after the state Labor government has broken its promises and is now doubly punishing local residents.
I rise today to speak to a petition, which I am now tabling, of some 4,936 signatures requesting that urgent action be taken to protect our children from accessing internet pornography in public libraries. This is an issue for which I have very strong support from some very important people, who I would like to mention: Brigadier Jim Wallace, the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, Bill Muehlenberg from the Australian Family Association, Mary-Louise Fowler, president of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Family Association, and my friend Warwick Marsh, who is the founder of the Fatherhood Foundation. They do great work in this area. I acknowledge his wife, Alison, and Wanda Taylor, who works tirelessly on behalf of the Fatherhood Foundation.
It was at a forum hosted by the Fatherhood Foundation in August 2005 that we heard from psychologist Dr Mary Anne Layden about the pernicious effects of internet pornography, particularly on children. In leaving that forum, I was quite convinced that action had to be taken by the federal government to mandate that internet pornography should not be made available in public libraries, because there is no code which mandates it; there is a sort of loose agreement about filtering. The Australian Library and Information Association conducted a survey which showed that a majority of public libraries did not actually have an appropriate internet filter. That is almost like walking into a public library in the old days and being able to access pornography. You should not be able to do that in a public library; it should be mandated. We here in this place set the tone of community standards, and we must protect our children from the pernicious effects of internet pornography.
This has broad bipartisan support, but what concerns me—and I have written to the Prime Minister on this particular issue—is that it is not mandated. I know that the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Helen Coonan, has put up some incentive program for libraries, and I welcome that small step forward. But, if we are serious about eliminating the scourge of internet pornography from public libraries, we mandate. I know that this has bipartisan support, because 62 members of the government signed a letter to the communications minister requesting that there be a clean feed from internet service providers, so my question is: when is the government going to get serious about taking the necessary steps to protect our children? It is not good enough for the communications minister to hide behind small steps forward, because it is our children at risk. Labor has a clean feed policy on internet service providers. It is about time Helen Coonan stepped down and the government put forward mandatory protection for children in public libraries.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:
The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:
Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take legislative action so that Federal Government funding to State and Local Government that these Governments use to fund public libraries be tied to mandatory internet pornography filters being installed in public libraries and that Federal Government funding of Australian child care services be tied to mandatory internet pornography filters being installed in child care services.
In 1996, just after I was first elected to parliament, I established the Forde community contribution awards as a way of saying thank you to those special people who dedicate so much of their time to helping others. Honourable members will all know the type of people that I am speaking about: those who have done a regular shift at the Meals on Wheels for the past 10 years, those who run the local sporting clubs and coach the local teams, those who always put up their hand when it is time for the Red Shield Appeal or if there is a working bee at the local community centre and those special people who take on the job of chairman, secretary or treasurer at the local RSL, P&C, Quota, CWA or sporting associations.
These people are the backbone of our communities, especially our rural and regional towns. They symbolise the Aussie tradition of helping out a mate. They give our towns their heart and their soul and they touch the lives of others in a very positive way. Their work helps build stronger local communities where businesses, government, community organisations and individuals can work together to help others tackle some very special issues in our communities.
I have been proud to recognise many exceptional local volunteer workers over the past 10 years, and this year there were 15 remarkable recipients of the 2006 Forde community contribution awards. I want to make special mention of and pay tribute to them here in the national parliament. I know that each of these people have given so much of their time and have made real differences to our community in a variety of ways. They never seek recognition, but were nominated by grateful local residents, who value their hard work. They have worked across a range of community organisations including RSLs, schools, community centres, PCYCs, chambers of commerce, fundraisers and community groups like Quota and Lyons.
It is with great pride that I inform the House that the worthy recipients of the 2006 Forde community contribution awards were: Lynn Bartimore from Cedar Vale, John Brookes from Tamborine Mountain, Gloria Burns from Munruben, Mark Dufficy from Edens Landing, Corinne Delahunty from Kooralbyn, Wayne Fossey from Beenleigh, Rosemary Grundy from Mount Tamborine, Colin and Irene Hadwen from Windaroo, Mark Hammel from Alberton, Alison Lindgard from Logan Village, Karen Murphy from Beenleigh, Ken Reese from Bahrs Scrub and Joy and Tom Surawski from Boonah.
I feel very honoured to be able to recognise the ongoing work of these local volunteers through the awards. I hope the example of our award recipients will inspire even more local residents to take up more voluntary work.
Last night, I checked the Iraq update page of the Prime Minister’s website in search of details about the latest decision to move the 450 Australian troops now stationed in Al Muthanna province to the air base at Tallil. I know how much time, effort and money is put into updating websites, so I thought clicking on the ‘latest news on Iraq’ link would provide me with some answers. And what did I find? The latest news on Iraq was an entry of 20 June 2003—a speech made by the Prime Minister at the welcome home parade for Australian forces deployed to the Middle East. I could not believe my eyes when I read the entry for 4 June 2003, where the Prime Minister was speaking on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to John Laws on 2UE. The Prime Minister said:
I would counsel a little patience ... on the part of people who are jumping too quickly to conclusions.
Three years on, where are the weapons of mass destruction? I am a patient person, but when will the Prime Minister admit he took Australia to war on a false basis and then changed the goalposts on several occasions? We all know that the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that were used as the justification for the invasion of Iraq did not exist. Why does the Prime Minister’s website omit significant and important historical facts? Where is the reference to the parliamentary committee’s report of 1 March 2004 that shows the government used intelligence assessments to suit its own political ends? And what about the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group back in September 2004? It said that it ‘found no evidence of WMD or post-1991 WMD production’. Where is the honest acknowledgement that our nation was taken to war based on a lie—
The member for Throsby will withdraw the word ‘lie’.
based on the untruth about the weapons of mass destruction? Where is the government’s clear mission statement for our troops in Iraq and its exit strategy? Remember: we were told the deployment would be for months and not years. And why is there no reference to the number of Iraqi civilians who have died in the war, now estimated on the Iraq Body Count website to be between 38,475 and 42,889 civilians?
Given yesterday was the third anniversary of the last news item on the Prime Minister’s website, why has the Prime Minister stopped updating the Australian community on our involvement? Is it the same patience and restraint urged by the Prime Minister about WMDs that has prevented him from informing Australians visiting his website of any news from Iraq since 20 June 2003?
All of us have been very interested in the disastrous headlines for the Queensland Labor government on the health crisis engulfing that state, but I would like to bring to the attention of the Main Committee this morning a positive development in the Queensland health crisis. We have all seen the countless newspaper articles and television stories about the horrid situation in Queensland with regard to the Labor government’s handling of health and hospitals. There really has not been an electorate in the entire state which has not been hurt in some way by the ongoing Beattie government debacles, particularly in the area of health. My own federal electorate of Fisher, based on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast, is no different.
The people of Sippy Downs, in my electorate, have been played for fools by the Beattie Labor government. The former health minister, Gordon Nuttall, announced in 2005 that a block of land in Sippy Downs had been approved as a site for a new hospital. That announcement was later retracted by the new Minister for Health, Stephen Robertson, in December. The situation was rife with anxiousness and confusion as residents of this growing suburb were left bewildered as to whether they would or would not get the hospital. It was initially supposed to go not far from the University of the Sunshine Coast, a progressive and valuable asset to my electorate, and was to be used to provide tertiary training for health practitioners. Minister Robertson said the site was too small for the proposed hospital. The on-again, off-again project left residents feeling like yo-yos.
The local Labor Party state member, Chris Cummins, fell noticeably silent for much of the debate. Thankfully, of course, the coalition has a sensible, mature and hardworking replacement for the ineffectual Chris Cummins. Liberal Party candidate Councillor Steve Dickson of the Maroochy Shire Council has proven himself in local government and in business to be a high achiever who has the maturity and sense to listen to his constituents and get things done.
We have now learnt that Queensland’s Crime and Misconduct Commission has been investigating the whole Sippy Downs hospital saga. The CMC is investigating the initial decision to choose this site. This investigation is what the people of Sippy Downs and the Sunshine Coast deserve, and it is a good development in the area of Queensland health. The CMC’s concern is that the land in the area in question is being developed by a Labor Party mate, Mr Bruce McDiarmid. The site last year was lauded by Mr Chris Cummins as well as Noosa MP Cate Molloy, who was recently disendorsed by the Labor Party over a separate questionable issue, the Traveston Dam. An article in today’s Courier Mail quotes Peter Beattie as saying, at the announcement last year:
This is a great day for Queensland Health and most especially for the people of the Sunshine Coast ...
If that was a great day, given subsequent developments, I would certainly hate to see a bad one.
People right across Queensland, right across my electorate, have recognised strongly the failings of the Beattie government. The Sippy Downs hospital lie is just one of them. The state election is coming. It is important that the government be changed, and it is important that the Queensland Liberal and National Party coalition be elected to Queensland’s state government. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on an issue that will have a major significance to patriotic Australians and sporting fans over the coming seven years: TV broadcasting rights to Socceroos matches. Like 1.87 million others across Australia, I stayed up, bleary-eyed, until 4 am on Monday to watch SBS’s coverage of Australia taking on Brazil. It was a great game. I note that even the Prime Minister himself stayed up to watch the match, describing it on the John Laws program yesterday morning as ‘terrific’, and the Socceroos’ performance as ‘magnificent’.
But what I think the Prime Minister would have to agree is not magnificent or terrific is the fact that, when the curtain closes on this year’s World Cup, it will also be the last time until 2010 that the majority of Australians get to see the Socceroos in action on free-to-air TV. This is because, for the next seven years, Fox Sports has bought exclusive broadcast rights to domestic A-league matches at Australia’s national home games, including qualifiers and matches in the Asian Cup in 2007 and 2011 and World Cup qualifiers in 2008 and 2009. In fact, Australians without a pay TV subscription will not be able to tune in to see their beloved Socceroos until the cup finals in 2010.
It is even more disappointing that the loss of free-to-air broadcasting rights could have been avoided, were it not for a misguided decision by the federal government’s Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Helen Coonan, to remove the sport from the antisiphoning list—a list set up by the previous Labor government to give free-to-air networks first bite at the rights for major sporting events, before pay TV.
Minister Coonan has previously stated that Australia has very small participation in the cup. She has also said that World Cup football probably has the same level of audience interest as the Tour de France. But, given the latest ratings figures, showing a whopping $1.87 million viewers for Sunday’s cup game compared to a peak of under half a million for the 2005 Tour de France, it seems the minister grossly misread the public mood and the popularity of soccer in Australia. I think a more accurate reading of the Australian attitude to the game came from Socceroo Michael Beauchamp and reported in Bloomberg News yesterday, when he said:
Backing from the people back home has been exceptional ... Give it a few more years and it could be the No. 1 sport the way it’s growing. All the kids want to play soccer.
The weight of public opinion on this issue is clearly with Beauchamp. It is an absolute shame that the decision by an out-of-touch minister has resulted in millions of Australians being denied the chance to watch their team and, subsequently, for a true and loyal following to grow around the sport in Australia.
I absolutely agree with the Prime Minister that the ability to watch the Socceroos in action is terrific. I believe it unites us as a nation and inspires youngsters across the country to get active and participate in sport. I just wish the ministers in the government had the foresight to recognise that too and would act to protect free-to-air access to Socceroos games.
Today I make an announcement I thought I would never be making, and that is the commencement of works for Weakleys Drive interchange. Weakleys Drive interchange is at the start of the F3 freeway. It is the junction between the Pacific Highway and the New England Highway and all those communities of Maitland.
Today we announce that the federal government has raised its contribution to $40 million for the Weakleys Drive interchange. This project has been in planning for over 10 years. As members would be aware, state governments actually operate, run and build the federal highways—not the federal government. All we do is fund them. But it seems that the New South Wales state government could not get its planning act together. Some years it would consume half a million, sometimes more, and in this year’s budget it requested only $3 million to do—yet again—more planning. It was once said to me, ‘But Rome wasn’t built in a day,’ but I am sure it did not take 10 years of planning to get a small project like this built.
What we also see with this project is that the New South Wales state Labor government is incompetent in managing projects. This project has blown out from $15 million to $23 million, and now to $40 million, without a sod of soil having been turned. But the key thing is that this intersection will free up traffic flows on the New England Highway and Weakleys Drive. This intersection is congested every morning and every afternoon. It is a potential hot spot for accidents. One of the most worrying concerns is that school children travel through this electorate in school buses to the various schools around the area. I congratulate Minister Jim Lloyd, who has put his foot down and issued a memorandum of understanding to the New South Wales state Labor government supporting the Weakleys Drive project and making sure that that investment is there.
We also need to understand that it took the New South Wales state Labor government years upon years to build the link road, at a cost of $7 million, between Thornton and Beresfield, between Anderson Drive and Thornton Road. This piece of infrastructure was critical because the flyover could not be built until the link road was built. The link road will remove three sets of traffic lights from the New England Highway. One set of traffic lights will remain to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road with safety.
Critical infrastructure like this should not be overlooked, and I glad that we have been able to drag the New South Wales state Labor government, kicking and screaming, to finally turn some soil and get these roadworks completed. The disappointing thing is that, whilst tenders will be called almost immediately, it will be January 2009 before this flyover is completed. As I said, I did not think I would be making this speech in parliament announcing the commencement of works, but I am glad to do so today on behalf of my constituents for whom I have been fighting for so long.
I would like to take this opportunity today to expand briefly on several issues of the federal budget that I did not get an opportunity to speak about during the speeches on the appropriations bills, either at the consideration in detail stage or during the second reading debate.
As I said at that time, though, the budget for the veteran community was largely a nonevent. Spending was basically static. Some new money was provided for a number of issues—for example, $20 million for mental health. But, again, that was in the context of a $1.9 billion overall general mental health package, so just over one per cent relates to the veterans community specifically. There was also some funding for the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, the rebuilding of memorials in France and the carers payment. That, of course, was good news.
I raise a couple of points that were not covered in my earlier contributions. At Senate estimates hearings Labor questioned the government on the $15.5 million in the budget to introduce the new smartcard to DVA. The appearance of the DVA health cards will change, but will retain a unique DVA branding. While there are no concrete details on these changes as yet, the department confirmed that they will be consulting with the veteran community on these changes. I urge the government to make sure that consultation does occur. The gold card is viewed by veterans as being a very important contribution to the wellbeing of veterans. If there are going to be alterations to the use or the appearance of health cards, it needs to be done very sensitively.
Some $10 million in the budget is listed as being for ‘decisions taken but not yet announced’. When questioned by Labor on what this money was for and why the government would not specify to the Australian public what it was doing with $10 million of their money, the Secretary of the DVA finally responded with ‘I am not even going to get into why governments do this. They can’. I guess they can, but the point is that the government needs to make sure that the public knows what is happening with that $10 million. It is a significant amount of money. If decisions have been taken, they need to be made known so that we can be aware of what the public purse is contributing to.
Within the Department of Veterans’ Affairs there are a number of outstanding issues. At the moment we are waiting on the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to respond to several health studies such as the atomic test veterans health study and the Vietnam veterans cancer incidence and mortality study. The minister will have these reports soon and will consider a joint response across several of the reports at the same time. I would urge action to be taken sooner rather than later. These reports have been around for some time. The issues have been looked into for some time. In some cases the veterans involved are getting to an age where they will not have a long time in the aftermath of the results of these studies. (Time expired)
Today I would like to talk about Blueprint Shoalhaven, a project in the Gilmore electorate which is jointly funded by local, state and federal government. The background of Blueprint Shoalhaven came about for two reasons. Firstly, the Shoalhaven Economic Development Strategy, released in mid-2005, sought to have the various industry sectors within the Shoalhaven examined to determine capability and future growth potential. At the same time, an air of uncertainty had arisen as a result of closures announced for mid-2006 in some prominent industries in the city. A program to examine key wealth generating sectors within the Shoalhaven economy was suggested and pursued with vigour by all levels of government in the shape of Blueprint Shoalhaven.
The process evolved like this. A team of committed industry leaders undertook to take up the challenge and examine ways to move the economy forward. The Blueprint Shoalhaven team invited business and community to prepare for the blueprint. A series of industry-specific summits were conducted to engage individuals and ideas. These successful forums were conducted over a period of some six months with specific action items developed through the process. At the final Blueprint Shoalhaven summit this Monday, an action plan will be released to move the community, business and government forward.
In the way ahead, the challenge is now to continue the process. The action items embraced all sectors of the community—not just government. Collaboration is the key to success in delivering economic benefit to the Shoalhaven. Many examples of success through joint ventures, cooperation and innovative approaches were identified through the Blueprint Shoalhaven process. There are many out there waiting to be nurtured. The support that was given would not have been possible without the commitment of the many close to the process who gave their ideas at each Blueprint mini-summit. The tourism summit was headed by Linda Marquis, the health and ageing public sector summit by Ross Clifton, the industry summit by Lynell Johnson and the defence summit by Murray Mortimer. Each industry summit had something like 100 to 150 people participating. They were run by the local people for the local community. Monday will be the culmination of six months work by a large group of people representing a broad cross-section of our community who came together determined to establish an action plan that will help guide the economic development of the Shoalhaven. The action plan presented on Monday will deliver what it set out to achieve. The plan includes realistic short- and long-term achievable outcomes. As I said earlier, the Blueprint Shoalhaven was run by local people for the local community.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members’ statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 29 March, on motion by Mr Truss:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. It is driven in large part by the 2005 Wheeler review into aviation security and policing. The Wheeler review was an important and long overdue assessment of aviation security in Australia. The government’s decision to appoint Sir John Wheeler to conduct that review was welcomed by the Labor Party at the time. Indeed, the Labor Party made a submission to the Wheeler review outlining a range of concerns Labor had held in respect of aviation security post 9-11. It is something of an indictment of the Howard government’s approach to aviation security that it took some years after the 9-11 disaster for a comprehensive review of aviation security to be undertaken. It is an indictment of its failure to take practical measures in the years that followed 9-11 2001 and the failure of the government to properly administer the Office Of Transport Security that an outside expert was required to be brought in to conduct that review. Nevertheless, as I said, Labor welcomed the Wheeler review. We made a submission to it and I believe the recommendations contained in the Wheeler review were widely accepted throughout the aviation industry as containing sound, practical measures which the government is in the process, belatedly, of implementing. The bill before us implements some of those matters that were dealt with by Wheeler.
The bill operates in two main ways. First, the bill improves operational arrangements in the regulation of cargo inspection. Cargo inspection was a matter of concern included in the submission that I gave on behalf of the Labor Party to Sir John Wheeler and it was a matter of comment and concern to Sir John Wheeler in the recommendations that he produced. Second, this bill allows for the variation of security regimes at airports for special events such as the upcoming APEC 2007 heads of government conference and the Australian International Airshow at Avalon, which is held on a biennial basis. I think the next Avalon air show is due in March 2007. This bill provides for some variation of procedures so that major activities of that kind can be dealt with under a different regime. That is, I think, a sound approach.
Cargo security is improved in the bill by clarifying the requirements for cargo being examined, certified and cleared. Labor called for improvements of this kind in its submission to Wheeler, but cargo is still not being appropriately screened in Australia. This bill, whilst offering some improvements, does not address a number of practical holes in the system. They are, in part, the subject of an amendment I will be moving shortly.
Labor shares the view outlined in the explanatory memorandum that the one size fits all approach under the current arrangements imposes an unnecessary burden on some players. It fails to take account of the scale of operations or to take account of where the particular provider fits into the supply chain of the cargo service. The creation of two separate classes of cargo businesses—regulated air cargo agents and accredited air cargo agents—is, we think, an appropriate security regime without becoming unnecessarily burdensome on smaller operators.
Cargo, as it relates to the aviation industry, is often handled by multiple operators and passes through several consolidation points before it gets loaded onto an aircraft. For that reason, it is not always appropriate for cargo screening to take place exclusively at airports and, indeed, apart from a security aspect of this, there are efficiencies that I think industry would take advantage of in being able to conduct screening at other points in the process. It is a practice, I know, that is followed in other countries. Having not long ago visited the United States to talk about homeland security matters, I am aware that they are looking at sophisticated methods of cargo tracking and security at various stages of production, not simply at the point of departure or at the point of boarding an aircraft.
Screening at airports, whilst practical for passengers and baggage—indeed, absolutely essential for passengers and baggage—is not always practical for air cargo. Cargo security must occur wherever possible from the start of the transport chain, through a validation process to the point of departure. This bill amends what was an inflexible act that attempted to treat cargo like passengers. And, as I said, that is a change which we regard as appropriate.
The two classes of cargo agents clarified in the bill will be subject to regulations and consultation with industry for the purpose of intercepting cargo in the transport chain prior to being loaded onto an aircraft. I encourage the government in its consultations to cast a broad net amongst the range operators—the cargo merchants, the forwarding agents and the transport companies and airlines. I also encourage the government to consult with the representatives of the workers in the industry. The government has benefited, as has national security when it has dealt with areas such as maritime security cards and aviation security cards, by consulting not just the major employers involved but also the relevant unions. The workers in these industries have a very vital interest in these matters and often have a perspective and knowledge of events that provides for improvements that would not otherwise be incorporated into these security regimes. That is certainly the case in cargo. Over the course of the last 12 months I have received a range of advice and good information from people working on site in these places who are able to identify potential shortcomings in the system. Their knowledge and expertise, not to mention their clear interest in these matters, is important. If there were to be a terrorist event, if there were to be an explosive device contained in the cargo, these are the very people whose lives are at risk first and foremost. They have a high stake in ensuring the security of cargo transport is as good as it can be and their input and that of those who represent them in the trade union movement should be actively sought in the consultation process.
Other security fixes in this bill allow for regulations against unlawful aviation interference and also to prescribe requirements in relation to each type of airside event zone. Prescribed requirements can include the screening of people, vehicles or goods for entry to airside event zones and the security checking, including any background checking, of people who have access to airside event zones.
In essence, this bill makes it easier for an aviation industry participant to vary the usual security arrangements at security controlled airports during certain specified events. An airside event is an event which occurs in an area located within the airside zone of a security controlled airport. For most of us who travel as passengers on aircraft, that is those parts of the airport we are not allowed into. It is the security restricted parts of the airport zone. Under the bill, a zone in a security controlled airport could be managed at a lower level of security than that which normally applies to that area. Operating an event at a lower level of security must be approved by the secretary of the department, who is required to satisfy himself or herself that the risk of a proposed event will be managed in an appropriate way. Furthermore, events that happen airside in a security controlled airport with a lower level of security must also use a screening point to control access to vulnerable aircraft and runways.
These changes are practical measures, but I think we need to understand that, whilst they are practical measures appropriate for events such as those that I mentioned—for example, the International Airshow at Avalon in 2007—they are nonetheless a reduction in what would otherwise be tighter security. I think in those circumstances it would be prudent for the Inspector of Transport Security to be required to monitor the operation of these new arrangements and to report—and I believe the minister should report to the parliament—on the operation of these new arrangements so that the parliament, along with the government and the public, can be confident that these new, less stringent arrangements for significant events that are airside can be carried out in a manner that facilitates the event with a minimum of interference whilst at the same time not compromising the level of security that I know all Australians expect to be provided at their airports.
Sadly, as is the case with this bill, on too many occasions the government’s response to the threat of terrorism has been too slow, too focused on laws and insufficiently focused on practical measures. This bill actually does deal with a number of practical measures. We have to bear in mind that we stand here in the middle of 2006 discussing changes in airport security and that the world focused very heavily on airport security matters on 11 September 2001. We are nearly five years down the track, and we are now dealing with this matter. The government has been extraordinarily slow to act, particularly slow when you consider the public spin this government likes to place on matters associated with security and in response to terrorism. The government has been keen to legislate, but it is far less capable of implementing practical measures that make a difference. Accordingly, 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 condemns the Howard Government for its failure to provide necessary air-security and protect Australians, including its:
I could easily have expanded that list of items of concern that Labor has with respect to aviation security and the government’s failure to address a number of important measures. But they are amongst the most significant, and I want to take a few minutes to refer to those items.
The government, with the support of the Labor Party and the industry, put in place a new aviation security identification card system, the ASIC system, and that is a necessary requirement to improve security at our airports. This system has been operating for only a couple of years, and something in the order of 10,000 ASICs have been issued. The frightening fact of life is that, with only 10,000 ASICs in circulation for only a couple of years, we know that at least 384 of them have been lost or are unaccounted for. We know that 384 have been lost or unaccounted for, because that information was given in evidence at the end of last year to a Senate inquiry.
The fact that, from a total of 10,000 cards, some hundreds of ASICs can be lost in the space of a couple of years should cause great concern to anybody with an interest in security matters. It does make you wonder about this government’s capacity to implement the national ID card that was being suggested a few months ago. If this government cannot competently manage a 10,000 security card system in the aviation industry, you are only left to wonder what the effect would be of this incompetent government trying to administer the 16 million ID cards that were being touted for security purposes—although I know the government now says that we are not going to have an ID card for security purposes and Minister Hockey and others are pursuing some alternative, supposedly to reduce identity theft and fraud.
Be that as it may, the simple fact is that in this quite confined area of airport security, hundreds of security cards, out of about 10,000, have been lost or misplaced. We know where two of them are, because two individuals were charged with the offence of improperly using them and I think are currently before the courts. Those two individuals were carrying aviation security identification cards without authority. So we know the whereabouts of two of those misplaced cards but unfortunately we do not know the whereabouts of the other few hundred misplaced cards.
A security system is as good as its weakest point. The entire aviation security system at airports relies upon ASICs. They authorise people to enter security sensitive areas of an airport. To think that in the space of a couple of years they could be so mismanaged as to see a few hundred lost or unaccounted for is mind-boggling. What confidence can the public have in the administration that this government is responsible for when that is the outcome? As shadow minister for homeland security, I have to say I have little confidence in this government’s management ability in these areas. This government is far more concerned with getting the political spin right, with getting the headlines right, and far less concerned with getting the security on the ground in place. We see a situation where the operation of these critically important ASICs has been completely maladministered by the Howard government. It is a terrible state of affairs.
Baggage is still not being X-rayed as the government said it would be. The government made an announcement some years ago that by 31 December 2004 all checked baggage on international flights departing Australia would be X-rayed. Certainly a couple of months ago that was not the case and, as far as I am aware, that is still not the case. A couple of months ago Australia’s largest airport, Sydney airport, was not X-raying 100 per cent of checked baggage on international flights. That is more than a year after the deadline by which this government said it would have that system in place. Maybe something has happened in the last couple of months, but this week I made some inquiries to try to find out whether Sydney airport is now X-raying 100 per cent of its checked international baggage. The advice I was given this week is that they are not. I have not been able to get a third confirmation on that; hence my qualification on the statement.
But even if that has happened in the last couple of months it is an appalling performance by this government. Some years ago it set itself a target of ensuring that, by the end of December 2004, 100 per cent of international checked baggage would be X-rayed. By the end of December 2005, it had not done it. By the middle of 2006, on my best advice it still has not done it. If you cannot implement those basic security arrangements in our largest international airport, what signal does that send to the rest of the world? Of course, it is one of the reasons why you see the speculation surrounding people such as Schapelle Corby. The debate as to whether or not baggage was being properly handled or whether it could be interfered with was raised in the defence of Schapelle Corby by her lawyers and supporters. I do not want to get into the argument about Schapelle Corby’s case—that is a matter for another debate—but the fact that a large number of Australians were quite happy to believe Schapelle Corby’s defence indicates that the Australian public think it is quite possible, if not probable, that their baggage on these flights can be interfered with. The fact is that we know some of it has been. We know people have been arrested for interfering with baggage, and there was a drug ring operating at Sydney international airport.
We even had the bizarre situation of a fellow who worked at the airport taking a camel suit out of one of the pieces of luggage and parading around the airport. We can all have a bit of a chuckle about someone doing that, but there is a very serious side to that story. If somebody can interfere with the baggage in that way, they can just as easily put drugs in, put a bomb in or do anything with the luggage—put it in or take it out. That is not a secure system. Leaving aside the question of responding to terrorism, that is not an acceptable standard for any customer-client relationship. But when we are talking about questions of security, particularly post 11 September, it beggars belief that we could see that sort of malaise in the day-to-day operation of security on the ground.
As we stand here today, my best advice is that we are still not X-raying 100 per cent of the baggage going out of Sydney on international flights. They X-ray some of it, and the bits they do not X-ray they swab—and no-one pretends that the swabbing is a substitute for X-ray. If it were, that is what we would be setting as the standard. We do not. The standard is to X-ray 100 per cent, and it is not happening. We are about to reach another deadline shortly, which is to X-ray 100 per cent of domestic checked baggage. We will see whether or not the government can manage that better than they manage the international cargo. Sydney airport managed to get itself a special exemption from that. Sydney Airports Corporation, headed up by Max Moore-Wilton—a person well known to members in this parliament and a former head of the Prime Minister’s department—managed to get an exemption.
So the Department of Transport and Regional Services allows Sydney airport to continue an operation that fails to meet the standard which the government itself set and the deadline of 2004 for that standard to be met. It happens to be an issue of speculation—more in the industry than in politics—as to how that conversation went that enabled the corporation that Max Moore-Wilton heads up to get that special exemption, but there are plenty of other people in the industry who have cast a cynical eye over the arrangements that have seen this government allow Sydney airport to operate a less secure screening process than other airports in Australia are obliged to follow. The sooner Sydney gets its act together and does X-ray 100 per cent of international baggage—as I believe most, if not all, other international airports do—the better it will be for the entire Australian travelling public.
There is also a problem with cargo on those flights that include checked baggage. This is cargo carried on passenger aircraft. The Wheeler report made comment about that. Wheeler said:
It is recommended that the Australian Government require that the screening of cargo be expanded and include mandatory screening of all cargo on passenger aircraft where passengers’ checked baggage is screened.
Very shortly, Australian regulations will require all domestic and all international flights in Australia to have checked baggage X-rayed. So the simple answer here is: wherever there are passengers on planes who can check baggage in, we should also be ensuring that the cargo on those flights is subject to the same scrutiny—that it is X-rayed as well. I am not sure whether that recommendation has been adopted across all airports. I would be interested in advice from the minister in reply to this debate confirming what the situation is with that. Certainly my understanding is that it is not followed in all airports, but I think it is nonetheless a sensible recommendation from Wheeler that deserves consideration.
There is a separate matter, of course, which is air cargo on cargo flights. On that matter I have had a number of representations from people who work in the industry. They are very concerned that the security is inadequate. It was a matter that we included in our submission to Wheeler last year, when Sir John Wheeler was here in Australia and I discussed it with him. I think it is also an area of concern as part of the overall aviation security envelope.
The amendment also refers to the government’s failure to properly upgrade security at regional airports. One thing which became clear and which is mentioned quite a bit in the Wheeler report is a problem that people responsible for security at regional airports have to confront. Examples have been given of people being able to get on a plane in a low-security environment airport, where they are not X-rayed and their baggage is not checked, and landing at a high-security airport, a counter-terrorism first-response airport, and being able to walk airside with very little supervision. That was a matter of concern to Labor and it was an issue raised also by Sir John Wheeler. There is also the problem of the actual security of those airports.
The government’s response to that has been to build some fences. As people in the industry have said, the fences are more useful for keeping the rabbits and the wallabies out than for protecting the security of the airport. There are some questions that we have to look at seriously for regional Australian airports. Some provincial airports, quite significant sized airports, that have flights regularly into our capital cities have inadequate security—and the government, as a priority, needs to look at those. Sir John Wheeler said as much. The government again has been slow to pick up that recommendation and to put in place practical measures to address it.
The final point in my second reading amendment deals with the establishment of adequate security for charter flights. A lot of focus has been put on the operation of our major airlines—and correctly so—but Australia has a significant charter flight industry. Typically, charter flights fly from different terminals to the main airlines. They can be on the opposite side of the airfield or quite some distance away from the normal security structures that exist for major airline passenger travel, and an audit of that charter industry needs to be undertaken.
People who have focused on situations like September 11, with the threat of the hijacking of aircraft and so on, I think wrongly focus on the hijacking of large aircraft. A lot of good work has been done in securing large aircraft. I think the Australian aviation industry can be proud of the work that it has done to make sure that our large aircraft are as secure as they reasonably can be made. The assumption made by some that you have to have a very big aircraft to have an impact in an incident I think misunderstands not only the motive of some terrorists but also the other half of the equation—that is, if a plane is going to be hijacked for the purpose of turning it into a missile, the impact can be determined just as easily by what the plane runs into as distinct from the size of the plane. There are a number of targets you could identify that are potentially explosive and would produce a catastrophic incident should a small aircraft be hijacked and used as a missile with them in mind.
I think we pay too little attention to the charter industry and the small aircraft industry in this security debate. In a sense, with questions associated with terrorism, we run the risk of doing what military planners condemn, which is planning to fight the last war. We run the risk of planning to deal with the last terrorist attack rather than contemplating what the next terrorist attack might be. After September 11, there has been a flurry of activity to make large aircraft secure and to make major airport terminals secure—and that is the right thing to do. I applaud efforts in that direction. But it is folly to pretend that, having done that, we have addressed aviation security questions.
We do confront the threat of terrorist activity. We need to be ahead of the game and not playing catch-up. In the aviation industry, a couple of areas where we simply have not been ahead of the game are the aircraft charter and cargo sectors of the industry. This bill does not address those issues adequately, although, as I said, we do support the provisions in the bill that are practical. I hope the government takes up the Labor Party’s suggestion that these matters should be the subject of review and report to parliament, particularly those that deal with the relaxation of procedures for major events. A sound enough position is in the bill, but it is appropriate that these matters be the subject of public consideration so that we can be confident that the changes we are making with this bill are, indeed, correct on balance.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
It is a pleasure to speak today on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006 and to follow the comments made by the member for Brisbane. This government has been vigilant in ensuring that our legislation and our forces are up to date and are able to deal quickly and effectively with terror threats, which are becoming an increasingly permanent part of the international landscape. As has been demonstrated in recent terror attacks, there are a range of different ways that terrorists can choose to strike and it is impossible to fully tabulate those and prepare for every contingency in advance. Consequently, the government has to be proactive in ensuring that our security measures are tight and effective across the board and that we do not fall into the trap, as outlined by the member for Brisbane, of merely confining our preparedness and our antiterror activities to the narrow band of contingencies that were exhibited, say, in the 9-11 attacks.
Our security forces and the government as a whole are much more creative than that and do have the proactive capacity to be able to plan more generally, to anticipate some of those potential contingencies and to make preparations for that. We have seen plenty of examples of that right across Australia at every level of government. We have seen coordinated planning between the Commonwealth and the state and local authorities—for example, looking at critical infrastructure and looking at a whole range of different ways in which a terror threat may manifest itself. So I think it is a bit glib of the member for Brisbane to have criticised the government when such a broad-ranging effort has been undertaken.
This bill deals with aviation security, and it follows on from the 2005 Wheeler review. It has been designed in consultation with the industry. There are two major concerns that are addressed within the bill: firstly, improving the regulatory arrangements that would apply when a security controlled airport conducts activities that are not part of its usual business and, secondly, better arrangements for the management of cargo management and handling.
I was listening to the comments of the member for Brisbane, and in his address he criticised the government for being too slow to act on the terror threat. I rebut that completely. I think the government has been comprehensive in its response. It has not been a knee-jerk response. It has been a considered, weighted, ongoing response. As potential contingencies have been developed and considered properly within all those different levels of government, they have found their appropriate home and are dealt with in that time. It is not a knee-jerk response. It is a considered, effective response. If the member for Brisbane wants to criticise the government for being tardy in response to the 9-11 incident, I can equally go back to incidents in the past and I could criticise former Labor governments for failing to respond.
I remember when I was working at the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin in Queensland, which was about the period that Labor came to power federally. There was a huge gold heist in which people crawled into the belly of planes. They basically posted themselves in boxes all over Australia and were sent in the belly of an aircraft. It was so simplistic it is unbelievable that they were able to do it, but they did it. Off they went in these posted packages on board the plane. Of course, as soon as the plane took off and got into the air, they crawled out of their little boxes and proceeded to open various packages within the aircraft that contained gold.
I notice that, in the statistics that I have drummed up in looking at this incident and in looking at this bill, there is quite a proportion of aircraft cargo which does involve the transportation of gold. The three top exports by value of air cargo are non-monetary gold, medicinal and pharmaceutical products and miscellaneous manufactured articles. So in about 1983 we had an incident where human beings who had been able to post themselves in boxes on board planes leapt out of the boxes and were able to steal gold shipments from on board that aircraft. This was foiled only when some eagle-eyed baggage handler at Rockhampton airport, as I recall, happened to notice an arm sticking out of a package and, of course, it was attached to one of these bandits.
A one-armed bandit!
Yes, a one-armed bandit. He was not one-armed—he had two arms and one of those arms was hanging onto a whole bunch of gold. What was the Labor Party’s response to that? Mr Deputy Speaker, I submit that, if you were to properly analyse that, you could see the possibility of a whole lot of horrors coming out of that incident. If a human being could crawl onto an aircraft and conduct an activity like that, then who knows how many bombs might be able to be put, or what sort of sabotage or what other kind of activity might be able to be got up to, in the belly of an aircraft anywhere in Australia. In fact, you could say a properly-functioning government considering such an activity might start to anticipate that a coordinated series of attacks on aircraft could occur and that that might have an outcome. If you wanted to be wise in hindsight, you could say that, but I believe that the member for Brisbane and the opposition in general are now trying to be too clever by half and are taking the obvious course of saying, ‘You are being too soft,’ and, if the opportunity presents itself, no doubt they would also say that the government is being too hard in its responses. They really are just presenting an argument for argument’s sake, and if you want to do that then let us go back and consider what you the Labor Party did in response to that great gold heist. What was the outcome of that? Stuff all!
The member for Brisbane was saying that we are not X-raying every single bag going by. They certainly did not X-ray those boxes that contained the human beings that were hopping on the planes and stealing the gold. It really is quite incredible that they—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.
Does the honourable member seek to ask a question?
I do.
Does the member accept the question?
Yes, certainly, I am all for that.
Thank you. Proceed.
Sir Frederick Wheeler, in the report that he made to this parliament for your government, suggested that baggage on passenger aircraft be carried. It is not in the government legislation, but do you support it?
It is wonderful that the member opposite raises the Wheeler report because, of course, the legislation we are dealing with is responding directly to the Wheeler report. Given that the Wheeler report was completed on 12 September last year, and given that it came down with that finding, is it not a shame that Wheeler did not conduct his inquiry back in 1983 after the gold heist? If there was going to be a serious examination of aircraft security measures, would you not think that in the very early days of the Hawke government they would have been concerned about the capacity of human beings to crawl into an aircraft and commit sabotage or other things? But, no, there they were charging along telling the community in general that anyone who complained about such a thing was probably a bum.
There are two parts to this bill. Firstly I would like to talk about events which occur at airports and that are outside the usual business of an airport. I am sure we can think of things that they might be—for example, air shows. There have been several fantastic air shows conducted at the local RAAF Base Amberley. The one that comes around every year is the Avalon air show. Obviously, events such as that need to be carefully managed so that they do not present opportunities for terrorism or for some other kind of sabotage or activity that threatens the security of our country.
Of course, whenever a dignitary such as a visiting international representative arrives at an airport a huge press contingent turns up and that disrupts the usual activity of an airport. It is similar when pop stars turn up. When the Beatles arrived in Australia there was a huge disruption. We have to be able to plan for that. That is part of this bill. Upcoming events which this legislation will apply to would include APEC 2007. That is an incredible undertaking with activities going on all over the country in a range of different locations. That is an absolutely vital and important part of the business of our country and international affairs and it needs to be carefully resourced. Of course, there is the international air show at Avalon next year. Similarly, that also needs to be addressed.
This bill allows security zones to be tailored to suit each of these events and indeed other events that may take place. Security controlled airports range in size and complexity from airports such as Sydney and Melbourne dealing with very high traffic right down to small, low-volume regional airports. There is every reason for us to have this kind of flexibility and capability to be able to put measures in place at somewhere as remote as Hamilton Island airport or the airport at Proserpine. These are things we need to be able to control effectively.
Thus the level of threat and the level of risk varies according to the airport. There is a misrepresentation continually coming from members opposite. As if the government is going to be able to be fully prepared for every single contingency. You can only do that sort of thing with the wisdom of hindsight. ‘If only we had greater awareness then perhaps 9-11 would never have happened. If only we had greater awareness, perhaps they would not have been, back in 1983, stealing gold off planes, as they did then.’ You can only say that with hindsight. We are getting an effort from the opposition to paint the government in a light that is unfavourable by simply highlighting every little opportunity that they might happen to trip over or be able to misrepresent as being a threat to the public, to scare the pants off the public and to perhaps win the view of the public and win their support to the notion that what is being done is inadequate.
However, as the Wheeler report has demonstrated, the response of the government is comprehensive and wide ranging. The Wheeler report made 17 recommendations dealing with a range of issues, including policing roles and responsibilities at airports, the procedures for background checking, and the flow of information and intelligence to airport operators as well as government agencies.
Since the completion of the Wheeler report, there has been quite a deal of funding allocated to implement the measures recommended by Wheeler. In total, the government has committed $866 million in response to that report. The figure includes the initial $119.5 million announced in response to the review in September 2005 and an additional $644 million covered in the 2006-07 budget. In total, since September 11, 2001, the government has committed more than $1.1 billion in aviation security initiatives.
Additional packages include $214 million towards enhancing aviation security capability and programs, $48 million for securing our regional skies and $21 million towards the Regional Air Funding Program. I commend that expenditure to members opposite. Perhaps they might like to consider it while they are nitpicking with various elements around the edges.
The government has also taken measures to strengthen air cargo security. The government, in partnership with industry, will implement new measures to further strengthen the security of domestic and international air cargo through a $48 million package of initiatives announced in the 2006-07 budget which complement and are directly associated with the bill we are dealing with today. The funding will significantly increase the ability of DOTARS and Customs to identify, inspect and respond to high risk export air cargo. The additional funding reflects the government’s strong commitment to counter potential security threats to the aviation sector and to improve the safety and security of aircraft and airline passengers. The sum of $35 million will be provided to Customs primarily for the purposes of introducing the use of mobile X-ray units and additional explosive detector dog teams to examine export air cargo. The sum of $13 million is to be provided to DOTARS to expand the use of explosive trace detection equipment.
Both international and domestic air cargo are securely regulated by DOTARS through the Regulated Air Cargo Agents Scheme. There are approximately 850 air cargo businesses currently securely regulated. I say ‘securely regulated’ in that these days those companies are so much more heavily and carefully scrutinised and so much more effectively monitored with the various checks and balances that apply that it is incredible to believe that back in 1983 people were able to crawl on planes by simply couriering themselves one to the other. This is an incredible jump forward. It shows an awareness by the government of this problem and it also shows that as we move forward and as further potential issues arise there will be a constant revision of the regime within which air cargo companies work, of the monitoring program that is applied to them, of the enforcement and policing measures that apply, of the coordination between police forces and policing measures, and of the regulations that apply to the transportation of the cargo itself.
There has been quite a deal of work through the Department of Transport and Regional Services on the implementation of measures flowing from the Wheeler review and also in the wake of the COAG response, which involved every level of Australian government. Work to date by DOTARS on implementation includes the appointment of additional security analysis staff to facilitate the exchange of security and criminal related information, and significant progress has been made on strengthening background checking. The ASIC background checking regime has been strengthened by removing grandfathering provisions including a pattern of criminality and providing for more frequent background checking where a lower level of criminal activity is evident.
The necessary regulatory changes have been made and the new strengthening disqualifying criteria for the pattern of criminality came into effect on Monday, 6 March 2006. In addition, the government will establish a new division within the Attorney-General’s Department to coordinate background checking on people working in the secure areas of air and sea ports.
As I say, this is a comprehensive program that goes to the grassroots of the cargo management system and extends right through to proactive planning of policing and other activities. I commend the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006 to the House. It is an effective response by the government, and I give it my full support.
I am happy to endorse the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006. Minor changes have been made in terms of Australia’s aviation transport security—the first steps, as indicated by Minister Truss, in responding to Wheeler’s report. But those first steps are relatively minor. There were 17 major recommendations in the report. Here we have two. What do they affect? Special events. What is the core of the action taken in relation to special events? The action is to say that, where you have a security controlled airport, effectively the level of security you need can be variable. This bill allows for that variability based on events, whether they are large or small. The bill allows you to have a much lesser security level imposed given the nature of a particular event, so that you do not have the same expectation throughout all of the operations of the airport.
You would have to wonder how significant this bill actually is as a response to the problems at Sydney airport and others. I would say, firstly, in my estimation it is extremely minor. It is a welcome step, sure, but minor. Secondly, in relation to air cargo and air cargo screening, a series of changes have been made here, and they are important. Why? Because we still do not have a full regime to ensure that, where cargo goes by air in passenger aircraft, there is full screening of that cargo. Currently only 80 per cent is screened. Are you happy to fly it when you know that 20 per cent of the cargo is not screened at all? People who own the aircraft and people who are flying on those aircraft should—given that the world has changed and given that the member for Blair’s speech was fundamentally about hindsight and about trawling back to when we were last in government—realise that things are different.
Whenever any party is in government, it is material to ask about what they did in relation to the challenges and responses that faced them. It may surprise the government to know that they have been in power for 10 whole years—an entire decade; one-tenth of a century. They should be responsible and they should take responsibility for what happens on their watch. Will the government do it? The answer to that, fundamentally, is no. Try and find a minister who will take responsibility for what really happens within their purview and within their effective control. It has not happened since 1998. Try to find a member of the government who will stand up and say, ‘There really still are fundamental problems in the area of aviation security.’
This bill is only minor in taking two small recommendations from Wheeler. Does it really get down to the core of what Wheeler identified? I grant that John Anderson, who was then minister for transport, asked Wheeler—an international expert in relation to not only airport security but also the related matters of policing and terrorist effect—to conduct this review. I am glad that he did it. The results of that review are very important. But the key recommendations in the report are not in this bill, and they should be. If the government has laboured since September 2005 to bring forward this product, it should be an elephant and not a mouse. What we have is a mouse. The core recommendation that Wheeler made is that there should be one policing force responsible for aviation security within Australian airports. Is that in this bill? The answer is no.
We know that Wheeler identified problems with Customs and what Customs powers are in relation to the airport. We know that there are problems with the operation of the Australian Federal Police at airports—that there are not enough AFP officers and that there is a combined presence of the AFP, the Australian Protective Service and private security companies, which I will come back to. I have spoken about this before, but it represents a fundamental problem with security clearances, an aspect specifically dealt with in this bill and in the amendment. There is also an interface with state policing organisations. What did Wheeler say specifically about this? He said that he wanted more extensive intelligence sharing and recommended ‘a permanent police presence at 11 major airports under a single airport police commander at a staffing level based on threat and risk assessment’.
However, this government does not take seriously the charge that is put on it by the Australian community—the charge to take charge of what it should be in charge of. When this government took office, it declared, through the National Commission of Audit—which it designed and presented—that the Commonwealth government should not take responsibility for a single element of service delivery in Australia. The goal of this government, expressed 10 years ago in a yellow covered document of about 160 pages, was that the Commonwealth should merely audit and benchmark. It should be a spectator sitting on the sidelines. Where is the model for that? Question time. Where is the real action, according to the way this government sees it? The action is in the press gallery or it is in the public galleries, with people looking on, watching and saying, ‘They should be doing better, shouldn’t they? or, ‘There should be a bit more action in relation to this.’ This government will not take responsibility for what is in its charge and it will not really move to do what it needs to do to aggressively fix the problem of aviation security in Australia.
The member for Brisbane outlined a series of arguments in relation to the sorts of things that should be happening and argued for those in regard to our amendments. But the underpinning factor here is that the government has paid money to someone insightful, Wheeler, to do a report. He has come in, had a look at the situation and said effectively, ‘This is a mess’—and it has been a mess for a long time. It does not matter who is in government. We were in government previously and this government has been in government for a decade. If it is a mess, fix it. If you do not fix it, every Australian travelling through Sydney airport is at peril, for a range of different reasons. But most of the peril does not come from those coming into and passing through airports. From a series of revelations that have been made over the past six to 12 months and from those that have occurred before then, we know that part of the peril comes from there being no effective control over what happens on the other side of the fence—that security clearances are not right.
I have argued previously, both in the Main Committee and in this House, that this government needs to look carefully at exactly what is happening with those security clearances that are being given. What are the key problem areas that are not addressed in the changes that have been made here? The key problem areas are in the embedded groups of people who have been there for a long time. Go to Sydney airport and talk to security staff who work there. I have done that, so I know them personally. When they were Qantas security staff, I was involved in helping them in trying to keep their jobs, before airport security was taken over by a private security company and they were thrown out.
We now have a scaled reaction in terms of security, which is one of the fundamental problems. Airport security has been outsourced because we do not have an Australian government with the gumption of the American government. The American government takes responsibility for aviation security at its airports. It employs federal government employees to be responsible for aviation security—not only to undertake all of its aspects but also to be directly responsible to the elected representative who is in charge who, in the end, is responsible and has to report to the President and his cabinet. They take it from the very ground.
What does the government here do? Not only does it allow the situation where we do not have a single police force under a single commander so that one particular element can take control of and have responsibility and regard for the whole situation; it also allows the situation where a security company can take up the head lease and say, ‘Yes, we will provide security on this airport,’ and then sublet that task to another security company or a series of companies, which can then employ people on a temporary or casual basis. Security checking in that regard has been absolutely useless. No-one has really vetted those people. This bill goes a very small way to do that, but that is a fundamental area where there are particular problems.
We know from the first indications that baggage handlers who should not have been working there were identified as having previous terrorist connections. We know from that that this should have been taken far more seriously than it has been. We have a situation where the security at Sydney airport in particular, although identified by Wheeler, has not been comprehensively addressed. Part of the reason is that the government just does not understand the depth of the problem at Sydney airport. The only fundamental solution to clearing out the security problems, the criminal activity that is rampant at Sydney airport and the associated potential for terrorists to operate with the people who have acted criminally at Sydney airport over decades, is to put the state police in control—not the AFP, because they do not have the resources; not the APS; not a series of different entities that have not been coordinated in the past. We need to put aside any jealousies with regard to this and say that what we need at Sydney airport and in the other major airports is state police under state control. They will take full responsibility and have the use of experienced detectives and constabulary who know what to look for in terms of identifying criminal activity and stamping it out. You still need to regulate that very heavily because the money to be made at airports throughout Australia and particularly in Sydney is simply massive.
Previously, there have been massive security holes and people could conduct criminal activities with enormous amounts of cargo going through those airports. They have had a number of different ways of going about covering up what they were doing, including making sure that extra CCTV cameras that have been provided as part of this are either turned off or not used. They have used a series of different approaches. But you need to actually take this out by root and branch. If it cannot be done effectively then you need to ensure that the steps are made here—the first two steps out of the 17—and that the mouse-like steps that have been taken are added to quickly with the further recommendations of Wheeler.
So I would suggest to the minister that he looks seriously at what Wheeler has said and at what would not be a normal response—that is, saying: maybe we should have the state police actively involved in providing security and also coordinate with Customs to ensure that we actually stamp out the criminal practices that have been involved there for decades. We need to break up the groups that have been involved in trafficking through those airports and therefore take more effective measures at stopping the confluence of crime and terrorism at those major airports. So it is not just a question of saying, ‘In the past Labor was in government and a couple of one-armed, two-armed or three-armed bandits stole gold and did all the rest of it.’ You could say that the response to that by whoever was responsible for that at the time was completely inadequate, but the world changed from September 2001. Things are dramatically different.
Sydney airport is not far from me, but I also have Bankstown Airport in my electorate. The question of what is done in relation to charter aircraft is not dealt with materially here; it is dealt with in our amendment. There is the failure to establish adequate security measures for charter flights. We have charter flights running out of Bankstown Airport and there are still inadequate controls. Further, we have had some upgrading of security at Bankstown Airport, but our amendment quite specifically says that to properly upgrade security at regional airports you have to take much greater measures.
There is still vulnerability at the major airports because there is access from those regional airports that are not, and never will be, security controlled. So I support those two elements. I have already supported the other element of our amendment here: that all baggage should be screened, and indeed all cargo, because the world is different. The thrust of the argument from the member for Blair was that you cannot really make preparation; you cannot just base it all on hindsight. The government’s job is to be foresightful, to look ahead, to plan and not merely to react, but in particular to plan more effectively because of the depth of the problem that is apparent here.
I go to the key question—and this has been looked at twice, really. There has been the Wheeler review, which was so significant, and there has also been a joint committee on aviation security in Australia. They proposed a review of this act. They also proposed changes to background checking processes of applications for aviation security identification cards, and we have got that element involved there. But I do not think there is an understanding of the complexity of this right down at the lower level, and that is: if you do not grab and take charge of something, if you allow it to be conducted by other agencies and private companies, then you are not just not taking responsibility for it, you are probably not going to fix the problems.
I do not think it is well understood that in the United States—the central capitalist country for the whole of the Western world, the one that is laid up as that—they are not as ideological as this government. They are not as hidebound by what they have convinced themselves to believe. The Americans still fundamentally understand that it is the duty of American state and federal governments to secure their citizens and to take responsibility for running the programs that will secure them and not to allow private companies that they cannot control to operate in this area. Certainly they will not be responsible for them. They can audit and benchmark what those private companies are doing as much they want, but I am not as assured when going onto Australian aircraft with the security mechanisms that we have got here, both front of house and back of house, as I am when I go to the United States. They take a hell of a lot longer to process you, but you are pretty sure now that you are going to get from one end of that process to the other, and I know there is a government willing to take charge and take responsibility, whatever its partisan stripe. That has happened in the United States. That lesson needs to be taken on board by this government.
They were very significant arguments from that Senate committee, but I want to go to another aspect that Wheeler pointed out and that aspect is very important. The review found that security infrastructure at airports was lacking. It recommended an increase in CCTV coverage of all international airports, a tightening-up of the security card system including amalgamation and streamlining of its processes, and it stated:
The present Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) system has a number of weaknesses, and there is confusion as to what airport access an ASIC enables.
… … …
Some casual or contract workers, such as security screeners and cleaners do not initially hold ASICs and may not always be accompanied on the job by an ASIC holder as required under current legislation.
Unless that is fixed, as Wheeler recommended, we remain at great risk because the casualisation of security on our airports is not something that we can afford. You cannot have people wandering in and out of the place who have not been properly vetted; it needs to be strictly controlled. But that is not the mode of operation that exists in Australia’s security controlled airports now. It is not properly addressed by this, even though there are some changes within this. I do not think the level of threat is really appreciated by the government, nor do I think they appreciate how much they actually have to do here.
To sum up, where are we with this? We have got a mouse instead of an elephant. We have got two recommendations instead of the other 15 out of Wheeler. The two recommendations do come from the joint committee report—at least the government has taken those up. But if this is the government’s first response it sure as hell better have some second, third and fourth responses pretty quickly. I would hazard a guess that it may not, because it does not take seriously enough or understand the responsibilities it has. It does not understand that governments need to grasp those problems and fundamentally say, ‘Yes, even if we have thought in the past that we should be out of this game and be simply auditing and benchmarking, we will take responsibility for what is in our charge and ensure that we do not just take the minimum number of changes and put those into effect but that we get to the very core and hub of what is the problem with aviation security and fix it and fix it now.’
It does give me great pleasure today to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006, which amends some previous legislation and will enable improvement of the operational arrangements for aviation security. There are three areas here, but I will start with the first area. I wholeheartedly welcome the first set of amendments in the bill, because I have been involved in events over many years and I can see that the first amendment, which focuses on managing events and specialised activities at security controlled airports, is desperately needed. There are many occasions where airport operators manage events or specialised activities that are outside their usual business. These include receiving and farewelling dignitaries at international airports, managing large commercial ventures such as air shows and hosting community events at a regional airport. I believe that the special events security rules being tailored to suit the type of event being held show particular merit.
There is a proposed aviation conference and exhibition to be held in Wagga Wagga, which is expected to attract more than 5,000 visitors each year by 2009 to 2011. That is pretty exciting for the business operators, the motel industry and the events industry. The whole of our community and region at large would get a major financial and economic benefit from something like this happening. The organisers have had discussions with me. They have talked about a similar event that is held in a town in the US with a similar population to that of Wagga Wagga—about 62,000 people. This event in the US has grown and now attracts about 750,000 visitors annually, and facilities have been set up to make it an owner-operator stopover. That event provides an enormous contribution to their city and their district.
I do not see the event in Wagga Wagga attracting 750,000 visitors annually, but I certainly hope that it will achieve its target of 5,000 visitors. That would have a significant impact once a year and provide enormous benefits. If we have this event in Forest Hill at the airport, there will be a great spin-off. It is important that we promote tourism in regional areas, and it is my view that this bill will make it easier for the organisers of the event in Wagga Wagga to continue to plan and to have it as a calendar event in the shortest possible time.
My area, the Riverina, is ideally placed as a central fly-in destination. David Lowy has invested big time in the Temora Aviation Museum. It is an attraction to behold, and I encourage anybody who is interested in aviation to visit Temora. It is something you would expect to see only in a major metropolitan city placed in a tourism zone, and yet here in Temora, with the assistance of the Temora Shire Council and the absolute commitment of the industry, we have seen the Temora Aviation Museum grow and prosper and become a place of renown. It is something that they need to be very proud of.
The entire region has good prospects for continued aviation, and while I believe the existing scheme of airport security zones is well adapted to those routine activities, the industry has indicated that there is a need for a more flexible structure in order to manage these specialised areas and many of these things in rural and regional airports. The bill provides for a system of event zones, which will make it far easier to appropriately vary or suspend some of the usual security arrangements for the duration of an event, such as the one I have just spoken about. For example, some events that we have are so strictly managed that it is simply not necessary to require everyone present to wear an aviation security identity card.
I go to an example of that in relation to a regional express airlines fundraiser. Rex, our fantastically successful regional carrier, has a fundraiser each year. Last year that fundraiser was for Country Hope, which supports kids with cancer. It was a sensational day. There was airside access, but it was tightly controlled. It was a great family day, raising significant dollars for Country Hope to meet the needs of the local children who are suffering from cancer. This is another area of need that is addressed by this bill. Rex requires measures such as these not only to contribute to regional airline and aviation opportunities for regional people but also to go further and offer the services of all of its staff and the finances and economics of its business in order to put in place fundraisers which benefit country kids with cancer. I very much support schedule 1 in the bill, which will improve the regulatory arrangements for airport security by creating event zones that may be used when an airport conducts an activity that is not part of its usual transport business.
Schedule 2 of the bill looks at the way in which we deal with cargo. We all know that the new aviation security regulatory framework came into effect in March 2005 following the passage of the Aviation Transport Security Act and subsequent making of the aviation transport security regulations. The purpose of that framework was to prevent unlawful interference with aviation through an entire range of mechanisms and measures, one of which has been to install security in airports right across Australia.
An airport in my electorate that has been high on the agenda and that recently received some funding—it is its third stage of funding of $202,000 to upgrade security—is Griffith Airport. It was one of 147 regional airports that were required to have a transport security program approved by the Australian government to strengthen aviation security around the country. But there were some problems, particularly in Griffith, because an aviation industry was set up in a boundary and a zone that was airside. That presented a problem for a particular industry operating out of Griffith Airport. Through no fault of its own, it had established Skycroppers, which found that access to their supplier was going to be limited by the impact of the security legislation.
To their great credit, the minister’s office and the Griffith City Council have been working with the owner-operator of Skycroppers to try to resolve this difficult situation. Whilst it is great to insist on implementing security at Griffith Airport we have businesses to think about. It was a stressful time for the operator of Skycroppers. He could not seem to work his way through the mire of issues that were going to see him unable to accept the sort of customer he had in the past. His was one of those industries that have come under consideration, bearing in mind that he has agricultural chemicals on board. We had to do something to ensure that access to this business was controlled and secure, with ASICs, et cetera. But the guy had to be able to continue to operate his business. He could not be stymied by this type of regulation, about which people have spoken so passionately, in our efforts to enforce security across Australia. He is just one example of how it is not possible to do this in a carte blanche way. It is not possible to do a one-size-fits-all without impacting on people who have done nothing wrong, who established businesses before any of these processes were put in place as a result of the terrible terrorism events that we witnessed.
The good news and the upside is that through negotiation and discussion and some compromise—but certainly no compromise in the security area—we found a way forward until such time as this business is in a position whereby it will have no difficulty in complying with Griffith airport’s safety and security plan. At Griffith a large amount of both export and domestic air cargo is currently loaded aboard aircraft without any form of screening or inspection. A small business man was being impacted upon, although the issue was a large one, confronting cargo right across Australia. There is a definite risk to the aviation industry if somebody decides they are going to unlawfully interfere with aviation by putting illegal consignments of unauthorised explosives or explosive devices aboard a plane with the intention to detonate such items whilst that plane is in the air. Other risks exist with mislabelled high consequence dangerous goods. The primary focus of schedule 2 of this bill is on mitigating the risk of an active unauthorised interference with aviation.
We might have heard in debate that we should have in place a far more rigorous security process throughout Australian aviation. The way the minister is going about it, responding to and putting in place recommendations, is the way he should go. We should be dealing with things when we know we can manage them so we do not have unintended consequences. Schedule 2, in creating a new division 2(a) of part 4 of the act, which deals exclusively with how cargo will be examined to ensure that it is safe to be carried by aircraft, was drafted with a lot of thought, a lot of information and an understanding of the long chain of events involved in how a product comes to be a part of the cargo on an aeroplane. Somebody 46th or 84th down the chain should not be impacted upon. At the beginning of the process, in a one-off situation, that carrier might have to pick up a piece of cargo that ultimately ends up in many hands thereafter, yet he is expected to have the same rigorous security principles and clearances as somebody at the front end.
This security of cargo has been an evolving issue. Implementing a security airport upgrade has enormous unintended consequences, particularly for small businesses, which have done absolutely nothing wrong. We need to recognise that there is a propensity for that to happen and the potential is there for severe unintended consequences that could put people out of business simply because we have been too rigorous and used too much gusto in the way we have implemented these measures of security. There is no one way that airline and aviation can be totally 110 per cent protected from an event taking place. We want to ensure that there is a sense of importance about aviation security. We want to implement, as it becomes available, a program to ensure further airport and aviation security for the traveller and to ensure that we keep in the minds of people that it is safe to travel on airlines.
Let us be very clear: there will be mechanisms and ways for people to break laws, but the intention to continue to try to interface with people in order to establish and introduce new amendments to our legislation is an excellent way forward to ensure that our airline industry is as protected as possible and our consumers are as protected as possible. But in doing so we must ensure that our small businesses and people who could be impacted on in an enormous way through unintended consequences are also considered in the introduction of these measures. I support the minister and I support the commonsense approach to the way in which the aviation transport security bill is being added to. I support these sensible amendments. There will probably be many more but I think this is the exact way that policy should be implemented to ensure that there are as few as possible unintended consequences.
In addressing the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006 I strongly support the amendment moved by my friend the member for Brisbane, the shadow minister for aviation and transport security. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to improve aviation security by making new rules for the inspection of air cargo and to allow for improved aviation security during special events at airports, such as the arrival of heads of government for next year’s APEC summit.
It does seem passing strange that the government should be amending its own aviation security legislation after only two years. The 2004 act was, after all, framed in the light of events of September 11 2001 and if its provisions are now deemed to be inadequate this seems an admission that the 2004 act was inadequate at the time it was passed. We can now see that the 2004 act was pushed through parliament without sufficient scrutiny or thought, as we on this side said at the time. Security legislation is urgent by its very nature, but that is no excuse for sloppy legislation that has to be substantially amended only two years later. As we have heard, this legislation takes up only two of the 15 recommendations of the Wheeler report—the serious report that was done into aviation security as a result of widespread feeling that this issue had not been properly examined and that the previous legislation was inadequate.
I must also make the point that the government’s failures in this respect reflect a continuing stubborn resistance to the idea of a minister for homeland security. Labor, in the form of the honourable member for Brisbane, has a shadow minister for homeland security and a shadow minister for aviation and transport security. This gives him oversight of the whole security area within Australia and a broad view of the issues involved.
On the government side, responsibility is divided between the Attorney-General, who has many other things to deal with, and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, who also has a very broad portfolio. There is no single minister with responsibility for homeland security issues in continental Australia. In the new security environment which has existed since 2001, this is not good enough for the Australian people. It is bad enough that this inefficient arrangement has produced inadequate legislation such as the bill we are now amending. It will be infinitely worse if the glaring holes in our aviation and maritime security arrangements lead to a successful terrorist strike on mainland Australia. That is the risk the government is running by clinging to its outmoded, pre-2001 ministerial arrangements.
Having said that, to the extent that this bill aims to improve Australia’s aviation security, it is welcome and the opposition supports it. However, the honourable member for Brisbane has moved an amendment referring to the government’s mismanagement of the aviation security identification card system; its failure to ensure that all baggage is screened, a year after the Wheeler review and nearly five years after September 11; its failure to properly upgrade security at regional airports; and its failure to establish adequate security arrangements for charter flights.
The first part of the bill amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to improve the regulatory arrangements for airport security by creating event zones that may be used when an airport conducts an activity that is not part of its usual transport business such as the welcoming of a head of state, an air show or a commercial or public event.
The second part of the bill deals with the process of how cargo is to be examined to ensure that it is safe to be carried on aircraft and how cargo is to be cleared for air carriage. The bill allows for the creation of two separate classes of cargo businesses—regulated air cargo agents and accredited air cargo agents. These two classes of cargo agents will be subject to regulations to be designed in consultation with industry so that cargo that might pose a threat to aviation can be detected and intercepted before it is loaded onto an aircraft.
The third part of the bill allows the secretary to approve alterations to existing transport security programs. This new alteration process will operate as a less formal alternative to the existing process by which a program can only be changed by means of a formal revision. The intention of this section is to make it easier for an aviation company to make changes to its operational practice so as to conform to the requirements of the regulatory framework.
These are all appropriate and sensible measures, which is why we are supporting them. We always support genuine security measures when they are properly explained to this House. I do not think it is appropriate that the security bills become a matter of partisan debate, and that is a view widely shared in the opposition. But it is the duty of the opposition to hold the government to account, and that is why I again make the point that it is surprisingly disappointing to find that, nearly five years after September 11, this government is still trying to get a law relating to aviation security right. It is still introducing measures which should and could have been introduced years ago, and it is still failing to take the further necessary steps referred to in the opposition amendment.
Let me turn to the amendments relating to cargo. In its submission to the Wheeler review, Labor suggested a series of improvements, but now we find that cargo is still not appropriately screened in Australia. These amendments are a belated recognition of the weakness of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. Nevertheless, this bill does offer some improvements to aviation security. We agree that the one-size-fits-all approach, which imposes the same degree of regulatory burden on all companies regardless of size and without taking into account their role in the handling of cargo, is a problem. The creation of two separate classes of cargo businesses—regulated air cargo agents and accredited air cargo agents—is an improvement to the security regime and will make it easier for small companies to comply with the law. We also agree—and, in fact, have argued in the past—that screening of cargo at airports is not practical and creates an incentive for companies to try to evade screening. The existing act treats cargo as if it were the same as passengers, another sign that the original act was rushed through this House by a complacent government without fully thinking through the security implications of this problem in aviation security revealed in both Australia and other countries.
The amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane refers to, amongst other things, the government’s mismanagement of the aviation security identity card. There are serious problems with this system. In April this year a constituent wrote to me and to the minister describing the long delays in making these cards available and the effect this was having on the ability of people to earn a living in the aviation industry. Let me read some of the points made in this letter by my constituent so that people will therefore get an understanding of how it affects people individually:
I am a free lance pilot.
In august of last year I applied for an ASIC card ... which is essential for me to work, as I will be required to fly into aerodromes where holding an ASIC card is mandatory.
As a result of administrative failures these cards have been very slow in coming and many pilots have still to receive their cards. I have made over twenty enquiries by phone and e-mail with regard to the progress of my application. I received two letters prior to the deadline for implementation of the AS1C requirement, telling me that my application was being processed but have had no mail, e-mail or phone calls informing me of progress since then.
Finally as a result of persistently telephoning to CASA, last week I found that my application had been refused. I was told that I should have received a letter informing me of the reason. The person I was dealing with could not tell me why I had been refused but said that they would contact someone and call me back with details of a contact person who I could discuss it with. They also said that I could appeal the decision. Despite a multitude of attempts since, 1 have not been unable to contact anyone by telephone nor e-mail nor have I been able to find information on the websites as to how to proceed. The web sites are circular. You find a reference to appeals and follow it and end up at the initial page of the web site.
If the appeal process mirrors the application process I will have another 8 months to wait, to most likely be met by a refusal of the appeal as a result of either bureaucratic timidity or the blunt instrument nature of the regulations and the requirements.
It is chaos and my livelihood depends on it being resolved.
This is not good enough. I understand that the appeal process to CASA is very difficult for people like this constituent to get through. I believe that he had a minor infraction of the law some 15 years previous to that. But there should have been, as then minister for transport, Mr Anderson, promised at the time, an ability for people to make commonsense appeals on the basis of having no major criminal record, it being their livelihood and having demonstrated a record of safe operations in the aviation sphere. The fact that this has not happened in the case of this person is very regrettable.
Let me return to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane. Let us just go back to the ‘mismanagement of the ASIC system’. The mismanagement of this aviation security identity card by the transport minister, Warren Truss, is a clear-cut example of what we regard as incompetence. When the minister for transport set an arbitrary date for the ID card applications of 31 December 2005, he failed to take into account the time taken for pilots to pay for and receive police checks. That had the potential to create massive holes in this crucial defence in the war on terror. I have given you an example of precisely how one individual has been adversely affected.
The second part of the amendment of the honourable member for Brisbane deals with the ‘failure to ensure all baggage is screened’. Almost one year after the Wheeler review and nearly five years after September 11, the government still does not screen all cargo and baggage on passenger aircraft where passengers’ checked baggage is screened. I believe this is toying with the lives of the Australian people. Cargo checked onto passenger aircraft ought to be screened in the same way that passengers are screened.
The next part of the honourable member for Brisbane’s amendment concerns the ‘failure to properly upgrade security at regional airports’. A large number of regional airports with more than 50,000 passenger movements a day are still not required to have passenger and ground staff screening facilities. Passengers travelling to regional centres from major airports such as Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane are subject to screening. However, when flying out of key regional airports, passengers are not screened.
Let me remind you where the events of September 11 started. They started in a small regional airport in Portland, Maine. The infamous vision of the hijackers going on to the planes was actually filmed in Portland airport, on the CCTVs. I do appreciate the earnest hard work that many private and public people in protective agencies do at major airports and regional airports. We all have to go through the inconvenience of taking off belts and having explosive checks when we are just about to miss a flight, but millions of people put up with that. But the government does not pay sufficient attention to the pattern of how people have practised international terrorism previously, including the major events of September 11 which sparked incredible international concern and which began at a regional airport, as I said, in a small American state. The hijackers flew from there to a major airport, in Boston, to commence their dreadful flights into the twin towers. That is something that ought to be borne in mind by all of the Australian public, and we ought to have our regional airports upgraded.
The other part of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane concerns the ‘failure to establish adequate security measures for charter flights’. The government’s failure to hold any real investigation into secure cockpit arrangements of certain classes of charter planes is, I believe, playing with the lives of Australian people, just as the member for Brisbane suggested.
I want to conclude by referring to one other area that I believe the Australian government, Qantas and other people should be looking into in airline security, and that is the eventual necessity to place on Australian aircraft, particularly major Australian aircraft flying through regional hubs where there is evidence of the activity of such nefarious groups as Jemaah Islamiah, the kinds of devices to deflect shoulder-fired missiles that are being placed on British civilian aircraft. These missiles are referred to as MANPADS. Some international airlines are having anti-MANPAD devices deployed on all important civilian aircraft that they fly. Remember that in November 2002 terrorists associated with al-Qaeda fired two shoulder-launched missiles at an aircraft leaving Mombasa, Kenya. The attack was claimed by al-Qaeda. It was, fortunately, unsuccessful. Only in May of this year a major antiterrorist operation was launched in Switzerland when Swiss agents discovered another al-Qaeda plan to down an aircraft. That airline had ceased flying to Geneva for a whole week in December last year. The story was given that it was for technical reasons, but it was in fact because of good intelligence that an attack using shoulder-fired missiles was planned on an aircraft.
Internationally, the cost of these missiles is coming down more and more. I believe we have to be very open-minded, particularly with regard to major Qantas jumbos landing in Bangkok, Jakarta and Bali. These are the kinds of arrangements that a far-sighted government would be talking to Qantas about and subsidising. When I first raised this issue a couple of years ago the Prime Minister wobbled the day afterwards and suggested that the government might be speaking to Qantas about introducing deflection devices. After what I regard as overconfident reassurances from Qantas, the government backed down. I believe it is certainly something that, given the constantly lowering price of this technology, the Australian people should look at and demand of their government and their major international airline, Qantas.
I think certain things happen in our lifetimes that we will always remember where we were at the very moment that they happened. I recall some of those events, like the assassination of John F Kennedy, when man first set foot on the moon, when Princess Diana died and, of course, the events of 9-11. The member for Melbourne Ports will be well aware where the Prime Minister was on the occasion of 9-11. He was in Washington, and he had first-hand experience of the trauma that the American people felt with the events of 9-11.
I will speak very briefly on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006, because aviation security is a high priority for the Howard government and the regulatory framework is under constant review to ensure that we can respond to changing threats to our aviation industry, our people and our economy. The amendments in this bill are not about increasing requirements and burdens on stakeholders. They are about making the existing legal framework more flexible so it can more easily and quickly meet a variety of needs on different occasions instead of being a one-size-fits-all approach—an approach which can be inefficient and unnecessarily burdensome on the stakeholders.
The bill has two aspects: special events at airports, and cargo before it is loaded on to the plane. Firstly, the bill creates event zones within airport boundaries, allowing flexibility to handle a range of special events at airports. Secondly, it broadens the security processes governing domestic and international cargo before it is loaded on to the aircraft, allowing more flexibility to meet the changing needs. The bill aims to better tailor aviation security outcomes to aviation business operations. Sometimes special events outside normal operational events can be held at airports. Examples would include a community event at a regional airport, an air show or the arrival of a foreign head of state at a major airport. It is not feasible under the act to specify general rules to apply to all such events because, firstly, airports differ in size and complexity; secondly, there is a great variation in the subject matter, size and complexity of different events; and, lastly, different types of events carry different levels of security threat.
The amendments to schedule 1 of the bill focus on creating a more flexible legal framework which allows different types of event zones to be prescribed to manage different kinds of events within airport boundaries. It does not necessarily mean tighter security processes for an event. With appropriate safeguards and risk assessment and evaluation, sometimes events will be able to be managed at a lower level of security than that which applies generally to the airside area. This could mean, for instance, relaxing requirements to display photographic ID and making it easier to permit the use of tools that would otherwise be prohibited items.
While export air cargo makes up only one per cent of Australia’s annual exports in volume, it represents 21 per cent in value, so the security of our air cargo supply chain is critical to our economy. Cargo is often handled by multiple operators, and a large proportion of our export and domestic cargo is currently unscreened. When you realise that 80 per cent of cargo is carried on passenger planes, you understand how important air cargo security is not just to the economy or to industry but to the safety of our people. One of our major concerns is explosive devices, but robust air cargo security measures the government believes necessary for the protection of our people, our trade and our economy are not possible under the current regulatory framework, because cargo is combined into the section of the act for screening people and baggage.
People and their baggage are identified and screened at airports before entering a sterile area. Cargo is different. The cargo security supply chain extends well beyond the airport environment and may be handled by a number of agencies between dispatch and the airport. The act is currently not flexible enough to accommodate that. It cannot, for instance, direct the cargo terminal operators to use explosive trace detection on cargo before it reaches the airport. Neither does the current legislation provide the flexibility for a layered approach. It does not distinguish between a multinational company with significant air cargo business transporting, storing and consolidating cargo and a small courier business which occasionally picks up an item that may be transported by air. Neither does it capture all businesses that handle air cargo.
This bill creates a separate framework for cargo regulation instead of including it with people and luggage and introduces a new class of regulated business so that a layered approach can be used to broaden the security coverage without imposing onerous burdens on the smaller players in the transport network. After extensive consultation, this was found to be the preferred option both for industry and for government agencies. The subsequent regulations will also be developed in consultation with industry.
These amendments do not introduce additional requirements on any industry stakeholders; what they do is establish a legal framework which allows regulations to be made specifically relating to the security of cargo before it is loaded onto an aircraft, instead of lumping it into the section of the act governing people and their luggage. It also provides more flexibility to deal with a diverse range of special events at controlled airports without endangering security or imposing unnecessary restrictions. As the minister said in his second reading speech, this bill is the first step in the review of aviation security legislation that was recommended in the 2005 Wheeler review. It is designed not only to improve security outcomes but also to allow for better alignment of regulations with actual operations in the air cargo industry. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on this important amendment bill and to add my voice to the concerns raised by the shadow minister. This bill amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and changes the regulatory arrangements in three important ways, as the shadow minister has explained. For the benefit of the House, I would like to briefly summarise the amendments proposed by the government. Firstly, schedule 1 alters the regulatory arrangements for airport security by creating event zones. These will be designed for use when conducting special events at an airport, such as the arrival and departure of visiting foreign dignitaries—for example, the arrival of the official delegation of the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum to be hosted by Australia in 2007.
Secondly, schedule 2 creates a new division 2A of part 4 of the act to deal exclusively with the methods by which cargo is to be examined and cleared for air carriage. The schedule also allows for the creation of two separate classes of cargo businesses: regulated air cargo agents and accredited air cargo agents. The creation of two separate classes of cargo businesses seems to be a logical step. The one-size-fits-all approach under current circumstances imposes the same level of regulatory burden and red tape across all cargo carrying businesses, irrespective of the scale of their operations and without consideration of the business place in the chain of supply.
Finally, this bill proposes to give the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services the power to approve alterations to an existing transport security program. This will mean that such changes to security arrangements will be much easier to undertake than through the existing process, by which a program can only be changed by means of a formal revision.
While we on this side of the House support the measures in this bill, the opposition calls for the government to refer this legislation to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, and that call should be heeded. These matters are too important to be treated in the cavalier way in which this government treats important legislation, as the member for Calare pointed out yesterday. The Senate committee would be able to give these issues the serious consideration that they deserve.
I am very concerned that what the government has proposed in the Senate regarding the Senate committee process will severely water down Senate committee procedures and practices. Unfortunately, I believe it will lead to a lot of legislation not receiving the adequate scrutiny that it deserves in that forum. I think this is just another example of where the government is watering down the whole process of democracy in this country by removing parliamentary scrutiny at all levels and reducing debate on vitally important pieces of legislation and issues. I hope the government will see the light and change its mind on what it intends to do with the Senate committee process, because I believe abolishing a large number of committees and then putting government members in charge of those committees is a serious threat to our democratic process.
The problem is that the government is just determined to ram this legislation through the parliament without our being able to give it due attention. Once again, the Howard government is treating the parliament and all of its members with contempt. It is a clear sign of the fact that this government has been too long in office and its arrogance is palpable. It is our belief on this side of the House that this bill highlights the abject failure of the Howard government to come to grips with the increased demands on all transport systems in these days of heightened terrorist risk. Members will recall the chaos which surrounded the government’s appointment of Sir John Wheeler to review Australia’s airport security systems.
I am pleased that Sir John Wheeler was able to undertake this work for the government, given his deep understanding and broad experience of these matters. The recommendations in his report should have already been implemented but, sadly, they have not been. The fact remains that, if this government had been doing its job, there would not have been the need for such a review. The Wheeler report, of itself, was an indictment of the former minister. It cited completely inadequate information-sharing arrangements, the desperate need for better intelligence on criminal and illegal activities at airports and the need to X-ray all baggage and cargo.
The Wheeler report was also a de facto report card on the then minister: the report card said one word with a capital F, and that word was ‘Fail’. No wonder the member for Gwydir went scurrying off to early retirement on the back bench. He was a total embarrassment to the government and indeed, in my view, to The Nationals. It is doubly embarrassing for the government that one of the most neglected aspects of aviation security which Sir John identified was in fact regional airport security. This was one aspect of aviation security with which we would have thought the former minister would be concerned. But, no, as usual he postured and pouted on regional issues while failing in a real sense to look after the interests of regional Australians. In typical fashion, the then minister was more concerned to get some dubious regional projects through the vetting process of an intimidated and compromised bureaucracy. Meanwhile, regional airports have become a disgrace.
At the time, Sir John reported that airports at Gladstone, Grafton, Tamworth, Port Lincoln and Devonport did not even have screening of passengers, let alone of baggage. Some did not even have proper perimeter fencing. So much for the then minister. We all know that he established the Wheeler inquiry in a panic when he realised that his petulant obsession with handing out rorts to his coalition colleagues and turning a blind eye to the AWB giving funds to Saddam Hussein had distracted his attention from his day job of running Australia’s airport and aviation security systems. The fact that the minister has since resigned, pending his retirement from this place, is a plus for all Australians in many ways—not least for those who have a genuine concern for the safety of our transport systems.
It is vitally important that airport and aviation security be strengthened, but we need to ensure that no stones are left unturned in our pursuit of the best aviation airport security in the world, because that is what all Australians deserve. That is why the Senate committee should be asked to review the matters before the House in this legislation. Doubtless the government will reject this eminently sensible suggestion or, as I have said, because they are modifying the committee process in the Senate they might be able to get away with a kangaroo court type inquiry rather than a very transparent and appropriate inquiry.
Labor supports the passage of this bill, but further and better aviation security is required. The roll-out of the aviation security identification cards must be done immediately. The risks in not doing so are substantial, and I will cover some examples a little later. At risk is the safety of all Australians who travel by air and who work at airports. The stinginess of this government in failing to ensure that urgent upgrades are carried out is appalling. This government is willing to squander many hundreds of millions of dollars on taxpayer-funded political advertising, yet it will not spend the money necessary to ensure that all Australians can travel knowing that their safety is assured and that all Australians who run businesses at airports or who work at airports can do so safely. Put plainly, this government is playing with Australian lives. That is the tragedy of this government’s incompetent management of airport and aviation security. It must be fixed as a matter of urgency.
I want to look at some issues surrounding the airport in my electorate of Swan, Perth airport. I raise firstly an incident that happened over a year ago. I have talked about the need to improve the aviation security identification cards, but these are the sorts of things that can occur even if you do have in place a decent system of cards and identification. If you do not have policing in place to ensure that people with cards are screened, you will have all sorts of problems. In this incident that happened over a year ago, in March 2005, three allegedly inebriated men were able to scale the airport security fence and get on board one of our big aircraft. They spent over an hour on board this aircraft having a great old time in first class, drinking all the wine and whatever was left there. Finally, after an hour of being on the aircraft, they were apprehended and dealt with.
Unfortunately, the minister who was in charge of security at the time, Chris Ellison, claimed, ‘It doesn’t really matter, it was just a joke and, quite frankly, it’s not that much of an issue.’ The issue is this: if those people had intended to do some serious damage and were on this aircraft for over an hour without being apprehended, it could have created enormous problems for Perth airport or for any airport that did not have proper security in place. Despite the minister dismissing the incident as nothing more than a bit of drunken larking about, when these people appeared in court the lawyer who was prosecuting the case said that the matter was so grave and threatening, the magistrate should throw the book at the trio.
That incident, which happened at Perth International Airport, is one example of there being significant flaws in security. In another example, a senior citizen managed to wander onto the tarmac and climb aboard a plane that was bound for Singapore. He had no identification and no boarding pass. He might have been a little deranged. He managed to wander onto the tarmac and get on board the aircraft and he was told, ‘Hang on, you haven’t even got a boarding pass—there’s something seriously wrong here.’ It would not have mattered if he had had a security card, because no-one was bothering to police that particular problem.
We had another incident at Perth International Airport which was slightly different. A guy who was a bit unhappy with what was going on at the airport decided that he was going to have his own little protest and he rode his motorbike through the front doors of the international airport. He managed to drive right into the booking area and through the front windows. If he had been a terrorist, it would have created a serious problem for us at that airport.
I would also like to talk about what happens with cargo, given that this bill talks about doing some more screening. We have some serious problems at Perth airport, because it is on the way to the gulf in the Middle East and military aircraft often use the airport. A lot of explosives, rocket launchers and other sorts of military equipment is handled through the airport. I am very concerned that if people such as those I have mentioned can get on the tarmac and access ordinary aircraft then they could also access civilian aircraft that might be used by the military to carry military payloads. It is totally unacceptable that the security is so slack that these sorts of incidents can occur.
For example, not so recently the military put in a request to on-load 10,000 kilos of explosives at Perth, which request was knocked back. But you do not need a permit to load up to 3,000 kilos of high explosives on to aircraft operating out of Perth airport. Three thousand kilos is an enormous amount of explosives in its own right. The flight carrying that cargo is directed on its flight path across the suburbs of Perth on its way to either the eastern states or overseas. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you consider the impact of 3,000 kilos of explosives going off inappropriately because someone might have boarded the aircraft and set a charge, you realise that something needs to be done to ensure that these sorts of incidents cannot occur. That type of cargo not only needs to be screened but also protected when it is on the ground.
I was very alarmed to find out that, when we were leasing these aircraft previously, they were going to Pearce air base, where they were fully guarded, receiving a full SAS payload and coming down to Perth and, because they were considered to be commercial and not military aircraft when landing at Perth, they were subjected to no security whatsoever. In addition, often they would stay overnight on the tarmac before refuelling and taking off en route to the gulf. That is a frightening concept, when you consider that people without passes could access that tarmac with that sort of payload sitting there on the ground without adequate protection. We have now bought C17s, which will operate as military aircraft. But I am concerned that, if Perth airport is to be used in the future for loading and off-loading of those particular aircraft, we need to ensure there will be proper security at that airport to protect that cargo.
These are just some examples of the security issues at Perth airport, which I believe need to be addressed. If these things are happening at Perth airport, I am sure that these issues need to be addressed at other airports right across the country. I hope that the situation is improving but, as I said before, it is not clear at this stage whether the government will adequately deal with the situation.
I also see something in this bill about regulations to do with air shows at Avalon. It is great to see that the Avalon air show is coming up next year. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, we had the pleasure of going to it last year. It is a fabulous show for Australia; in fact, I understand that it is one of the best air shows in the world. I would urge anyone who has the opportunity to get down to Avalon to see it, and I commend the fact that we have some regulations there to help address that.
In conclusion, I again draw all members’ attention to the Wheeler report. In preparing for this speech, I reread that report. It is certainly worth reading. It highlights the fact that, while some of the issues he raised have been addressed, unfortunately we have a long way to go. On 29 March 2006, in his second reading speech to the House on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services proclaimed that aviation security is a high priority for this government. I think not. If that were the case, we would not have a situation where, more than four years after September 11, the government is still in a blundering mess when it comes to a nationally coordinated airport security policy. I commend the bill to the House.
Firstly, I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006. Some were constructive, some less so. Let me say that I was particularly disappointed with some of the personal insults and criticism by the honourable member for Swan of the previous minister. That is not the way he normally addresses issues. Unfortunately, it must have been a relief speechwriter that produced that effort, because the criticism in many instances I think was unfair and inappropriate—and, I might add, in some instances inaccurate.
The honourable member for Brisbane, who led off for the opposition, usually gets his lines from the trade unions; again, from his contribution today, that is clearly where his remarks came from. But usually, when you get your lines from the trade unions, the facts are wrong. That did not get in the way of the honourable member for Brisbane’s criticisms, but it would have been more constructive if a few of his facts had been right.
It is simply beyond dispute, in spite of the criticism by some members opposite, that this government has done more to upgrade security at our nation’s airports and in the aviation industry than any in our history. Since the Wheeler report alone, the government has announced another $644 million worth of budget expenditure to upgrade security. That includes significant expenditure for counter-terrorism first response teams, money for the Joint Airport Intelligence Group, funding for community policing, significant funding for CCTV and also funding for air cargo security. Indeed, the government has committed a total $1.1 billion in aviation security initiatives since September 11, 2001, so when the opposition are critical of the government’s commitment in this regard they would not want to compare our record with their own. Clearly, little was done. I accept that the environment was different in that time, and people were not as conscious or aware of the importance of security as they are today, but in reality Labor did nothing to anticipate the growing terrorism threat across the nation and then to ensure that there was a capacity within Australia to respond. That has all been left to this government, and I think we have responded in a very powerful and effective way.
I will also deal with a couple of the other comments that were made during the debate and respond to them specifically. The honourable member for Brisbane claimed that there had only been 10,000 aviation security cards issued. In fact, there have been well over 100,000 cards issued to workers in all sectors of the aviation industry. He may perhaps have confused that with the issue of ASICs to the general aviation sector, but even there his figure is wrong. There are something like 14,000 ASICs issued to pilots by CASA alone. Maybe that is where his confusion occurred. He also was critical in making claims that Sydney airport has not met its targets for checked baggage screening. I am pleased to report to the Committee that Sydney airport is achieving 100 per cent compliance with the aviation transport security regulations and is using inline multiview X-ray checked baggage screening systems to screen 100 per cent of international baggage. So the shadow minister’s claims in that regard are also incorrect.
He made some criticism as well, and I have also heard other members opposite being critical, of security at regional airports—again, not acknowledging the very substantial expenditure that this government has provided for security programs at regional airports, particularly to deal with issues like fencing, lighting, secure locks, gates, alarm systems and CCTV. I also remind the Committee that a significant program is being completed to ensure that there are now bullet-proof doors on the cockpits of all of the major aircraft operating around Australia and, of course, a whole range of other security measures which are making our aviation system very much safer than it has ever been.
However, it is true to say that security measures really have to be risk based. No-one can remove risk entirely, but we concentrate our expenditure on the areas where we consider the risks are greatest. Clearly, the larger the aircraft, the larger the airport, the greater potential there is for some kind of a security incident. A small aircraft at a remote airport is unlikely to be the centre of a major security incident. So our layering of security initiatives is designed to take greatest effect in places where the risk is highest. That is the reason we have a layered security system which puts in place additional depths of security in places where the risks are considered greater. The honourable member for Swan in his remarks referred to incidents, some of which he acknowledged were quite ancient and would have been before current security measures were put in place. That, I think, is an example of how the multilayered system of security actually works: if somebody has breached the first layer, then there is another layer, then another layer and then another layer after that before any incident can actually become serious.
So I think it is important that we look at these sorts of issues in perspective. No government will ever be able to guarantee a regime that is absolutely risk free, but we are seeking to minimise the potential for an incident to occur in Australia. Let me say that I am thankful that those measures have been successful to date and Australia has been spared the incidents and appalling acts of violence that have occurred in other parts of the world.
Turning specifically to this legislation, let me acknowledge that the Australian aviation industry is complex; therefore, dealing with all of the various elements of having a secure system is indeed a difficult task. This is the first bill to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act, so it is an important step in the never-ending task of finetuning the legal requirements of aviation security with the changing operations of aviation businesses. All the amendments in this bill were developed in consultation with the industry.
The bill will enhance Australia’s security regime by amending the Aviation Transport Security Act in three ways. Firstly, it will enable airport operators to manage security risks within airports when hosting unusual events. Reference has been made to air shows, VIP arrivals and things of that nature. I know the honourable member for Hinkler, who is in the chamber, has been particularly interested in these sections of the act because of important fly-ins and the like that are held at Bundaberg Airport. I am confident that these new arrangements will meet the honourable member for Hinkler’s concerns and ensure that events in that city are able to proceed.
This legislation also delivers more robust regulation of air cargo and allows aviation industry participants to make simple alterations to their transport security programs. We believe that these amendments will increase our high level of aviation security, will enhance national and international confidence in Australia’s regime for handling air cargo, and will provide a flexible and targeted mechanism for airport operators to manage special events and temporary, non-routine activities that can be contained in a specific area of the airport.
In the area of air cargo, the proposed amendments will maintain the broad scope of the cargo security scheme while introducing a legal framework for regulations to provide a more flexible and appropriately modulated approach to security at each step of the transport chain. Australia’s airports are used for much more than just regular passenger services. Major international airports have to be able to host receptions for the arrival and departure of VIPs. Our regional airports are a core community infrastructure and their facilities are used for a wide range of low-risk, community based activities, including air shows and even drag racing and vintage car shows. These special event amendments will enable airport operators to effectively manage the security of the events and activities that are appropriately held at airports but which are outside the airport’s core business. This will allow airports to tailor special event zones to suit the type of event they are hosting and the assessed risk that is associated with each particular event.
The government has paid careful attention to the many issues that Australian aviation has raised in our two regular industry consultative forums: the Aviation Security Advisory Forum and the Regional Industry Consultative Meeting. This bill is a response to some of the concerns that have been raised through those processes. Let me assure the committee that the Australian government is committed to working with the aviation industry in the never-ending task of protecting Australia’s travelling public and air commerce. Whilst security is primarily a matter for the industry—the airlines and the airports—the Australian government is demonstrating its willingness to work with the industry to achieve the highest possible levels of air security in this country. 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 Brisbane 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.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed from 19 June, on motion by Mr Beazley:
That the House take note of the statements.
I am pleased to be able to support the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House. It is appropriate that the parliament should consider this matter, and members of parliament should be able to comment on the very significant contribution Australia is making to the situation in East Timor. The commitment of 2,600 troops is a serious and substantial contribution. As with our troops serving anywhere in the world, they have our support and best wishes. They are amongst the best and most professional military in the world and we know that they will do us proud.
I have been fortunate enough to have spent some time in Timor Leste before I entered the House. I was honoured in 2001 to be able to visit the Australian peace enforcement team at Balibo and I was, of course, impressed with their professionalism and the obvious respect the locals had for them. As somebody who has spent some time in Timor Leste and has a reasonably significant Timorese population in their electorate, I have been particularly upset and moved to see what is happening there. When I visited East Timor there was devastation but also hope. There was hope as the nation rebuilt after the looting, the rioting and the destruction of those terrible days. There was hope for the future, hope in their oil and gas reserves, hope to build a tourism industry and hope that I think was, and is, well placed. Timor Leste could become a tourism destination of some note for Australia, which would bring revenue and important resources into Timor Leste.
I know that President Gusmao is sharing the frustration that many of us feel that the future of East Timor is in doubt. You only have to meet President Gusmao and his wife, Kirsty Sword Gusmao, to know that he has an unbelievable commitment to his nation. This means we need to examine what we can do in the future for Timor Leste. There has been much commentary on the quality of the East Timorese government. I do not propose to go into details of personalities in the East Timorese government, but you cannot expect a people who have lived under oppression for decades to automatically know exactly how to run a government. We need to do more to assist. I note that AusAID has been spending $43 million to assist the East Timorese government in building capacity and building knowledge in public administration. I think we can do more. I think $43 million is an amount which could be added to, that we could do better.
It does not just come down to money, but I was particularly disappointed with the attitude of the Australian government in the negotiations over gas and oil reserves and the maritime border between Australia and Timor Leste. I think that was a particularly unfortunate approach for a government like Australia’s to take. On the matter of capacity building, I was interested to read the comments of Sidonio Freitas, of the Timor Sea Designated Authority, who pointed out:
Below the level of ministers, the country lacks people with enough experience to fill essential jobs in order to run things on a day-to-day basis.
But we should recognise progress. According to the World Bank’s post-conflict performance indicators, Timor Leste leads a group of nine post-conflict countries on almost every indicator: public security, disarmament, demobilisation, management of inflation, education, health, and budgetary and financial management. At the same time, inflation has been brought under control and has been very low for the last two years. The President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, recently visited Timor Leste and he said:
The country is at a critical moment, as you know. With the first oil revenues starting to flow and the promise of more to come in the years ahead, the stark reality is that in almost all cases oil wealth has been a curse for developing nations more than it has been a blessing. It has often been associated with corruption, entrenches social divisions, increased poverty, and even violence.
That is what Paul Wolfowitz had to say. They are comments which do need to be taken note of in light of the current debate over the future of Timor Leste. We need to have a proper dialogue internally in this nation and with the government of Timor Leste on what role Australia can play in the ongoing redevelopment of Timor Leste. We have a particular obligation. Not only are they our close neighbour but we played a prominent and important role in their move to independence. Also, there is an emotional and moral basis in that the people of Timor Leste played an important part in the defence of Australia in our darkest days in World War II. We need to ensure that the people of Timor Leste can take their proper place amongst the first rank of the nations of the world. As somebody who, as I said at the outset, has spent time in Timor Leste and has been to visit President Gusmao in his home in the hills, I was particularly upset and devastated to see the road to his home in the hills lined by militia taking pot shots at people on their way to visit the president.
Reluctantly, but I feel essentially, I have to raise the issue of the government’s failure to recognise service in East Timor as warlike. I say reluctantly because I am reluctant to bring in a partisan political point on a motion to support our troops, which we all do. But I thought that if I did not raise the issue of warlike service, what I say would be empty rhetoric unless supporting those troops. The case for making service in Timor Leste warlike service has been most eloquently made by the member for Cowan, as is often the case. We need to learn the lessons of history. The government in 1993—and it is true that it was a Labor government—did not recognise service in Rwanda as warlike service. That was a bad decision. It is a decision which has now been corrected. Just a little while ago, this year, the decision was overturned. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the honourable member for Dunkley, said that the classification was ‘probably not an accurate account of the threat, hardship and danger’ that faced ADF personnel. Why should we wait 10 years this time? We can correct this error now. This is a terrible decision. The Prime Minister in his statements in the House told the House that this was a dangerous mission.
In his own words.
Yes, they were his own words. The Minister for Defence said:
We know that this is going to be a particularly dangerous mission ...
The Minister for Foreign Affairs said:
... there are reports of shootings, so there is a good deal of danger there.
Yet we have the extraordinary decision to deny warlike service to these 2,600 troops which delivers a saving to the government of $185,000 a day for each day this contingent is deployed. This government spends $185,000 a day on all range of matters. This is a government which can afford to spend next year almost $300 million on government advertising—party-political advertising—yet they are penny pinchers when it comes to giving money for warlike service.
I note that, appropriately, public servants and members of parliament receive a nightly allowance when they travel. For members of parliament that allowance is now $190 a night when they visit Canberra, as the member for Cowan pointed out. We have no problem with that. That is appropriate. Yet we pay somebody risking their life in Timor Leste $78 a day. If warlike service was recognised that would rise to about $150 a day, which would be a much more appropriate level of recognition.
The nation got it wrong in Rwanda. We have not learned from the mistakes of the past. We are now getting it wrong in Timor Leste. We should not wait 10 years to correct that. We should not just support the troops with our words and sentiments; we should support them in a way which matters to them. I know that the soldiers in Timor Leste would not be particularly concerned about the loss of $70 a day. What it is is a matter of principle. It is a matter of showing that the nation actually cares. It is a matter of recognising their service, that it is dangerous and that they are risking their lives. We send them our sentiments and our support. We all join together in doing that. Why don’t we all join together in supporting them in their claim for being recognised for warlike service?
In my contribution to this debate on our commitment of troops to East Timor, speaking as the member for Blaxland and also as the Deputy Chair of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I want to pay tribute to those people who are hazarding their lives and their health in the service of the Australian people and also in the service of the people of East Timor. It is a thing that not many people do. Not many people are in our defence forces; not many people put their lives at hazard for the benefit of others and in the service of others. Those who do, who have the courage to do that, need to be congratulated as often as we can do so and given the full measure of support from both sides, indeed from all parties, not only in the House of Representatives but also in the Senate.
It is in the very nature of military service that those who serve have no choice where they serve. They have no say in determining the approach a government or an opposition will take to a particular conflict. They are at the whim and behest of the government. And they are subject to a great deal of scrutiny by the media and by commentators world wide. The particular circumstances our troops find in East Timor are different from those they find in Iraq—the just announced redeployment, with the Japanese moving out of Iraq, will mean another different set of circumstances as our troops move from Al Muthanna province to another area—and they are different to the situation our troops face in Afghanistan and to the situation they face in the Solomons.
What has been proven over the whole history of our forces, but particularly in the last decade or so, is that Australian defence forces can be engaged for a variety of purposes utilising all of their expertise in a staged way. We have a commitment of about seven out of our 14 chief elements. We have the capacity to move troops in and out of all of the areas where they are, but it puts a great deal of stress on the organisation. It certainly puts a great deal of stress on our troops who are serving, because of the rapidity with which they are being moved from one area to another. Having served in East Timor, come back to Australia and possibly been redirected to the Solomons or, indeed, to Iraq, they can come back to Australia and then, because the situation in East Timor has deteriorated, be back in the firing line.
Looking back some few years, I also want to pay tribute to those members of the Australian Federal Police who, in the initial engagements in East Timor to resolve the problems of the militias, went there and worked without weapons, using their best offices and their capacities as trained officers, to help people restore order and create a situation where there would be a safe environment for everyone. It was a very difficult and tough assignment. I personally knew two of those Australian Federal Police officers because they were members of the Prime Minister’s security detachment. I know how well and effectively they undertook those tasks. It was our very best and most experienced people from the AFP who hazarded their lives to try and sort out East Timor in that first situation.
It has been suggested that, in the current situation, AFP forces should again be sent because the particular roles that can be undertaken by the military and the police are different and the nature of the task before us in Timor demands policing roles. While we understand that those forces do not have a choice or a say in determining where they go and what they are going to do and we know that their professionalism has been commented on and marked out because it is of such a significantly high standard, I think the population at large also needs to understand the range of skills that are demanded of our people and the fact that this is a lot more difficult than operations in the past.
This is not only because of the different environments that we are involved in in different areas of the world, but also because the nature of the task can rapidly change. The original efforts in East Timor were different to these. The Indonesian government was at its very weakest and there was effectively an imposition on Indonesia of a demand for the creation of East Timor. There were Indonesian government-backed guerrilla groups trying to maintain control of East Timor, and the resolution of that situation depended upon what was done at the border and on the effectiveness of Australian forces being able to dissolve the capacity of those guerrilla groups to act at will.
This situation is very different. The Indonesians are in a different position because East Timor is now free. Australia is in a much more powerfully important position because it has sought to take on a role—to intervene militarily or to provide police forces—in our region and take a leading part. The Prime Minister has said:
… Australia—a large, stable and prosperous country—has a special responsibility to act as a force for peace and order in our immediate region.
The world we live in is one where the problems of weak and fragile states, especially ones on our doorstep, can very quickly become our problems. And certainly in East Timor the problems became our problems, because of the actions of the Prime Minister and the government in what they did with Indonesia at that time, forcing this through.
There are some fundamental questions to be asked about the actions taken by this government and the sense, or lack of sense, of those actions. The fundamental first question, I think, is to do with the nature and structure of the military forces within East Timor and the fact that $70 million of Australian money was used to help set up that army. It is an army which a good many of the government in East Timor said they did not need. They said they needed a police force and doubted they actually needed an army.
The fundamental breakdown in their society does not reside simply in the problems within that army group, but certainly that was the area that allowed the whole situation to catch fire. These problems highlight the fact that Timor is not one single indivisible entity, and that the regionally based tribal groups that exist there are present in the army. They have not been moulded into an effective group that sees itself as the defenders of the country as a single unitary group. Indeed the core of the conflict goes to the differential treatment of those from the east and those from the west—the fact that some were promoted and others were not. A whole section of the force saw themselves as effectively being cut out and felt that, when they put those arguments forward, they simply could not get those in power to properly listen to them or address their problems.
So you first have to question the sense in setting up that force to start off with. You also have to ask the question of whether or not, having set up the army at a cost of $70 million, with Australian troops helping to form and shape it, understanding that there is that fundamental problem, the army should be disbanded and a reconstituted and extended police force should take its place. That is something we need to give a great deal of consideration to. The very core of this problem goes to the division within the society and the feeling that people have been dealt with unfairly and there has been an unequal approach to this. That is not easily resolved.
In all small, fragile states, but particularly in relation to a country like East Timor, which has very little in the way of natural resources and which will be dependent upon the deal done with Australia on the oil and gas resources that are in the East Timor Sea, once there are fundamental ructions between different groups, the grab for power by one particular group leads to the exclusion of the other. In that situation, which has occurred in the Solomons, in Papua New Guinea and in Fiji, independent states have significant trouble holding the society together. In that situation you have to be very careful what you do.
There are other fundamental problems of a lack of insight into and a lack of proper determination of just exactly what we are facing. To me this was evident in the decision to go into Iraq in the way that the coalition forces did. There was no proper appreciation of just how difficult it is with, firstly, a dismembered state such as Iraq, and, secondly, a nascent state such as East Timor, to put together a modern democratic country and keep it whole. It is the exception, not the rule. But the ideology being pushed over the last few years is that, on a regional basis, we and the United States should be there to create and enforce that situation for these small states.
There is a signal lesson with regard to East Timor, and that is that the problems that we now have could be much greater. Virtually everyone in the House would be aware of the significance of the tribal problems in Papua New Guinea over the last few decades. Holding that great conjunction of different groups together has been significantly difficult. Problems of corruption and the fight for power between groups have been significant. The scale of what we are dealing with in East Timor would certainly pale if we had similar problems in Papua New Guinea. That is different from Irian Jaya, because it is incorporated as part of Indonesia.
The fundamentals here go to the question of who bears responsibility, the manner in which we do it and whether the appropriate means are being used to buttress a new government. The Prime Minister, in his general discussion of this in answer to questions, has effectively tried to distance himself from the creation of the state and the creation of the burden taken on by the Australian government and the Australian people for the good governance of East Timor. It is not enough to say that the fundamental reason for this breakdown is a lack of good governance. We were there at the very birth of this nation and in fact caused it to happen. If we took on the responsibility for it in economic terms and the failure to sign up to a deal which would give an adequate and necessary income, we would simply burden Australia directly rather than through the deal that has been done here.
We do not fully appreciate the resources that need to go into not just putting our troops in now, having resolved the situation before, but going in at a point in time when they are putting their lives in hazardous situations. We need to put a lot more civil capacity into East Timor to help them to try to resolve the fundamental splits that exist within their community. This is a very hard thing to do, but if it is not done then this will be not the end of the problem but part of a continuum, where a fragmented, small and weak state could continue to be a significant problem for us and for our troops from now into the future.
What steps are necessary? Firstly, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade needs to come up with an appropriate appreciation of just what the complexities involved here are. Secondly, Australia, in taking the leading part in trying to resolve this, together with the UN and with other interested countries, needs to focus resources on trying to heal the fundamental rifts that there are within this community and trying to heal the fractures in this very new polity. If we do not seek to do that by putting adequate resources into it and trying to negotiate a way through to a proper result, then our forces, even if they are there for the short to medium term, will be forced back in the future. Civil resources put into this matter now will ensure that our troops are not put in hazardous situations. (Time expired)
In announcing Australia’s deployment of defence forces to East Timor on 25 May, the Prime Minister told the House:
This deployment also reflects what I have said on many occasions: that Australia—a large ... and prosperous country—has a special responsibility to act as a force for peace and order in our immediate region. I want to reaffirm in the strongest terms that this action is in our national interest, because the world we live in is one where the problems of weak and fragile states, especially ones on our doorstep, can very quickly become our problems.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
At the same time, I want to underscore the importance of states accepting their own responsibility for improving governance and reducing corruption, as the path to a better future.
Those remarks reflect this government’s approach to security in our region. It seems we will limit our role to that of the deputy sheriff in our region if and when we can spare the troops from deployments in other parts of the world.
The withdrawal of Australian forces as part of the UN peacekeeping mission since 2002 came in spite of repeated requests from the government of East Timor for a continued presence, but this government’s decision to cut and run from East Timor had more to do with providing troops for Iraq than a realistic assessment of the situation in East Timor. Having said that, I should add that, while the need for deploying Australian personnel in East Timor is vital at this stage, it should not be seen as a long-term solution to the instability in East Timor and a number of other small nations in our region.
I visited the Solomon Islands and spoke to RAMSI in 2005, and the recent recall of Australian forces to the Solomon Islands should remind us that stability does not come from our ability to quickly deploy troops to trouble spots. Our strategy must look toward longer term development if we are to build a secure and stable region. While security and good governance are important starting points, they do not ensure economic and social development and, if the experience of other developing nations is anything to go by, access to resources such as oil and gas is no assurance of stability and economic development.
Resource riches can be more of a curse than a blessing for the ordinary people of developing countries. When you look at countries like East Timor, the poorest nation in South-East Asia, it should be clear that assistance in economic development must be a key part of Australia’s role in the region. One form of assistance proposed for countries like East Timor is for Australia to allow young people from our region to work and train in Australia. The benefits of remittances to families at home and the increased skills gained by workers from these countries have the potential to improve the economic development of small nations in our region. While Australia does not have a history of employing guest workers, when you consider that we allow the employment of tens of thousands of backpackers, we could also see the potential in allowing the entry and employment of young people from our region in a similar way.
Last year, I attended the East Timor Independence Day celebrations hosted by the Chinese Timor association in Fairfield. The special guest at that celebration was the East Timor foreign minister, Jose Ramos Horta. Having visited the Solomon Islands shortly before the occasion where the idea was raised, I made mention in my speech of the guest worker idea. Speaking to an audience of East Timorese refugees who had made their home in Australia, the idea was warmly received. I stress that the aims of such a scheme would be to allow young Timorese to gain skills in areas such as horticulture and hospitality, as well as improved English language skills, which would equip them for employment in tourism industries and allow for future training.
In addition, money earned could be remitted to assist family members in East Timor or could be used as a foundation for establishing farms or small businesses. To my surprise, Jose Ramos Horta flatly rejected the idea, saying that East Timorese young people could look to Portugal and through there to the European Community for employment and training, and that they would prefer that the East Timorese develop their knowledge of the Portuguese language rather than English.
I can accept the desire of the East Timorese people to maintain the culture which they have fought so hard to preserve. I can appreciate the strong links between East Timor and Portugal, but my conversation with Jose Ramos Horta did lead me to consider the difficulty that Australia faces when dealing with the future deployment to East Timor. I should point out that in the present emergency, of the 3,500 personnel sent to East Timor, Portugal has provided only 127, while Australia has provided 2,800. I can imagine the difficulty faced in what is essentially a policing task for law enforcement operations where the court system is based on Portuguese law and where the official language is Portuguese
I mentioned earlier that I attended the East Timor independence celebrations last year. Western Sydney is home to a large number of refugees from East Timor. I should note in passing that only after considerable action on the part of religious and community groups was the plight of some 1,600 East Timorese refugees in Australia finally recognised by this government. I raised the case of Pedro Cham back in 2003, an East Timorese refugee who faced deportation after eight years in Australia. I can recall at that time claims by the government that East Timor was a safe and stable country. Well, we have seen just how fragile that environment was. I am grateful that the government finally saw sense and granted permanent residency to the Cham family and hundreds of other East Timor refugees.
That leads me to question the accuracy of our assessments of the stability of East Timor over the past three years. What warnings did the government have about the deteriorating situation on the ground in East Timor and why did the government continue to push for the ending of the United Nations presence, if it was aware of what was happening? The 2,800 Australian defence and police personnel have the full support of members on this side of the House. Their task, as I have already described, is a difficult one. Regardless of the failure of the government to recognise this deployment as warlike service, there is concern for the safety of all members of the deployment.
That raises my concern for the consequences in the event that Australian service personnel may be injured or tragically killed in the performance of their duties in East Timor. The prospect of less compensation and fewer entitlements for their families in such an event is totally unacceptable, and I urge the government to address this situation urgently. We see in all too many cases where service personnel have to fight governments at home to get just compensation for injuries suffered in overseas operations. Having seen the effect of those conflicts many years later, I would hope that we could avoid such battles for recognition of the type of service undertaken. Defence families—and I have met a number in my electorate—need to be reassured that in the event of injury or death a grateful nation will neither ignore the plight of those who have served their country in times of conflict nor ignore their dependants.
I come back to a point raised earlier in this speech, and that is the long-term future of our relationship with East Timor. The stated terms of Australia’s mission relate to the stabilisation and creation of a secure environment for the conduct of dialogue to secure a settlement to the current political crisis. In recent statements, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has referred to a role for Australia within an ongoing United Nations presence in East Timor.
While it may be too soon to consider our role in the longer term, what is clear is that Australia will need to go beyond police and security assistance if East Timor is to develop into a strong and independent country. Our role will be enhanced by strengthening the people-to-people links that come from closer contact between our two countries. The idea of allowing young Timorese to enter Australia to work and gain skills is one way that both countries can benefit from closer ties. Recognising our role as a cooperative partner in regional development rather than a deputy sheriff or economic and cultural colonist will provide the basis for our long-term relations with East Timor. As I stated earlier in my speech, the 2,800 Australian defence and police personnel have the full support of members on my side of the House. They are definitely in our thoughts and we wish them a safe return to Australia.
We are speaking on a motion to take note of the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the decision to send something like 2,600, or 2,800 troops including police, to East Timor. I want to reiterate what the honourable member for Fowler has said: not only should those serving men and women and police understand that they have our total support on both sides of politics but, more importantly, we wish them well and hope that they will successfully accomplish their mission. Sending troops to East Timor is not new. In fact the largest military contingent since the Vietnam conflict was sent to East Timor, and our troops did us very proud on that occasion. They performed magnificently well.
I want to return to a point that the honourable member for Fowler has made. When we send troops or police overseas there is no committee or ballot—you do not vote on it. They are required to go, and go in harm’s way. Increasingly we are asking the Defence Forces and the Federal Police to go overseas on our behalf as a people and as a government. I very much regret that the government has not considered this service to be warlike. Nowhere in their mission were they required to deal with gangs that were breaking into houses, setting fires and causing all sorts of mayhem—nowhere. That we have not had a fatality is a blessing, and I think it reflects poorly on the way the troops will feel we value them that their service is not considered to be warlike. If my memory serves me correctly, the Australian Federal Police are likely to be earning more money than the soldiers, as they did in the Solomons. In no way do I wish to reflect on the Australian Federal Police—I admire the jobs that they have been asked to do over many years—but I think that that is essentially wrong.
I think it is fair enough for us to ask, given that we had such a military presence and we wound it down: why is it that we are back there, especially when the Prime Minister says he has been aware of governance problems in East Timor for three years? We should not be using soldiers and policemen to mop up a failure of foreign affairs, and yet this is precisely what we are doing. When we send troops there we have an obligation to follow up. Even when we have no troops in a particular peace-enforcing or peacekeeping role we have an obligation to maintain the rage, as they say, and ensure that their good work is followed up by every other arm of government—not going back three years later in significant numbers, as we are today. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.