I inform the Senate that Senator Robert Ray resigned his place as a senator for the state of Victoria on 5 May 2008. Pursuant to the provisions of section 21 of the Constitution, the Governor of Victoria was notified of the vacancy in the representation of that state caused by the resignation. I table the letter of resignation and a copy of the letter to the Governor of Victoria.
I have received, through His Excellency the Governor-General, from the Governor of Victoria, a copy of the certificate of the choice by the houses of parliament of Victoria of Jacinta Mary Ann Collins to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Robert Ray. I table the document.
Senator Jacinta Collins made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.
by leave—I move:
That the hours of meeting for Tuesday, 13 May 2008 be from 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 8 pm to adjournment, and for Thursday, 15 May 2008 be from 9.30 am to 6 pm and 8 pm to adjournment, and that:
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That senators may make statements relating to the retirement of Senator Ray, till not later than 2 pm.
Question agreed to.
Before I commence I would like to acknowledge the return of Senator Jacinta Collins. It is very good to see her back, and I congratulate her on her election to the Senate. Jacinta Collins was a senator for 10 years up until 2005, then took an extended long service leave break and has now returned. Jacinta was a frontbencher for the Labor Party in opposition and made a huge contribution to the Labor cause during her term. We look forward to her renewing that contribution. It is good to have her back, although I presume her boys are now too old to ride their tricycles around the corridors.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
I will have to explore that later. I want to make a few remarks about Senator Ray, who announced his retirement from the Senate a week or so ago. I do so knowing that he will hate it and that whatever I say will be held against me by him; nevertheless, I thought it was important that the Senate mark the retirement of Senator Ray after a 27-year career in federal politics. I think that, after Senator Watson, he was the longest serving senator. Senator Watson still holds the title of ‘father of the Senate’ but Senator Ray served a very long time in this Senate. Robert Ray left slightly early and that is why Senator Collins was sworn in today. As always, Senator Ray left at a time of his own choosing, in control of the procedures and of his replacement’s selection. He had it all planned and organised. We are grateful that he ensured as always that the best interests of the Labor Party were served by ensuring that there was no loss of representation, even for a day, with the swearing in of Senator Collins.
Senator Ray indicated in retiring that the timing was driven by the fact that he wanted to be in government for one day more than he had served in opposition. I am assured that it bore no relationship to the Australian cricket side’s tour of the West Indies and that that was just a happy coincidence. But he was very pleased to have served one day more in government than in opposition.
I have to be very clear: this is not a condolence motion. Senator Ray is very much alive and kicking and, as I said, he will take this acknowledgement of his contribution very badly. It is fair to say, though, that Robert Ray was one of the most significant parliamentarians of his era—certainly one of the most significant senators—and I think he would be regarded inside the Labor Party as one of the most—if not the most—influential and important party figures of his era. Robert made a huge contribution not only as a minister and as a parliamentarian but also as a senior figure of the organisation of the Australian Labor Party. Robert was a minister in the Hawke and Keating Labor governments. He was Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Communications. From 1988 to 1990 he was Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. He was very much a reforming immigration minister who sought to achieve a rules-based administration to provide certainty in decision making and to remove, as someone quoted, ‘the sleaze from immigration’. Robert was very principled about the way he approached his role and wanted to be assured that the administration of the immigration portfolio was principled, accountable, coherent and transparent. His approach is one that I very much intend to follow in my role now as Minister for Immigration and Citizenship because I think we have moved too far from the sorts of principles that he established when minister.
Senator Robert Ray was also well known for his role as defence minister from 1990 to 1996, where he was a very effective minister and is well remembered for extending and developing Australia’s role in regional cooperation, for working more closely with countries in our region to secure our defence needs and for building relationships that allowed us to ensure the security of Australia through better cooperation with our neighbouring countries.
Senator Robert Ray was also very committed to the parliament and to the Senate. He took the role of a parliamentarian very seriously. He was probably one of the best debaters in this parliament over a number of years. I know that a lot of opposition members would have suffered at his hands and would have realised how effective he was. He also made a huge contribution to the committee roles of the parliament. He chaired the Privileges Committee and other committees.
The thing that I most want to acknowledge with respect to Robert’s view about the parliament was his commitment to ensuring that the Labor Party took the same view to procedures and the role of the Senate whether in opposition or government. His demand that we maintain our consistency in our attitude to our role and the role of the Senate was a defining feature of his contribution—that one should not take advantage of where the numbers were on any particular day, but one should have a consistent approach to the role of the Senate and the accountability functions that it serves. It might be a lesson that the current Liberal opposition learned at the last election—that taking advantage of one’s numbers in the Senate can bring about unintended consequences, as they found out with the industrial relations legislation and the community’s reaction to that. But in terms of the probity issues, the accountability functions, Robert Ray was very much committed to ensuring a consistent view—a view that allowed the parliament to do its job. In opposition he became famous for his role of holding the then Howard government to account at Senate estimates hearings. He put enormous effort into that and he and Senator Faulkner became famous, or notorious, as a tag team in those endeavours. He played a really important role in ensuring the Howard government was held to account during its long period in office.
What is not widely understood is the role that Robert Ray played in opposition inside the Labor Party. Robert stood down from the frontbench when we lost, and people would often suggest that maybe he ought to have retired because he was no longer serving on the frontbench. But Robert was actually a key contributor to the Labor Party’s performance in opposition. He was central to maintaining our effectiveness and keeping us competitive at the elections through the Howard government era, and he made an enormous contribution to the role of the party and its role in the Senate. He served on the tactics committee of the Labor opposition for a number of years, continued his role in estimates and continued his role inside the party. He played a huge role in mentoring new Labor senators, providing advice and supporting the leadership of the parliamentary Labor Party. I know that Senator Faulkner relied on his advice and support a great deal when he was leader, as I have subsequently.
I will not try to cover all of Robert’s career or all the issues. A lot has been said in the press about his hard-man image, and I want to make it clear that that is not undeserved in terms of his activity inside the Labor Party. Robert took a keen interest in internal party matters and he did play the game hard, but he always played it in an honourable and principled way. If Robert Ray said he was coming after you, he was, and he would get you. You could rely on all aspects of that commitment. He is an unusual character in that he is probably feared on both sides of politics, but the other side of him is not broadly understood. He brought a very keen intellect to politics, a very principled approach to issues, and I found him very honourable and straightforward to deal with.
Senator Patterson interjecting—
As Senator Patterson interjected, there is a softer side to Senator Ray. For instance, when one of our senators was hospitalised in Melbourne—not her home state—he made considerable efforts to support her while she was in hospital. He visited regularly and provided real support to her during her illness while she was away from home. So there is another side to Senator Ray. He will hate me mentioning this, but I think people do have to understand that he is a much more rounded character than is presented in the press.
One cannot do justice to a career in the short time allowed other than to record the appreciation of the Labor Party, the Rudd Labor government and all senators for the contribution that Robert Ray made to the Senate and to politics in this country. This is not a condolence motion; he is very much alive and kicking and I am sure he will continue to contribute by providing advice and support to the Labor Party and the Labor leadership.
I would also like to mention the role that Koula Alexiadis has played in supporting Robert in his office. She is actually staying on with the Labor government, which is great to know. Obviously she has been well known as a key support for Robert during his career, as has his family. I want to place on record my personal appreciation for the contribution Senator Ray has made to the parliament and to the Labor Party. No doubt we will get an opportunity in coming months in a less formal setting to properly acknowledge his role in Australian politics over the last 30 years.
I rise to support Senator Evans’s motion. First, I join Senator Evans in welcoming Senator Jacinta Collins back to this chamber. It is good to have you back, Senator Collins. Those of us of a socially conservative disposition are particularly welcoming of your presence here.
On behalf of the federal coalition senators, I want to record our congratulations to former Senator Robert Ray on a magnificent career in the Senate. As Senator Evans said, 27 years is a very long time to spend in this chamber. It is half of my life currently, and it is almost half of Robert’s. As Senator Evans said, of current senators, Senator Watson is the only one who has served a longer term and, regrettably, we are also losing Senator Watson in six weeks time.
Obviously, Robert gained an extraordinary wealth of knowledge and experience during his long service in the Senate and therefore his retirement represents a huge loss to this chamber, and one that is felt across the chamber. He was a great asset to our political opponents, the Australian Labor Party. As Senator Evans said, he is obviously a real party man and not someone who was just on the coat-tails of a political party as a way of getting his bottom on a Senate seat. Robert was and remains, I am sure, a very loyal, dedicated servant of his political cause, and for that we respect him.
Senator Ray was, in his Senate career, respected and admired across the political spectrum, and most particularly on our side. He was, as has been said, feared on his own side, but we regarded him as a formidable political opponent. As a minister for some 10 years in the former government, I actually looked forward to my clashes with Senator Ray in Senate estimates. I knew I had a day in which the adrenaline would run, I would be stimulated and there would be no risk of falling asleep. I am not sure that all my former ministerial colleagues looked forward to their clashes with Senator Ray quite as much, but we certainly knew we had to be on our toes to face Senator Ray at Senate estimates. I think he has shown all of us the way in which Senate estimates can be used properly and effectively. One thing I did respect about him in relation to Senate estimates was that, unlike some of his Labor colleagues, he had great respect for and showed civility towards public servants. The thing I did dislike as a minister was that—rarely, fortunately, but occasionally—some senators were quite intemperate with public servants. Robert was never guilty of that and treated all public servants with the respect which I think is a model for the rest of us.
As Senator Evans said, while Robert was a formidable politician, he was a man of integrity. You did know that, with Robert, his word was his bond. I certainly experienced that. Tony Harris, the former New South Wales Auditor-General, noted in the Financial Review today in referring to former Senator Ray:
... those who have worked closely with him commend him for his impeccable, principled and ethical behaviour.
I would certainly second that reference to, and acknowledgement of, his character. As Senator Evans said, he had a very distinguished ministerial career. We regarded him, and continue to regard him, as one of the real strengths of the Hawke and Keating governments. We readily acknowledge that the Hawke and Keating governments, while weak in some areas, certainly did happen to assemble quite a formidable array of Senate ministers. Indeed, we will be referring in due course this afternoon to another great Labor Senate minister. Unfortunately, in that context it will be a condolence. I refer of course to John Button. Fortunately, Robert Ray, I am sure, has many healthy years ahead of him. He was one of the real strengths of the former Hawke and Keating governments.
Knowing Robert a little, it is not surprising to me that he has chosen to leave in the manner that he has, without any fuss or fanfare. Not for him the long, drawn-out departure but up and off. I hope he really enjoys the West Indies tour.
He certainly enjoyed the last one.
Tell us more! We are all ears, Senator Faulkner. On a more serious note, I note his parting message to the Labor Party, which I think applies across the board. I particularly note his message to the Labor Party about the importance of widening the ALP gene pool beyond union and party officials. I say as a former party official that party officials are a very important part of the political process and all parties should have a quota of party officials—
Those who do not have access to blog sites.
Particularly those who know nothing about blogs, like me. But I do think he makes a fair point. I have always thought that, objectively speaking, the Labor Party’s future lies in breaking its ties with the trade union movement. I think Labor would be a healthier social democratic party for breaking those ties. I think the Labor Party suffers from the perception that it is a retirement home for former trade union officials. I think that is the point that Robert was getting at—that it is important for both major parties to ensure that they have a wide gene pool of talent available to them. It is a message that applies as much to us as to the Labor Party. I hope that his parting remarks are taken seriously. In closing, on behalf of coalition senators I want to congratulate Robert on a magnificent Senate career. We wish him and his family a very long and very happy post-parliamentary life.
I would like to associate myself and the Democrats with the comments that have just been made by Senator Evans and Senator Minchin. Others are far better placed than I am to talk about Senator Ray’s contribution to the ALP, although undoubtedly it was a major one, not only in Victoria but also nationally. I want to particularly note his contribution to the institution of the Senate, not just in his role as a government minister or as an opposition frontbencher and backbencher but to the Senate itself. He will be a huge loss to the Senate as a chamber and his departure is a huge loss of corporate knowledge for the Senate as a chamber.
It is worth noting in that context that not only have we lost Senator Ray and will be losing Senator Watson but we will also be losing a huge number of people in the near future. We lost quite a large number at the last changeover, in July 2005, and quite a number in between. From my quick calculations, from the end of June 2005 to the start of July this year—a period of three years—half the Senate will have changed over. There is the unique instance of Senator Jacinta Collins, whom I welcome back to the chamber; she is the only one returning. We have had a changeover of basically half the Senate in the space of three years. An enormous amount of corporate knowledge will be lost—some of it deeper than others, I readily admit, but it is quite a lot over a long period of time.
In that intervening three years we had a period that was unusual, where the government of the day controlled the Senate. A loss of corporate knowledge of what things were like prior to that period could be problematic. If there was anyone who had corporate knowledge in enormous amounts it was Senator Ray—with the possible exception of Senator Faulkner, who we do still have here for the time being. I think that wider point needs to be made. We saw that repeatedly, particularly in debates about procedure and proposals with regard to sitting hours, committee inquiries or make-up or length of time to report—all of those sorts of issues. You would get the usual convenient spin of the day from the government minister and sometimes also from the opposition spokesperson, putting the political points. Senator Ray invariably would come in and cut straight to the chase and talk about the simple facts of the history of the matter. He would be quite open in acknowledging, where it was relevant, any failings or the short-term political advantage that his own side perhaps sought to gain at particular times. He would simply tell it like it was. That is important.
I think I have read that it was said about Senator Ray—and it certainly sounds accurate to me—that he was somebody who, if he was going to use the strength of numbers to shaft you, would not put a lot of pretty justifications around it. He would simply say, ‘We’ve got it and we’re going to do it and that is that.’ Putting things as they are, without trying to put a veneer of spin and rubbish over the top, is a very valuable attribute, not just because it saves a lot of us a lot of frustration and a lot of time, frankly, but also because it means that you are making decisions on the basis of a much more honest and intellectually robust set of facts. That is something that we need to strive for much more often than we do.
I saw a quote from Senator Ray in the last week or so, in one of those pieces where his retirement was announced, where he spoke about the fact that he was quite a strong supporter of the notion of adversarial politics. He said that, even though it could occasionally be quite brutal, it was a far better way of getting results from your political system. I am not totally convinced about that, but I do think he was a good example of how, even though adversarial politics is often portrayed in a negative way, you could be a practitioner of adversarial politics without being a liar and without being a perpetually offensive, obnoxious person out to win through smear and that sort of thing. He could certainly be very aggressive and accusatory when he felt like it, but the comments that others of us have already made I would very much concur with. He is someone with significant integrity with regard to his word. He would be straight up and would not beat around the bush in what he was putting forward. His is a clear example that you can have an adversarial approach that is still quite honest, frank and up-front and achieves results.
In this context there was one example where he repeatedly made a number of allegations with regard to the operations of the Democrats in Victoria which, whilst I could understand why he might have had suspicions, were ill-founded, and I think it would have been much more desirable if he had not kept making those allegations. Even though I believe he was occasionally unfair in some of his accusations against other people, he nonetheless was very up-front about them and at least you could tackle the allegation head-on and put your version of the story on the record.
I think his contribution in policy areas also needs to be acknowledged. I did not necessarily agree with his policy approach in a lot of areas, particularly in defence and security areas, but he would be much more clear-cut about the reasoning behind the decisions he took. He resorted much less to just rhetorical flourish or setting up straw men or shooting the messenger; he was much more intellectually honest. In the approach he put forward he would often simply acknowledge that there was an alternative view and simply say that he did not agree with it and thought it was wrong. I think that is a much better approach than simply seeing if you can win debates by either attacking each other’s credibility or putting forward a lot of dishonest and misleading spin. So I think the general approach that he took was an honest one, particularly with regard to justifying decisions in this chamber about the use of guillotines and the like, about whether or not to send things to various committees and about trying to be fair in respect of giving meaningful participation to people across all sides in this chamber, taking into account the different size of our makeup and political support.
Frankly, he was quite often very blunt in putting forward the need for a balanced approach to question time and the structure of committees and would take an approach that was not in the short-term self-interest of his own side. The reason for that was not that he was being nice and sweet and cuddly—which I do not think is a phrase anybody would use with regard to him—but because he was thinking of the long term. He knew that any time you used the short-term advantage you had to stick it to somebody else, some time down the track the wheel would turn and you would be just as likely—more likely—to cop it back in the neck yourself if you did things that were blatantly unfair. So that long-term view of being up-front but fair about how you go about things is something that I thought was very consistent with regard to his approach.
I also want to indicate and acknowledge his contribution in the area of immigration, which is a particular area of interest of mine, and the attempt that he made, with some very major reforms to the Migration Act, to make it more transparent. Regardless of your views about desirable policy approaches to immigration, making it more transparent is something that is very important. It is unfortunate that things have degraded again so badly since that time.
As well as a significant intellect, he is also someone with a very significant sense of humour. That is also something we could do with more of in this chamber and political debate in general. My colleague Senator Stott Despoja remembers being labelled as Princess Leia in debate in this chamber—in combat with another senator known as Jabba the Hutt. Beneath that reputation of a ferocious hard man—from all reports quite a deserved reputation—there was nonetheless a real humanness and I think that side of things needs to be brought out and acknowledged as well.
I pay tribute to the solid work and the very strong legacy of Senator Ray. Serving a long time in this chamber does not necessarily equate to making a strong contribution in this chamber. Without being churlish, I could think of others who have served for very long periods of time but whose contributions, frankly, have not been particularly noteworthy. Senator Ray certainly stands out as one of those whose contribution is a very significant one—a historically significant one from the context of the Senate itself, over and above whatever his contribution may have been both as a minister and within the Labor Party. Others are more qualified than I to comment on this.
It is a mark of the respect in which Robert Ray was held in this Senate that practically everybody who speaks to this debate will have almost the same notes down as to what was his contribution to this place. I think of Senator Minchin, who said, ‘He left without fanfare.’ That is true and that was Robert Ray’s style. I distinctly remember, when I first came to this place, former Senator Brian Archer saying to me one night, ‘I won’t be here in the morning,’—and I knew he was not contemplating suicide—and I asked why. He said: ‘I am retiring and people can judge me on what I have done. I have no wish to make a valedictory speech.’ Probably former Senator Robert Ray is of the same ilk—he will be judged for his contributions in this chamber because of what he did and said in this place, not because of any particular speech he might make at the end of his career.
We have heard phrases like ‘the loss of corporate knowledge’ used in relation to Robert Ray’s retirement. We will certainly miss his wise counsel. Strange as it may seem, I think people on the coalition side of politics will miss Robert Ray just as much as those on the government side of politics, because he was a person whose advice was often sought. He had the knowledge of what had happened before. He managed to make sure that he was on the committees that actually dealt with the institution of the Senate. Robert Ray had a genuine concern for the institution of parliament, and particularly the institution of the Senate. That is why we saw Robert Ray serving on the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure for so many years and why we saw him serving on the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges. He had dealings with all of the committees which dealt with the running of this place and maintained the conventions and procedures of this place that were so important to him—but he was not afraid to make changes where he thought change was necessary. I will certainly miss him. I know that many people in the Senate will miss Robert Ray’s contribution to this place, to the running of the Senate and to making sure that the Senate as an institution in the future is an institution which we can all be proud of.
I, along with Senator Faulkner, served with Senator Ray on the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security. Of all the committees that I have served on in my time here, I enjoyed that committee almost as much as any because it comprised of people who had been in this place for a long time and because, in most instances, partisan politics was almost put to one side. It was a committee that worked together with the knowledge of what had gone on in the past. Of course, having been a minister of defence and having dealt with security organisations, Robert Ray’s knowledge was absolutely imperative to that committee. I know that he will be sorely missed on that committee, which has had an almost complete change of personnel from 12 months ago.
I listened while Senator Evans said that opposition senators may have suffered because of Senator Ray’s debating skills and the speeches he made in this place. That is true, but I can say that one of his former colleagues suffered much more than any of us on the coalition side of politics. There is one particular thing I would note about Senator Ray’s time in this place, and that is that, if you were in your office or close by and he stood to speak, you always stopped and listened. A number of people can be speaking in the chamber and I can continue quite comfortably with whatever I am doing but, in the case of Robert Ray, I always stopped and listened because he only spoke when he thought it was absolutely necessary. He did not speak just for the sake of making some statements in the Hansard. He will be remembered for that.
I, like many others, am well aware of Senator Ray’s great love of cricket and of Collingwood. I think that he is likely to have more success with cricket than with Collingwood. Senator Ray will now have the opportunity, in retirement from the Senate, to pursue other interests, which I am sure he will. I am sure that his concern and love for the Labor Party will continue—but maybe he will express those in a different role. He will have time to spend on those pastimes which, for him, are great loves. He was a good companion to speak to about things. His knowledge of cricket and of football, in particular, meant that he was genuinely good company in whatever place you found the time to talk to him.
I want to pass on my respects to Robert in his retirement. The contribution that he has made to this place is an enormous one. He will be sorely missed. You cannot say that about every senator that leaves this place, because they will not all leave the impact on this chamber that Robert Ray has left. He is one who will be missed, and I certainly wish him well in his retirement.
I have been fortunate to serve in the Senate with Robert Ray for some 19 years. When I became a senator, Robert had already been in parliament for eight years, and a minister for two of them. He was an exceptionally capable minister, and whether in agreement or disagreement with him, members of cabinet and caucus respected his judgement and knew that his opinions and decisions were scrupulously determined by his understanding of the national interest.
I want to talk most particularly today about the years after Labor was no longer in government. Many former ministers find they cannot face time on the back bench after an election defeat. With 15 years in parliament behind him, his reputation ensured and his future secure, Robert Ray could easily have chosen to be one of those. But, just as his decision to join the Australian Labor Party and to become involved in politics was never motivated by the idea of personal gain, his decision after Labor was defeated in 1996 was not motivated by the pursuit of personal comfort.
Robert stayed on. He stayed on to do the hard yards. He did not want the limelight. He did not seek a position on Labor’s front bench, which would have been his for the asking—the leadership in this place would have been his for the asking. Instead, steadily and doggedly, he set about using the mechanisms of the Senate, most particularly the Senate’s committee system, to hold the government accountable, to expose waste and mismanagement and to attack rorting and, where necessary, rorters. The role suited him well. Robert has a justly deserved reputation as a factional number cruncher. But, contrary to the picture that some like to paint of factional players being willing to do whatever it takes, Robert Ray is scrupulously honest and scrupulous in his adherence to the principle of putting the party first. He has a reputation as an honest broker—a reputation also justly deserved.
Robert’s disdain for those who were purely self-interested, and his contempt for anyone who saw the public service of parliament as an opportunity for self-enrichment, found its most apposite target in the former Senator Mal Colston. Not only was Colston a rorter; he was a rat. Parliamentary invective is often measured against the standards set by Paul Keating. Robert’s memorable characterisation of Colston as ‘the quisling Quasimodo from Queensland’ raised the bar even higher. Robert’s quick wit and way with words made him a gallery favourite—such as when he referred to Bronwyn Bishop not as ‘the Minister for Aged Care’ but as ‘the Minister for Caged Hair’. But the pointed jokes had a very serious purpose. For example, when Senator Minchin attempted to justify $8,000 for a prime ministerial wine consultant by referring to Australia’s wine export industry, Robert witheringly pointed out that fish had overtaken wine as an export industry and said:
We do not have a fish consultant that I know of.
It is true to say that Robert Ray has been known throughout his career as one of Labor’s toughest figures. He is tough, but I can say that I saw him hurt. Every day the coalition was in government hurt him. While it galled him to see the coalition in government, it incensed him to see the coalition—or, for that matter, anyone—governing badly. So he applied his considerable intelligence and determination to transforming the Senate committee system into an instrument of penetrating investigation. For example, in 2000, it was a Senate estimates committee with Robert Ray as chief inquisitor—and I was junior counsel in that episode—that forced the Howard government to admit that the plan to use the electoral roll to send a personally addressed letter from John Howard to every voter on the roll was illegal. The plan was stopped; the letter was pulped.
So closely did Robert become associated with the estimates committees and their most telling exposes of poor governance that on several occasions he was credited with estimates performances when in fact he had not even been present at the hearing. But, don’t worry, the boot was on the other foot on a few occasions when I was quoted but it was in fact Senator Ray who had been responsible for the pearls of wisdom.
Over the years that I have worked with Robert I have also benefited from the support of his staff in this place. All of his loyal and hardworking staff members have done great service not only to Robert but to Robert’s colleagues and to the Australian Labor Party. In particular, Koula Alexiadis, who worked with Robert from the early days of his parliamentary career, has been an absolute mainstay of our parliamentary operation here in Canberra. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge her contribution and thank her for it.
As my leader, Senator Evans, said, I am sure Robert Ray would probably prefer that these speeches were not being made today. But, as they are being made, I am sure he is very pleased that he is no longer a senator and thus under no obligation at all to listen to what any of us have to say. Robert Ray was in this parliament for 27 years. He managed to make sure that Labor was in government for the majority of that time—if only by two days. If anyone deserves to choose the timing and manner of their departure from the Senate it is Robert Ray. His contribution has been tremendous. I said publicly at the time of his retirement that I think he is simply irreplaceable in this chamber. We will miss him. I will certainly miss him. I think I can say that we all wish Robert and his wife, Jane, well as they enjoy a well-deserved retirement.
I rise to support the motion put forward by Senator Evans. It is ‘not quite cricket’ that Robert is not here to hear what we have to say, but that was his style. I was not surprised when I woke to hear the news that he had decided to leave and not wait around with the rest of us who will be leaving in a few weeks time. Robert was seen as the hard man of politics, and I know that many ministers were in fear and trepidation when he used to appear at estimates. But he was also a fair parliamentarian. There are not many people who can blend the requirement in this place to be a tough politician and a fair parliamentarian. Some people go too far on the side of the tough politician. But, as some people have said today, in his role as a parliamentarian and on the procedures and privileges committees, Robert respected this place. He did not have regard for people who did not respect the Senate. He railed against hypocrisy, he railed against hubris and he railed against people who abused the system. Anybody who abused the system, either by having their snouts in the trough or by misusing the system, rightly attracted the ire of Robert Ray.
As was said earlier by Senator Evans, Robert Ray might have been the hard man of politics and he might have played it hard, but he also played it fair. I remember when my mother was terminally ill. I drove to Tuross Head, where she lived, to look after her for a weekend. It was one of those middle weekends. My mother became acutely ill and I could not get back. At that stage I had two Comcars: one in my home state and one which I had for the weekend. Then senator Sue Knowles contacted the responsible minister to see if there was a way that we could overcome this, and got no joy at all. She went to Robert and he organised for the car in Melbourne to be put back into the pool and the car in Tuross became my Commonwealth car until my mother died. On the day my secretary drove the car from Melbourne up to Tuross, I signed a statutory declaration to say that the car in Tuross would not be used. This was all orchestrated by Robert Ray to ensure that I was not in breach of my entitlements by having two cars. Robert went out of his way to do that and I never forgot it.
Robert’s guiding principle was trust. It is something I remembered when I was in government and a minister. He always used to say this when I thanked him profusely for what he had done to get me out of the situation, because I was in a bit of a pickle and the then minister did not seem to be of a mind to assist me. During estimates one day he asked a question as to whether I had done something and I said no. He did not persist because he knew that he could trust my word. I trusted Robert as well and I think somebody else has talked about that today. If Robert made an agreement, then he would stand by it.
The other advice Robert gave when he was in government was, ‘One day you will be in opposition.’ It is the best piece of advice anybody in government can take because sometimes something you think is very smart does not look so good from opposition. He also used to have the quid pro pro view that what is good in opposition is also good for the new opposition. I remember that we did not let parliamentary secretaries answer questions. Robert made us sit in estimates committees as ministers for hours on end because we could not have a parliamentary secretary. He made us wait for as long as we had made the Labor Party wait. As I said, what was good for the goose was good for the gander, both in opposition and in government. I think it is a lesson we should all remember and learn from.
I saw Robert as a tough politician but a very fair parliamentarian. As I said, when I was in a bit of strife, he found a legitimate way out of that for me as a government minister. He took the time to help me and I will never forget that. He also gave me some advice when the planes ran late on a Friday. Everybody ran around like chooks with their heads cut off, saying, ‘I’m late for a meeting. I’m late for a meeting.’ He used to say, ‘Kay, it’s better to say you can’t come than to get there late.’ He said, ‘If you’re not at this function, I won’t be there either so we’ll pair each other off.’ That was his advice to me when we used to sit till late on Friday nights.
I have respected Robert as a person on the other side and I also respect him as an individual and a human being. He showed his humanity in the situation that I was stuck in. I want to wish him and Jane all the best for the future. I am sure it will be full of lots of films, cricket and football, and I am sure he will find a niche for himself as well in doing something in the community. I am sorry I cannot say this to Robert firsthand, but hopefully he might have time at some later stage to actually read the Hansard, if he can be bothered, and know that he was respected on both sides of this house. His going is a great loss in lots of ways to the process of this Senate and the process of parliament.
Senator Collins, congratulations on your election and your appointment.
This is not my second first speech but I could not miss the opportunity, probably unwanted by Robert Ray, to add a few comments of acknowledgement of his distinguished service as a fellow Victorian Labor senator. I would first like to thank Senator Evans and others for their comments of welcome to me this afternoon. I, like other senators, over the last several days have reflected on much of the commentary on Robert’s contribution and the accurate descriptions of him as a factional operative and back room heavy, or on his being one of Labor’s most effective or aggressive parliamentary performers. I noted that certainly his style has been very direct, strong and, I would say, ‘assertive’ rather than ‘aggressive’, and I think some of the comments from other senators here today have reflected on that. Robert would be strong, direct and assertive but not aggressive in a way which compromised public servants in estimates and not aggressive in a way which unfairly compromised the position of an adversary. When we say ‘aggressive’ I think often people mean ‘strong’, and certainly Robert was that. As has been noted, his style was such that he would avoid undesired attention but certainly when he wanted attention, he would get it.
There is another aspect, one which Senator Evans touched on, which I would like to acknowledge today. Robert also performed a pastoral role but without the religious connotations. I could not think of other words that described pastoral interest or care for others without those connotations. His support and guidance was important when I first arrived in this place as the only female Labor representative from Victoria. I was impressed that, whilst Robert was a highly effective Minister for Defence, he could also anticipate the needs—and I stress ‘anticipate the needs’—of a new senator and her new baby. More broadly, his role in building and maintaining party cohesion and discipline has been critical—and I highlight ‘critical’—in Labor achieving government at both state and federal levels. There are many stories about him, some of them touched on today and some that will never see the public record, but I believe this aspect of Robert’s work should be acknowledged.
As Senator Faulkner highlighted, Robert’s staff of many years—in particular Koula Alexiadis—have made a significant contribution. They were a key part of Robert’s influence and support. This influence and support will be greatly missed here, but I am sure it will continue within the Labor Party. I conclude these brief remarks by wishing Robert and Jane all the very best in the future.
On behalf of Family First, I would like to wish Senator Robert Ray well in his retirement and also welcome Jacinta Collins back to the Senate. Twenty-seven years in parliament is no mean feat. I do not have stories of funny interactions with Robert Ray, but I do remember fondly the Australian Financial Review giving me some advice. It was at a time that I was throwing up my hands at Senate estimates and saying I thought Senate estimates was a place to find out what departments were actually doing with their budgets, where their work was going, what the issues were and what they were up to. They quickly told me that there were no simple questions and no simple answers and that in actual fact I should take a leaf out of Senator Ray’s book and look at the work that he had been doing in Senate estimates for many years. So I think that is to his credit, as is his work around the chamber and in estimates. As Senator Collins was saying, his assertiveness and the way he went about his business were certainly a credit to him, his party and also all Australians, because he held the Senate in such high regard as a place to make sure that the government of the day was held to account. I want to say to Robert Ray that his was certainly a real example to show how to be a senator serious about getting to the bottom of issues and that I wish him well in his retirement.
I will firstly take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Jacinta Collins on her return to the chamber. Senator Robert Ray was a proud defender of the great Labor traditions. He served his party professionally for the better part of 42 years. In this chamber we all carry private images of ourselves which do not always bear a close relationship to reality. In my mind’s eye, I am a man with a 90-centimetre waistline. In Robert Ray’s mind’s eye, he was a noble and chivalrous contestant. In some media circles his hands were unsoiled by the grubby stuff of base factional politics.
Robert Ray, as I think all would agree, was a great senator, a great colleague and a great Labor man. He was also a man who loved a political stoush, and I think it is equally fair to say that he was more than accomplished in the dark arts. It would be a bit of a stretch to say that Robert Ray and I were soul mates, but we did have a surprising amount in common. We both started our professional lives as teachers in Victorian technical schools, and we both set out to make a difference in the Australian Labor Party from a pretty fragile base. We were not lawyers and we were not union officials. We started working in our professional lives in unfashionable schools—he at Baxter tech and I at Glenroy. We found ourselves in different camps of the Victoria branch of the Labor Party, yet we were able to establish a very good working relationship based mostly on mutual respect and occasionally on mutual forgiveness.
Robert was misjudged when he arrived in this place and the superficiality of the press analysis of politics was quickly revealed. He was pigeonholed as a factional operator. He was sometimes seen as a bovver boy with no real interest in policy or ideas. In fact, he was a very well-rounded politician. It was no surprise that he was so successful as a minister. In my judgement the training ground of internal party politics in the Labor Party—and I am sure this applies more widely than just to the Labor Party—can be a very good training ground for politicians. In fact, there are not too many others that are available, especially for those that do not have access to the great institutional connections. Anyone who can survive and thrive in the political boiler room of the Victorian branch of the Labor Party is likely to have a great deal of determination and a thick hide—a hide, I might say, supplemented by a substantial layer of scar tissue.
Whatever Robert Ray’s detractors might have thought, he was a substantial thinker. He had a deep interest in policy issues and in the strategic directions of the labour movement. Robert Ray himself sometimes played up the bovver boy image and played down his interest in policy. He used that often to distinguish himself from some of my colleagues, but I do not think he fooled all that many. It was a surprise to me, however, that an ex-schoolteacher could take so little interest in education. Whatever Robert Ray did in terms of training his intellect on policy questions, you could always count on his thoughtfulness and his imaginative responses.
His enthusiasm for the defence portfolio struck me as heartfelt and genuine and was actually quite inspirational. He is forthright, even brusque. As he said himself, he would never make a good diplomat because he saw them as professional crawlers, which gives the lie to the story that appeared earlier this year that he had accepted a diplomatic posting. I always found him to be courteous and professional in his dealings. Despite the fact that we might have disagreements, he never personalised things, at least not to me and not face-to-face.
Robert Ray had considerable courage in his political professional career and he was always prepared to face down those whom he thought he needed to, even if they were in the highest of offices, including the office of the Prime Minister. In fact, he was ready to face down anybody who opposed him when he thought the need arose. My colleague Senator Conroy and I in recent times have been described by him as ‘factional Daleks’ whose intention was apparently to exterminate in the best of Doctor Who traditions. I did receive an emissary on this issue, and it was pointed out to me that in fact I was collateral damage in that arrangement. I think Robert Ray made the point himself. We have been forgiving each other for many years. In recent years Robert Ray has in fact withdrawn from factional politics and he has become quite a critic of aspects of the ALP factional system. He has always remained a consummate numbers man. He remained a person who had a very deep understanding of the fact that political numeracy was not just a question of being able to add up columns of names—that it was more a branch of the behavioural sciences, and a good numbers person was one who could actually understand what people thought and why. It is often misunderstood what function that has within political organisations.
He was a pleasure to work with and, in his time here in the Senate, I have found him to be a great mentor to Labor senators. I do not think I would be the only one to say that he offered advice which was considerate and incisive. He was a plain dealer and a man of integrity. As long as he practised it he gave factionalism, in my judgement, a good name. He gave Labor a good name. He gave politics a good name. I wish him well in his retirement and I trust that his life at home with Jane will be rewarding.
I would like to associate myself and my National Party colleagues with the remarks of many people in the chamber today about Robert Ray. He has long been the father of the chamber and, with the influx of new senators, I probably knew him for longer than almost anyone here. I suppose if you could describe Robert Ray you would say he was a hard man. He played it very tough and he played it hard but he played it fair. He was an inspiration to many people and certainly he would have been an inspiration to the Labor Party. When I came here, there were people like John Button, who we will honour later today, and Peter Walsh and quite a number of hard-hitting members of parliament who were not from the ranks of the unions or the Labor Party but who did have a wide coverage—
Senator Boswell, I do not like to interrupt your speech, but it would aid us in hearing your speech if you could move to your seat so that you are speaking into the right microphone.
I apologise, Madam Acting Deputy President. As I was saying, Robert Ray was an inspiration to the Labor Party and he held it together through some pretty difficult times. When I came here, Robert Ray was a member of a government that had some pretty strong people in it—Senator Button, who we will honour this afternoon, Peter Walsh and a number of other people. He sat there for a number of years—a very small number of years—on the backbench but eventually he was made Minister for Defence, a portfolio that he very strongly enjoyed and took a great deal of interest in. He was a man of humour and he was a man of honesty. He was a very hard player. We got involved in his accusations that I had eight telephones. It was quite untrue; I had one telephone. I went wrong by not mentioning that the Leader of the Opposition at that time had 55 telephones. I tried to quieten it down, and he went on the attack. That was a mistake on my part.
He is going to cast a big shadow over those who come after him. You do not get players like Robert Ray coming into this place now. He must have held the Labor Party together in Victoria, just as he played a very significant role in the Senate for the Labor Party.
Could I take the opportunity to welcome back Jacinta Collins. Jacinta, we missed you very badly in some of the debates on more social conservative issues that we had over the last three years when you were missing. We look forward to your contribution again on some of those issues, which will no doubt come forward.
I would like to wish Robert Ray a great retirement. He has retired on top of his game. He is probably the last hard man of the Hawke-Keating years left. He leaves us, and we pay our respects to him. In closing, if I were to describe him I would say: Robert, it was a fair bump, but play on.
I would like to make a few short comments about Senator Robert Ray and the time that I knew him in the Senate. Senator Ray was obviously a very distinguished Labor Party senator who made a very major contribution to the Senate over the years that he was here. As Senator Boswell said, he was a former minister who, I gather, was a very good defence minister. That was prior to my arrival in the Senate in 1996. My dealings with Senator Robert Ray were very largely in committees—I served on two committees with him: the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges and the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure. Of course, he was a frequent visitor to estimates committees that I chaired.
I was always impressed by Robert Ray’s intelligence when dealing with issues. In the privileges and procedure committees I found he could cut to the core of an issue very quickly, and he understood the broad principles. I found that, after Robert Ray had spoken on some issue in either the privileges or the procedure committee, that tended to end the debate because his comments encapsulated the core of the issue under discussion and usually provided the correct solution to the issue or the problem. He certainly was an extraordinarily adept committee man. He understood the procedural rules of the Senate very well and I often thought his suggestions on Senate procedure were very good.
In estimates Robert Ray used to work with Senator John Faulkner. The two worked as a team, like forensic barristers cutting down to the core of an issue. I must say that, as chair of a Senate estimates committee, when these two walked into the room I always knew that the hearings that followed would be interesting because, as I said, they worked together like forensic barristers, opening up with very wide questions and narrowing down all the time to ever more focused questions. That was a skill which I admired, and Robert Ray was a very exceptional senator in the way he handled those estimates inquiries. Of course, I know nothing of Robert Ray’s role in the ALP but I simply wish to put on record my respect for him as a great committee man and somebody who respected the institution of the Senate. I wish him well in his retirement.
Before joining this debate I also want to welcome Senator Jacinta Collins back to the Senate. I am sure she will fit in very quickly where she left off a few years ago.
Robert Ray and I have some things in common—not a lot, but some things. We are both Victorian senators. I have not spent anywhere nearly as long in the chamber as Senator Ray—former Senator Ray as of today—but I, like everybody else who has spoken here today, admire him enormously for his great skills, his intellect and his contribution to the Senate. Thank you, Senator Carr, for pointing out that he was a technical school teacher. I did not know that, so I have that in common with him also—as well as our age, which I understand to be the same. He will be missed in this place, there is no question about it. He was an erudite, very articulate man and he was also very funny. A lot of people in the rest of the chamber would not have been able to enjoy some of the comments he yelled across the chamber at the government back before Labor came to office, but it kept those of us on the crossbench amused on numerous occasions. Senator Abetz, I am afraid, came in for much of this banter. It is true that, when he spoke, we listened because he did not waste words. He did not get up for no reason at all. When he had something to say, everybody knew that it was going to be important and so we did exactly that: listen.
I must say that since I have been here I have not felt a great closeness with Robert Ray in political terms. I do not know that he had a lot of time for the Australian Democrats. He certainly targeted me on occasions, suggesting that because my office was in the same building as the party’s that there must be some skulduggery going on. But it was done in an open way, and I think he accepted my arguments as to why he was wrong and he desisted in that effort. He was clearly a very tough and a very principled man. He did not suffer fools gladly and he expected a high level of engagement in this chamber, just as he gave. It does not surprise me that he would be a good mentor to new senators in this place. He was deeply loyal to the Australian Labor Party—no-one has suggested otherwise and I have no reason to think that would not be the case. It was pretty obvious from the way he spoke that the Labor Party is deeply important to him and that he was at all times interested in its wellbeing and in its being in office.
He was an interesting man to observe whether it was in committee work or in estimates, which is where I spent most time observing him. As others have said, when the duo of Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray came into the room you would know that there was an issue being pursued. It might have been trivial—it might have been the Prime Minister’s couch or it might have been something more significant than that—but there was always a story in it. There was always something in the media that would follow that was of great interest to people.
To some extent, I think it is a pity that Robert Ray did not do more media work. He used to come in downstairs to avoid the media doorstop interviews out the front and I think that is a pity. I think that as a commentator he was insightful and, as others said earlier, cut to the core on so many issues. It is also probably characteristic that he is not here today to listen to us speak about him. It is probably not something that he would have enjoyed. He struck me as not being a very sentimental individual. As I said, he was tough and not someone who would necessarily indulge in the sentimentality that necessarily comes at the end of a 27-year career in politics.
I hope that he pursues whatever he wishes to. It does not surprise me at all that he would not wish to be in the diplomatic corps or get a plum posting somewhere. He will do what takes his interest rather than do what might be expected of him. I hope he is successful in that and that his retirement is enjoyable for him.
I am grateful for this opportunity to say a few words about Senator Robert Ray. I was elected in 1996 when Labor lost office, so my first experience of working with him was in the early days of opposition. It was a particularly challenging time for many of my colleagues but, as a new senator at that time, I can say it was quite an extraordinary and exciting time, albeit a tough political environment. My early recollections of Senator Robert Ray were on the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration during estimates hearings, which of course back then went from 9 am to about six the following morning. So 18-hour stretches were not unusual for Senate committees at the time. We had the habit of sitting right through the night if issues were pressing. This habit, fortunately, changed after the first term. Spending many a long night around the estimates table, I got an insight into the forensic mind of Senator Robert Ray—and indeed that of Senator Faulkner—on that finance and public administration committee, which I think set a benchmark for performance in Senate committees for Labor’s whole period in opposition.
I would like to make particular comment about Senator Ray’s commitment to this place—to the standing orders, protocols and traditions of the Australian Senate. It is a tough job, but to pay some mind and consistently pay some mind to those protocols, traditions and standing orders takes quite a special commitment. He certainly did that and in the argy-bargy of the political debate often brought a moral dimension to bear on discussions taking place at any one time. He certainly brought his wrath down upon those who sought to exploit the traditions and protocols of this place and was unrelenting in his criticism if he felt they had crossed the line. What the line is in this place is unwritten, but Senator Ray was a good measure of where the line was and, if you ever crossed it, look out!
From a personal perspective, I would like to thank him for the mentoring and support he gave to me as a senator, particularly early on but consistently through that time. His deep understanding of the operations of this place, of not just the Senate committees but also the procedure and standing committees that sustain the institution of the Australian Senate, has placed us in good stead. I know that this compliment that I want to pay to Senator Ray for his commitment and work in those places will be agreed to by all Senate colleagues. His contribution was often unseen in the public mind but it is something that all of us in the Senate are extremely aware of and grateful for.
Finally, I wish to personally thank Senator Robert Ray and wish him and Jane all the best in their retirement. I hope that he is able to watch many a game of test cricket in great comfort and enjoyment, without the interfering question times that he would no doubt be obligated to attend. I wish that they have all the pleasure that is so justly deserved after such an extraordinary and successful parliamentary career.
I want to talk briefly about Senator Ray. He is in fact going on to enjoy another career, a career in retirement, but I am sure his advice and assistance will still be forthcoming if one should be game to ring up and ask for it or see him in the street and similarly inquire. I want to personally thank him for what Senator Lundy has described as mentoring but also for the advice and assistance that he has given, not only to me personally but to others, on the type of work that we undertake in the Senate.
The work Senator Ray has done in supporting other senators in this place, by and large, goes unseen. This is an opportunity for commenting on the work he has done consistently and for a long time behind the scenes, not only in supporting new senators but in supporting those senators who are at the skinny end of their contribution to this place with respect to how they will fare when they leave. He also supported senators in opposition when times were a little bleak, if I could use that expression, post 2001. Of course, with every intake of new senators, Senator Robert Ray would be there to assist in providing support, assistance and help and to lend an ear to those people who wanted assistance.
Senator Ray would not suffer very easily those who would ask a question when the answer was clearly obvious. In those instances, before I would approach Senator Ray and ask him for advice, I would ponder long and hard the question that I was going to ask and whether I had explored all the possible avenues, because if I had missed the obvious then I would clearly suffer his wrath and very sharp humour and wit. The other work he did in this place included parliamentary work on a range of committees to support not only the Senate but Labor, along with the advice and assistance he gave to the whole of the chamber. With those short words, I wish him well in retirement and from a personal perspective thank him for the assistance he has provided me.
My question is to Senator Faulkner, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Given the devastating events in Burma which have left over 1.5 million Burmese homeless and resulted in a death toll likely to exceed 100,000, can the minister inform the Senate as to how Australia’s initial commitment of $3 million of funding support was assessed and then the subsequent commitment of $25 million in total was arrived at to assist the victims of Cyclone Nargis? Can the minister also advise whether it is expected that that funding figure will increase?
I thank Senator Payne for her question about this very tragic circumstance of Cyclone Nargis. Of course, all senators are very deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life and the great deal of suffering and enormous devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis. Of course, Australia and the international community stand by the Burmese people at this time. Reports of casualties are still coming in but it is clear that the toll there will be very high. Burmese official figures put the death toll at over 23,000, with over 37,000 missing, and the number of homeless at around 1½ million, but these figures are almost certainly understated. The cyclone has also caused massive damage to property and vital infrastructure and has disrupted communications.
I can say specifically in response to the questions that Senator Payne asks me that Australia is providing $25 million in humanitarian assistance to the people of Burma following Cyclone Nargis. This consists of the initial $3 million the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced on 7 May plus a further $22 million that was announced on 11 May. Of that $22 million, a total of $12.5 million will be made to the United Nations’ flash appeal. That appeal will help address the most urgent of the life saving needs in Burma. The remaining $12.5 million is being provided directly to international agencies and non-government organisations with the ability to deliver assistance quickly and effectively on the ground in the worst affected areas. Australia’s already extensive involvement on the ground in Burma has made us well placed to deliver this assistance quickly to those in need.
AusAID is ensuring that Australian assistance is reaching affected populations through UN disaster response mechanisms. This assistance is in the form of food, water, water purification, sanitation, health kits and tarpaulins. I can also say to the Senate that, separate from the flash appeal, Australia is one of the largest donors to the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund. Ten million dollars has been provided in this financial year, and the UN has announced that part of that particular fund will also be used to respond to the needs that have arisen as a result of Cyclone Nargis.
In answer to the other element of Senator Payne’s question—she asked me about further consideration by the government—options for further assistance over the medium to long term do remain under close consideration as UN assessments of the situation in Burma are made.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his assurance of the Australian government and community standing by the people of Burma in this tragic situation. Given the significant reports of barriers to the delivery of assistance and aid, can the minister please advise the Senate in the context of his response how AusAID is actually going about ensuring that aid is delivered? What guarantees and assurances do we have that the significant funding that the minister has referred to there is actually meeting its target?
There is no doubt, in response to Senator Payne’s supplementary question, that access into Burma for aid workers really remains the greatest challenge in relation to relief efforts for Cyclone Nargis. While the international community is, I think, responding generously to what the immense needs are there, if the Burmese government were prepared to fully open its doors there would be a massive increase in delivery of humanitarian assistance. That would certainly be possible. I think senators would be aware that the Australian government, led by the Prime Minister, have expressed very deep concern and dismay at the attitude of the Burmese regime, and I can assure the Senate that we are using every diplomatic channel available to urge the Burmese regime to allow access for humanitarian assistance to the affected areas.
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Conroy. Can the minister outline for the Senate the major economic challenges facing Australia and what role fiscal policy will play in addressing these challenges?
I thank Senator Campbell for his question. These are challenging times in which to frame a budget, given the conflicting economic forces that Australia confronts. The coalition left this country with a serious inflation problem. We now have the highest inflation in 16 years. Headline inflation recently hit 4.2 per cent, and underlying inflation is running at a similar pace. The Reserve Bank is forecasting both headline and underlying inflation to remain at or above three per cent for the next two years. Underlying inflationary pressures have been building since the start of 2006. They were exacerbated by the previous government’s irresponsible approach to spending. Treasury advice provided to the former government and released last week shows that they were warned about the impact of rising inflation.
False.
‘False,’ says Senator Abetz. Let me quote from the Treasury documents. Treasury told them:
... as the economy is running close to capacity there is a real risk that significant spending will add to inflationary pressures.
Yet they continued to spend, and spend, and spend, seeking a short-term political fix. The Leader of the Opposition has described inflationary pressures as a ‘charade’, and the shadow Treasurer refers to them as a ‘fairytale’. These statements reveal that they simply do not understand the inflation challenge that we face. We understand that inflation is a cancer eating away at the living standards of working families. Inflationary pressures have contributed to the 12 rate rises in a row despite the former government promising in 2004 to keep interest rates at record lows. In addition to the inflation problem, we are also impacted by international turbulence—
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I wondered whether he could continue if you pulled the plug on his computer.
Senator Heffernan, that is no point of order; that is a frivolous point of order.
As I was saying, we are also impacted by international turbulence and a rapidly slowing US economy. Our job in the budget is to put maximum downward pressure on inflation and interest rates to win the war on inflation that we began upon taking office. This budget will represent a new era of responsible economic management. The government will deliver a budget tonight which addresses Australia’s long-term interests. The first priority is to fight inflation, withstand international turbulence and keep the economy strong. The second priority is to reprioritise our spending so that we can begin building better roads, better communications infrastructure, better ports, better railways, better universities and better hospitals, and train young Australians. The third priority is to engage in long-term, productive spending. (Time expired)
My question is to Senator Ludwig, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Minister, when exactly before the election did the Labor Party advise the Australian people that they would be making changes to the Medicare levy surcharge policy?
On 10 May 2008 the federal Treasurer, Hon. Wayne Swan MP, announced that as part of the budget the Commonwealth government will increase the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds to $100,000 for individuals and $150,000 for families from 1 July 2008. This announcement—
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I asked the minister a very specific question: when exactly before the election did the Labor Party advise the Australian people about making changes to the Medicare levy surcharge policy? I would ask that you direct the minister to answer the question.
I cannot direct the minister as to how he will answer the question. He has been going for 30 seconds, so we will see what transpires.
As I was saying, this announcement has attracted a lot of media interest and clearly interest from the opposition, including our press articles on 13 May 2008. It is estimated to result in published savings of around $299 million over the first four years. This measure was squarely targeted at bringing relief to working families, and it will offer welcome relief for over two million Australians. When the policy was introduced by the former government, they said:
High income earners will be asked to pay a Medicare Levy surcharge if they do not have private health insurance ... These are the people who can afford to purchase health insurance, and this measure will relieve some of the pressure on the public hospital system.
That is what was said. These thresholds, originally targeted at high-income earners, have not been moved in a decade. This was a dirty trick played by the previous Liberal government on hundreds of thousands of Australians. That is what it was. I would like to challenge the Liberal Party to find someone who is earning $51,000 who thinks that they are a high-income earner.
We promised in opposition to review this measure, and we have. As a result of this change, individuals will be up to $1,000 a year better off—and up to $1,500 for a couple. The Commonwealth government strongly believes that a mixed model of private and public health services is essential to the provision of universal access to high-quality, affordable healthcare services for all Australians, unlike, it seems from the interruptions from the other side, the current opposition. We are strong supporters of private health insurance and have delivered on all of our election promises in this area. We will retain the full package of private health insurance rebates, a policy which ends the previous government’s practice—
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. We are now quite far into the answer, and 10 May is not before the election, as far as I can tell. I would ask you to remind the minister of the question about when before the election Labor told the Australian people that they would make those changes.
Mr President, on the point of order: on the question of relevance, it is very clear that Senator Ludwig is right on topic. The question that has been asked of him has been addressed by him throughout his answer, and I suggest that this is another attempt at a frivolous point of order. Senator Ludwig is directly on the topic about which he was asked.
Mr President, on the point of order: this makes a complete farce of question time.
What is your point of order?
I am responding in this series of points of order and answering Senator Evans. This makes a complete farce of question time if a question is asked specifically about when an announcement was made and we have a four-minute diatribe about how terrible the previous government was.
Order! You are starting to debate the question.
But Mr President, we have to get him to answer the question.
Order! I do not intend to allow senators to debate the point of order. Senator Evans, it is not a frivolous point of order. As I said earlier to Senator Cormann, I cannot direct the minister as to how he will answer the question. During his answer he has referred to the Medicare levy surcharge on numerous occasions. So he is not out of order.
What the Medicare levy surcharge will do is take some pressure off working families who were already struggling to pay for the rising cost of health care under the previous Liberal government. It is estimated that 11 per cent of privately-insured patients who are treated at a public hospital opt to be treated as public patients. If the previous government really cared about making sure all Australians had access to quality health care, they would have done this long ago. The Department of Health and Ageing will communicate the changes to the private health insurance industry and consumers. Looking at comments that were made prior to the election, it was reported in the Daily Telegraph on 10 January that:
Labor health spokeswoman Nicola Roxon yesterday attacked the Government for not indexing the surcharge but would not commit a Labor government to indexation. “We now see that because the Government has failed to index the levy that people who are earning average incomes are now being hit with an extra charge,” Ms Roxon said.
She went on to say:
“We think this is an outrage and the Government should be looking at ways it can appropriately adjust that threshold,” she said.
On 5 November 2007, it was reported that Ms Roxon described the failure to index the levy—(Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that Labor did not advise the Australian people before the election about changes to the Medicare levy surcharge policy. My supplementary question is: isn’t it the case that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, representing the minister in Senate additional estimates earlier this year, committed that there would be no changes to the Medicare levy surcharge policy? Doesn’t this prove the point made by Mr Garrett: ‘Once we get in, we’ll just change it all’?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! We will not continue until the Senate comes to order.
It is worth putting on the record, in answering the supplementary question, that the Daily Telegraph article was dated 10 January 2007. As I was going to say—and I now say in answer to the supplementary question—the Daily Telegraph on 5 November 2007 stated:
Earlier this year Ms Roxon described the failure to index the levy, which has raised almost $1 billion, as an “outrage”. “It is one of those measures we would consider looking at in government,” her office told the Daily Telegraph.
This matter was clearly on the record prior to the election. It was a matter that we were going to look at in government. With respect to the impact on private health insurance and premiums, what we will do from 1 July 2008— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong. Can the minister outline to the Senate the details of the government’s Water for the Future plan? Can the minister also outline the benefits of the agreement reached at COAG for the long-term future of the Murray-Darling Basin? Is the minister aware of any other views?
I thank Senator McEwen for the question, as a South Australian senator who has a long interest in ensuring South Australia, particularly Adelaide, has a secure water supply. Recently I announced the details of Water for the Future, the Rudd government’s $12.9 billion plan to secure the water supply of all Australians. Unlike those opposite, the Rudd government understands that climate change means that we need to manage our water supplies better. We as a government are committed to developing new supplies of water that do not rely entirely on rainfall, and we are investing to make the best use of the water we do have. Water for the Future includes our election commitments of $1 billion for the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan, $250 million for the National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns, and $250 million for the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative. It also includes at least $3 billion for purchasing water to improve the health of our rivers and $5.8 billion to support infrastructure improvements and better use of water in rural areas.
But, on top of buying water and investing in water-saving infrastructure, we on this side know that the Murray-Darling Basin needs a better long-term approach. The chamber will be aware that at the last COAG meeting the Prime Minister and the premiers reached a historic long-term agreement on the future management of the Murray-Darling Basin which will ensure that critical human needs are met and that there will be a sustainable cap across the basin, for the first time in the history of the basin, on how much water can be extracted. We will also ensure that there will be an independent umpire, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. This was a historic agreement, one that the previous government was unable to secure.
I am asked about other views. It is quite clear that the opposition continue to be intent on playing the same political games on water that they did when they were in government. On the one hand, the shadow minister for climate change, environment and urban water described the agreement as ‘a once-in-a century massive plan to come to the rescue of the ailing river system’. But it appears he failed to tell his leader that, because Dr Nelson slammed the deal, saying it rewarded petulant behaviour. He said:
... the Victorian Government seems to have been rewarded for its petulant behaviour in staying out of the agreement.
On the other hand, Dr Stone, the shadow minister for the environment, heritage, the arts and Indigenous affairs, released a statement with the headline ‘Victoria left short-changed with Murray-Darling Basin deal’. So Dr Nelson thinks Victoria has been rewarded and Dr Stone thinks Victoria has been left short-changed. But this is the real corker—Dr Stone, the shadow minister, also said:
There is further worry when Mr Rudd declared that human consumption of the Murray system water is to take precedence over all other water uses. Does this mean that when Adelaide squeaks, irrigation systems shudder?
I want to know if Senator Minchin shares this view. Is that the view of the opposition, Senator Minchin? And what about Senator Birmingham, who professes to care about Adelaide’s water supply? You should get up in this place, Senator Birmingham, and denounce what your colleague in the House of Representatives has said.
Order, Senator Wong! You should address the chair.
Through you, Mr President, Senator Birmingham, if he cares about Adelaide’s water supply, should be getting up and saying that he does not agree with Dr Stone, that he does not agree with her statement:
Does this mean that when Adelaide squeaks, irrigation systems shudder?
I would like to know—through you, Mr President—is that view of the opposition or Senator Minchin?
Senator Bernardi interjecting—
Senator Bernardi, is that the view of the opposition?
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Could you explain to the minister, please, that question time is for us to ask her questions, not for the minister to ask the opposition questions.
Senator Ludwig interjecting—
I remind Senator Ludwig that you cannot get to your feet when another senator is on their feet speaking. There is no point of order, Senator Macdonald. Minister, your time has expired.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister expand on how Water for the Future will help urban areas secure long-term water supplies?
In my original answer I referred to the election commitments that we have delivered through Water for the Future, which include the $1 billion National Urban Water and Desalination Plan, which will be available to cities with a population of 50,000 people or more. Senators might recall that under the previous government—now the opposition—the then Treasurer made it clear that the Howard government did not believe that the federal government had any role to play in securing urban water supplies. People in South Australia were very interested to hear that.
We do not share that view on this side of the chamber. We as a government are prepared to put our shoulders to the wheel. When it comes to the issue of urban water supplies, we will deliver on a $1 billion election commitment to assist state governments and the private sector in delivering urban water supplies. We do not agree with Mr Costello’s statement—and I do not know if it is still opposition policy—that the federal government has no role in urban water. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Ludwig. Will the minister guarantee that no Australian will have to wait even longer for public hospital treatment as a result of Labor’s changes to the Medicare surcharge levy policy?
The 2008-09 budget will increase the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds, which will provide significant relief for those on average incomes. That is what it will do. The government maintains support for a strong and sustainable private health insurance industry. For the benefit of the opposition, from 1 July 2008, the thresholds for the Medicare levy surcharge will increase from $50,000 to $100,000 for singles and from $100,000 to $150,000 for families. The opposition argue that $50,000 is somehow a high-income wage. I defy anyone to support the contention that it is in fact a high-income wage.
As for the impact on private health insurance membership and premiums, it is anticipated that some people who may have taken out private health insurance to avoid paying the surcharge will cease their coverage. Should private health insurance companies seek to increase their premiums, they will be closely scrutinised by the government to ensure that premium adjustments are the minimum needed to maintain solvency requirements and that the funds can meet their obligations to members. The government is focused on ensuring that Australians have a choice of healthcare services and continues to have policies in place that encourage individuals to purchase private health insurance, such as private health insurance rebates and Lifetime Health Cover.
The other issue is: will there be increased pressure on public hospitals? As part of its Health and Hospital Reform Plan, this government is making substantial investments to bolster hospitals. There was $1 billion announced at COAG for public hospital services in 2008-09—$600 million over four years to reduce elective surgery waiting lists. Look at the record of the opposition when they were in government. You talk about public hospitals—it is about giving people choice. When somebody takes out a private health insurance policy just to avoid getting hit with a tax slug, that is not a real choice. There are people out there who pay for a $500 policy not because they want it but because it means paying less than they would in tax. There are people who, we expect, will stop taking out insurance. We are strong supporters of a mixed health system, both public and private.
I cannot believe the opposition is suggesting that people earning—and I mentioned this earlier—a below-average wage should be paying this tax slug. Let me throw out a challenge to the Liberal Party to find anyone earning $51,000 who would call themselves a high-income earner. What really has put pressure on public hospitals is the previous Liberal government’s cutting $1 billion from public hospitals and failing to tackle the GP shortage. That is the position that they left this government with. They know clearly that is what the position is. And quite clearly federal Labor will also maintain Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare levy surcharge. The Prime Minister has kept his word on this. We said we would keep the Medicare levy surcharge and we have. (Time expired)
Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President’s gallery of a delegation from the Australian Political Exchange Council from New Zealand, led by Ms Louisa Wall MP. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a very warm welcome to Australia and to the Senate.
Hear, hear!
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note for the record that the minister did not give a commitment that no-one would have to wait longer for public hospital treatment, which is probably just as well given that the Tasmanian health minister said yesterday that she would be expecting even more money, an increase in federal funding, to deal with the likely increase in demand. Aren’t we just seeing the Garrett prophecy come true: ‘Once we get in, we’ll just change it all’?
When the opposition were in government, they cut a billion from public hospitals and failed to tackle GP shortages. What we will do, and what we said we would do, is keep the Medicare levy surcharge. And we have. We said we would keep the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate, and we will. The Australian Health Insurance Association should show more faith—and perhaps the opposition should show more faith—in the ability of private health policies to meet the needs of consumers. If people are getting value for money, they will stick with the system. In six months in government we have announced $1 billion in extra funding for public hospitals over the next year, beginning to reverse the 11 years of neglect of our public hospital system by the opposition—by the Liberals—and we are providing $600 million to slash elective surgery and waiting lists. (Time expired)
Mr President, my question is to you. I refer to the decision made last month to filter websites used by senators and their staff. Is the occurrence of the problem with senators looking up pornography on websites? If so, will you name them? Is the aim of this filter to protect the laurels of senators and their staff? If so, doesn’t it strike you as odd that we can make laws for the country but are not adult enough or competent enough to make our own decisions about what is an appropriate website?
The decision to put filters on senators’ websites was a decision of the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure after much discussion. There were a variety of reasons for that happening. Because staff members in this place who are employed by DPS and others have filters on their computers, it was considered by their committee that it should apply to all senators and members as well. If senators choose to have the filter removed from their computers, they are entitled to request that and it can happen.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Who decides what sites are deemed inappropriate? What are the grounds for refusal in those cases? What is the reason for filtering out websites that refer to illegal drugs or illegal weapons? Is there a problem of senators and their staff dealing with either of those? And why was it that the views of senators were not canvassed before making this decision?
When you say that the views of senators were not canvassed, the Procedure Committee does have a variety of senators on that committee. So it was taken into account when the decision was made. I will look at the details of your question and I will provide you and the Senate with a detailed answer.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Ludwig. In light of the recent statement about changes to the Medicare surcharge policy, can the minister inform the Senate whether any modelling has been undertaken on the impact on the cost for private health insurance policyholders as a result?
In terms of the Medicare surcharge threshold, on 10 May 2008 the federal Treasurer, the Hon. Wayne Swan, announced that, as part of the budget, the Commonwealth government will increase the Medicare levy surcharge threshold to $100,000 for individuals and $150,000 for families from 1 July 2008. So that the opposition can fully appreciate what the question is, if you look at the issue of whether or not pressure will be put on public hospitals, it is about giving people choice. When somebody takes out a private health insurance policy just to avoid getting hit with the tax slug, that is not a real choice.
This government has quite clearly kept its promise in respect of the Medicare levy surcharge and it has kept its promise to keep the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. In the first six months in government, this government announced $1 billion in extra funding for hospitals, beginning to reverse the 11 years of neglect by the Howard government—$600 million to slash elective surgery waiting lists, something that the opposition did not do; and incentives of up to $6,000 to deliver 10,000 nurses into our health and aged-care system, something that the opposition did not do when they were in government. The government also announced the establishment of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, to develop a long-term plan—
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Could I, with respect, suggest to Senator Ludwig that he follow your example in relation to answering questions. Specifically my point of order is: the question was very specific as to whether or not any modelling had been done in relation to the impact on the cost for private health insurance policyholders. Our being told about the number of nurses et cetera is very interesting but completely and utterly unresponsive to the question that was actually asked.
Senator Abetz, as I have said a number of times today, I cannot direct the minister on how to answer a question. As long as he is being relevant—and, in this case, I do believe he is being relevant—
Opposition senators interjecting—
On the point of order—
Order! Senator Abetz, I believe the minister is still being relevant. We have allowed a lot of latitude in the past when ministers were answering questions. I will listen carefully to what Senator Ludwig says, but at this stage I believe he is still being relevant.
Thank you, Mr President. In relation to the Medicare levy surcharge threshold, the government strongly believe that a mixed model of private and public health services is essential. We have also invested in primary care to help take pressure off our public hospital system. We know that there are 500,000 preventable hospital admissions each year, including 50,000 admissions for preventable dental conditions. Unlike the opposition when they were in government, we have said that we will invest in GP super clinics in areas that need them, invest $290 million for a Commonwealth dental health program and invest $360 million for a teen dental plan, and name obesity a national health priority area. What the previous government had to say—
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. We have now had nurses canvassed and we have now had obesity canvassed. Is it allowable for the minister to canvass anything that might happen to appear in the health portfolio when a specific question is asked in relation to modelling on the cost of private health insurance? With great respect, Mr President, I believe he has now strayed well and truly out of the province of the question.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! It is a rather all-encompassing answer, as was interjected from the government benches. Senator Ludwig, I would remind you of the question relating to modelling and ask you to continue with your answer, unless you have finished.
In respect of the particular modelling question that was also raised, those costs and savings will of course be in the budget tonight. I am sure the opposition will be keen to be here to look at the budget tonight, to examine those issues in detail and to see for themselves what is there.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. When before the election did Labor say that they would force private health insurance policyholders to pay more for private cover? Did Mr Garrett know that Labor would sting private health policyholders even more when, before the election, he said, ‘Once we get in, we’ll just change it all’?
It may be worth going back to what Dr Michael Wooldridge, the then health minister, said in his media release on 20 August 1996:
High income earners will be asked to pay a Medicare Levy surcharge if they do not have private health insurance.
For this initiative, high income earners are defined as single people earning more than $50,000 or couples and families earning more than $100,000.
These are the people who can afford to purchase health insurance, and this measure will relieve some of the pressure on the public hospital system.
That is what the then health minister said in 1996. But he did not leave it there. In 1997 he said in a media release:
High income earners who still haven’t joined a fund need to understand that the extra 1 per cent Medicare tax surcharge will start to be levied on their income from the 1st of July. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law, Senator Sherry. Could the minister please update the Senate on the approach the government is taking to the formation of today’s budget? Could he also inform the Senate of any alternative views on the need for a fiscally responsible approach?
I thank Senator Crossin for her particularly timely question, given the budget tonight, and for her ongoing interest in the economic health of our country. Tonight’s budget will be the first for the Rudd Labor government, and it will be based on sound principles of fiscal discipline. During the election campaign and in the period leading up to election of the Labor government, the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, said time and time again that he was an economic conservative and fiscal discipline—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Those opposite can laugh. But the proof will be presented to the Australian people tonight. The Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, meant what he said. When the government delivers the budget tonight, through the Treasurer, Mr Swan, it will be delivering on this promise.
But tonight’s budget will not be delivered in an environment without some challenges. We have the legacy left to us by those opposite, the Liberal-National Party, now on the opposition benches. We had government spending that was out of control and we have a cost of living legacy that is hitting hardworking families in this country. We have had a massive under investment in education, health and infrastructure and we have had a complete rejection by those opposite of climate change. We also face a very difficult international financial environment, with the consequence of the US subprime meltdown. None of this is good enough for a modern, efficient Australian economy. These issues cannot be ignored, and we do intend to tackle them in tonight’s budget. Tonight the Rudd Labor government will show the people of Australia and the Liberal-National Party opposite just how it can be done.
Fighting inflation is a central challenge facing our economy today. Headline inflation rose by 1.3 per cent in the March quarter of 2008 to be 4.2 per cent higher throughout the year. That, of course, is well above the Reserve Bank’s medium-term target band of two to three per cent. The higher inflation that was occurring under the previous Liberal-National government is slowly increasing and it has put upward pressure on interest rates. This government inherited the highest inflation in 16 years, and higher inflation has led to higher interest rates. The Labor government recognise the hurt that higher inflation directly causes to hardworking Australian families. We have the right monetary policy framework to deal with inflationary pressures. We have an independent central bank. But this has to be matched by an equally disciplined fiscal policy framework. We cannot rely on increasing budget revenues to deliver a higher budget surplus. The Labor government has indicated that it will be delivering a minimum budget surplus of at least 1.5 per cent of GDP. In January the Prime Minister announced his five-point plan to fight inflation, and we will be delivering on that tonight. It is very important to tackle inflation head-on with a tight budget framework and a significant budget surplus. This will put downward pressure on inflation and result in downward pressure on interest rates.
Of course, the shadow Treasurer, Mr Turnbull—soon to be elected as the Leader of the Opposition—does not believe we have an inflation problem. He recently described it as a fairytale. I have a list of the inflation rates of some 30 OECD countries, which unfortunately shows that Mr Turnbull’s description of inflation as a fairytale— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Ludwig. In a triumph of hope over experience, I would like to ask the minister about modelling. Has the minister undertaken any modelling on the impact on alcohol consumption of the government’s new $2 billion tax on premixed drinks? If so, would the minister share with the Senate what that study revealed? If not, why not?
It is recognised that alcohol plays a significant role in Australian society. Many Australians drink alcohol and most do so responsibly. Despite this, there is still a major problem that centres on the 35 per cent of people who drink at a level that places them at a significant risk of harm in the short term and the 10 per cent of people who drink at a level that places them at a high risk of harm in the long term. The government supports the measure to reduce alcohol related harm in the Australian community and change Australia’s unhealthy drinking culture. This government is committed to developing a preventive health strategy and has established a preventive health task force. When one hears the questions and interjections from the opposition, one wonders whether they do in fact support the measures that are being taken to reduce the level of alcohol consumption amongst young people.
The government has announced a national strategy to address binge-drinking and has increased the excise on ready-to-drink products. On 10 March 2008 the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, announced a national strategy worth $53 million to address the binge drinking epidemic among young Australians. The national strategy will begin with three new practical measures to help reduce the misuse of alcohol and binge drinking among young Australians. I would encourage the opposition to support that position. The strategy includes $14.4 million to invest in community-level initiatives to confront the culture of binge drinking, particularly in sporting organisations; $19.1 million to intervene earlier to assist young people and ensure that they assume personal responsibility for their binge drinking; and $20 million to fund advertising that confronts young people with the costs and consequences of binge drinking. A key part of this strategy is to engage sporting organisations from the elite level down to the community level. I would encourage the Liberals to engage in this as well and undertake support and assistance to ensure that the youth of today do not suffer the consequences of binge drinking. A key part of this strategy also includes Nicola Roxon meeting—
Mr President, on a point of order: I think lecturing the Senate on the evils of alcohol is somewhat redundant. My question was about modelling. What modelling has the government done before deciding to impose this $2 billion tax on Australian drinkers?
Senator Ludwig, I would remind you of the question.
Thank you, Mr President. I am concerned about the impact of binge drinking on Australia’s young people, but I am also concerned about the impact of alcohol on our wider society. On 26 April the government announced that it would restore the excise on ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages to the spirit levels that previously applied. The government’s decision to lift the excise on RTD products will help tackle binge drinking, as research shows that price is an effective measure in reducing alcohol consumption, especially by young people.
When we look at the opposition’s engagement in this, they are not serious about assisting in how you tackle binge drinking in youth and how you ensure that the youth of today will not suffer health problems in later years. What the opposition is concerned about seems to be a mile away from where the young people are at now. The strategy that the Rudd government has announced will provide assistance not only at the community level but also at the advertisement level to ensure that they would— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it from the minister’s answer that there was no study conducted, and I assume therefore that Labor decided before this recent election that it intended to impose this new tax. How does the minister rebut the charge that the Labor Party were cowardly in formulating a decision to have a new $2 billion tax on drinkers to pay for their unfunded election promises but were not prepared to take the electors of Australia into their confidence before the election last year?
In rebutting the charge that the opposition makes, what they did not do in their 11 long years in government is deal with these significant health issues around ready-to-drink products and around alcohol. The Australian government is committed to a comprehensive strategy to address binge drinking among young Australians. More than $53 million will provide support to the strategy which will be implemented by the Department of Health and Ageing. In rebutting your charge, you have done nothing to assist in this area. You, in fact, ensured that you neglected the youth of today in this area. You, in fact, did not assist. In addition, the National Health and Medical Research Council is currently—
Senator Ludwig, I would appreciate it if you address the chair and not senators across the chamber.
Sorry, Mr President, I will address you. In addition, the National Health and Medical Research Council is currently finalising revised draft Australian alcohol guidelines for low-risk drinking; something that the opposition did not do when they were in government. (Time expired)
My question goes to Senator Evans, representing the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister in government give consideration to establishing a global disaster coordination centre in Australia to deal with horrific circumstances like those now in China following the earthquake and Burma following the cyclone, to tap in to the enormous potential in Australia, both civil and military, for rapid aid to our region, and indeed our own country, in terms of disaster and, in particular, to get that aid targeted and available within hours so that we know it will be there as soon as humanly possible and is ready to go before the disaster strikes?
I thank Senator Brown for an important question. I am not aware of whether we are currently considering a global disaster coordination centre, as you describe it. I will take that part of the question on notice. I have not been briefed on that. What we do know is that Australia in the past has shown a great deal of capability in responding rapidly to the need for aid and emergency assistance. We saw that in the South Pacific and Asia, and we saw that very much in Bali in terms of the response there. I think our Australian defence forces, our medical teams and our charities have shown quite a deal of capability in this regard. That has been unfortunately developed in recent years as a result of having to deal with a large number of incidents, both terrorist related and climatic, which have caused a great loss of life and damage.
I think the role that Australia played in the aid to Aceh et cetera was exemplary and was a great credit to those involved. Obviously our contribution in a disaster such as has recently occurred in Burma and seems to have occurred overnight in China can only play a small but significant role. Clearly, we need coordination across countries in terms of any response. I think Australia has always been generous. Our capacities will be limited but significant. We have developed specialist skills in a range of areas inside the ADF and elsewhere, and inside the AFP. Senator Ellison knows about the work the AFP did in a whole range of areas, including the forensic area.
I think these two events have highlighted the need for quick response and for international response. Of course the great concern in Burma is the failure of their government to embrace that response and allow people to contribute more fully to help deal with what is an extraordinary disaster. I will take up the specific question you raised, Senator Brown. There may well be more work going on in that area that I am not aware of. I will take up your specific suggestion, Senator Brown, and get an answer from the Prime Minister. I think you identify what is a very important need which has again been highlighted, and I am sure we would be willing to participate in anything that gets a better and quicker response to those who are suffering in the sorts of disasters that we have seen in Burma and now in China.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that constructive response. I point to the news that the Czech Republic has supplied sniffer dogs, which I think, if not on the ground, are about to be on the ground in China, and will obviously be of assistance in finding people buried by the recent earthquake. It was a very rapid response which was ready to go before the earthquake happened, effectively. It demonstrates how a centre might be able to have its finger on every option that Australia could give to the great variety of disasters which can befall our region. Like Senator Evans, I know of an enormous amount of good work being done. But I ask if he would see if the government can look at preparedness and work out what can be done for a disaster scenario so that you are ready beforehand to get aid from one of the wealthiest countries on the planet to disaster areas more expeditiously. (Time expired)
I thank Senator Brown for the supplementary question. It expands on the original question and I am happy, as I have said, to take it on notice and see what information I can get about how we can better prepare our capacity to respond. I am sure the whole parliament would be supportive of such an approach. As I have said, I have not got a brief on the level of current preparedness, so I will get a comprehensive answer as soon as I can. Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I have further information in response to Senator Allison’s question but I must firstly say that I did say during my answer that it was the Procedure Committee when it was the Appropriations and Staffing Committee, which was my mistake. In March 2008 the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee—not the Procedure Committee, as I stated previously—considered the matter of the parliamentary computer network and internet filtering. The committee noted that the parliamentary network computers of departmental staff—that is, for the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services, but not for the Parliamentary Library—are filtered for inappropriate internet content, including pornography, illegal drug references, gambling, games, racist or hate sites, violence, illegal weapons of manufacture or procurement, but the computers of senators and members and their staff are not. The committee also noted that the current filtering mechanism is a black list supplied by the vendor but the Department of Parliamentary Services is currently engaged in identifying a replacement filtering system.
Members of the committee expressed the view that senators should not be treated differently from others who use the parliamentary computing network and therefore their computers should be filtered. I note that the Australian Democrats were represented on that committee.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I am on my feet. I suggest you look at the standing orders. Having sought further advice from the Department of Parliamentary Services on the filtering system and consulted with the Speaker on the matter, I made the decision that, in accordance with the view of the committee, the same filtering should be applied to senators and their offices. I remind senators that this filtering provides a message to users that the site they are seeking to access has been blocked because it falls within one of the areas on the black list of subject matters used by the software. It is open for any senator or staffer who needs to pursue access to a particular site for work related matters to have that access provided by contacting 2020.
On 20 March 2008 Senator Abetz asked that I consider whether remarks allegedly made by Senator Carr, before he began to answer the question asked of him by Senator Lightfoot during question time, were unparliamentary, and whether a statement by Senator Evans to the effect that Senator Kemp’s description of those remarks was untrue should also be withdrawn. I had earlier ruled that there was no point of order when Senator Kemp raised Senator Carr’s remarks by way of a point of order.
The Hansard audiovisual recording of that part of question time indicates that some words were uttered by Senator Carr before he began his answer as recorded in Hansard.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I remind senators of the standing orders. The words are indistinct in part and it is not clear to whom or what they were directed. The words in question appear to have been an aside of the kind which senators occasionally make to colleagues, which, if heard, are not recorded by Hansard as part of the proceedings, and which are also not normally taken note of by the chair. Such asides are distinct from interjections, which are subject to the rules of the Senate. In all the circumstances, I do not consider that anything unparliamentary occurred or that the chair ought to take any note of the words in question. I would suggest, however, if senators make remarks which they do not intend to be part of the proceedings, that they ensure such remarks are heard only by the intended recipients.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short personal explanation with respect to your statement concerning the Appropriations and Staffing Committee.
Leave granted.
I thank the President and the Senate. I just wish to make it clear that I sat and considered the material before me on the Appropriations and Staffing Committee on my own account and not as a representative of the Australian Democrats party room. I did not convey their views at that meeting.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Human Services (Senator Ludwig) to questions without notice asked today.
Today we have seen what I think could only be described as a reversion to the past by Labor where the decisions that they have been making with respect to health are more about ideology than they are about addressing the real health issues that we have here in this country. They are nothing to do with good policy. In fact, if they had been to do with good policy Labor would have actually used some of the processes that they have put in place to actually implement and study good policy. As Senator Ludwig said, the government has set up the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, which at this point in time has only had the opportunity to make one interim statement, just one communique. The major report in respect of state and Commonwealth health funding will be in November this year, with a full report in July next year.
What we are seeing now are decisions that will have a significant impact on the delivery of health services in this country being made completely outside that context, with no consultation with industry and no consultation with its own health and hospitals reform commission. You can only wonder whether this particular body is being relegated by this government to being just another voice, as we have seen so many times before.
With respect to consultation with industry, Dr Michael Armitage has said that the Prime Minister used ‘weasel words’ before the election to give the health insurance industry the clear impression that the surcharge would not be changed. The AMA President, Dr Capolingua, has said that this decision by the government will tell Australians that they should drop their health insurance or not take out policies in the first place.
In the late nineties we saw a significant fall in the number of Australians who had private health insurance and at that point in time we were legitimately concerned about the issues that surrounded that, the sustainability of the health system. There was universal concern, so the then government brought in first the 30 per cent rebate and then lifetime cover. That increased the rate of private health insurance from where it was, at close to 30 per cent, to 44 to 45 per cent—a significant change—and it has remained there ever since. It made a real difference.
This tells younger people that they no longer need to stay within the private health system and it potentially provides the scope for a collapse of the system. What we risk with this decision is a return to the downward spiral that we saw in private health insurance during the 1990s, when Labor were, again, part of the decision-making process and had this philosophical opposition to providing private health insurance. The industry itself projects that 400,000 policies will drop out of the system.
We know that families are under stress. We have seen that all around the country. I have spent the last few weeks on the Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia. We know that families are under stress and we know that they are looking for ways to support their budgets, but this is not a way to do that because it is going to have detrimental effects at the end of the road. Also, as I have said before, it is not in concert with the overall health strategy that the government has put in place. Why would you be making these decisions completely outside the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, when its task is to address the overall delivery of health services across the country? It is just ludicrous. The government has even put back its state and Commonwealth healthcare agreements for the funding of hospitals because it wants to wait to get a report from the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. That is a sensible decision and it is a decision that the opposition supports. Yet here we have two ad hoc decisions that have been made, supposedly in the interests of health policy, that are completely remote from the process.
The government committed to ending the blame game and has put in place a process to deal with it. Yet what it has done is completely ignore that process. It would be legitimate to expect that, having put that process in place, the government would actually go through the process and take note of its work. We note that the government today refused to say that there was any modelling in respect of either of the two decisions it has made— (Time expired)
It is a great privilege to be able to participate in this debate on the day that the Rudd Labor government and Treasurer Wayne Swan will deliver the first budget of the Rudd government. It is a budget that will go a long way to address the reckless spending of the former government, reckless spending that has meant that working Australians and their families are in a situation where they are facing interest rate rises—12 interest rate rises in a row—and an inflation rate of 4.2 per cent, and where the cost of living is outpacing their wage increases. Every senator in this place, I am sure, would have heard from their constituents about how difficult it is, if you are on an average wage, to make ends meet. We are looking forward to the budget tonight. For once, after more than a decade of the now opposition being in government, working Australian families will have a budget that addresses their issues.
It was very interesting to hear today the opposition finally taking some interest in healthcare issues. Of course, healthcare issues are always of interest on budget day. The neglect of health care by the opposition when they were in government has meant that the Rudd government now has an opportunity to deal with healthcare issues. The increase in the income levels for the Medicare surcharge will be a very welcome initiative for working Australian families. As we have heard, from 1 July 2008 the thresholds for the Medicare levy surcharge will increase from $50,000 to $100,000 per annum income for singles and from $100,000 to $150,000 for families.
During question time I heard government senators ask opposition senators many times which one of them was going to stand up and say that somebody who earns $51,000 is a high-income earner. Of course they are not. People on those sorts of incomes are desperate for some kind of income relief, particularly when they are attempting to pay interest rate rises. A constituent who is a single-income earner and is about to come off a three-year fixed term interest rate on her mortgage said to me just yesterday that she expects that the increase for her will be in the order of $100 to $150 a week because of the interest rate rises that have occurred in that period. She is desperate as to how she is going to find that money. I can tell you that working Australians like that woman, my constituent, will welcome this initiative to ensure they have more money in their pockets.
The Rudd government have already made numerous commitments to improving the healthcare situations of Australians. The former government failed to address GP shortages and struck more than $1 billion from the hospital system, so the Rudd government are coming from a long way back to try and address those situations, but address them we will. We have already committed some $600 million to reducing waiting lists and elective surgery lists. We have a range of initiatives to try and improve healthcare services for Australians who desperately need them. We made announcements about GP super clinics that have been very well received in areas that are going to get them. We are going to improve funding to our healthcare workforce to provide training to around 24,000 mental health professionals, and we are going to encourage more mental health nurses to stay in the workforce. We have committed to bowel cancer screening for all over 50 years of age as we know that bowel cancer is one of the biggest killers in Australia. The initiatives that we are taking in the healthcare industry are going to be very welcome. I was also surprised to hear the criticism from opposition senators about the Rudd government’s initiative to try and stop binge drinking amongst young people. What a disgraceful response it was from them to criticise an initiative which is intended to ensure that our young people do not become hospital statistics because they have too ready access— (Time expired)
Today is the moment of truth. It is the moment of truth for Labor and sadly it is a moment of truth for the Australian people, because today is the day when the Australian people will find out that Peter Garrett was right when he said, ‘Once we get in, we’ll just change it all.’ Before the election Labor was desperate to make sure that private health insurance would not become a political issue. It was the time of the ‘me too’ policy approach. We support all of the positive initiatives of the Howard government. We support the 30 per cent health insurance rebate. We support Lifetime Health Cover. The minister today confirmed that Labor did not tell the Australian people before the election that they would be making those changes which are about to be announced in the budget to increase the threshold of the Medicare levy surcharge.
Earlier this year in Senate additional estimates, I was somewhat suspicious in the light of Peter Garrett’s comments as to what the new government’s approach would be to private health insurance because when we last came into government after an extended period of Labor government the Australian health system was totally out of balance. Private health insurance membership levels were down at 33 per cent of the population and they went down to 30 per cent before we were able to turn the ship around. So I thought I would ask some questions. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing was representing the minister for health during Senate estimates. I asked her specifically, ‘Would you be concerned if membership levels started to drop as a proportion of the population?’ She said, ‘Of course we would be.’
I followed on and I went through the series of positive policy initiatives of the Howard government which led to bringing the Australian health system back into balance, and I asked her to confirm the government’s ongoing commitment to those measures specifically in relation to the Medicare levy surcharge. I asked:
Senator CORMANNThe Medicare levy surcharge policy will remain in its current form?
Senator McLucasCorrect.
Senator CORMANNThere is no suggestion to increase the thresholds that you are aware of?
Senator McLucas—Not that I am aware of.
That was not a totally clear answer so I went back to it later. I said:
Senator CORMANNI would like on the record, though, to get specific information whether there are no plans to change the Medicare levy surcharge from the current levels.
Senator McLucasWe have answered that question.
Senator CORMANNSo no change?
Senator McLucasThat is correct.
So Senator McLucas, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing in Senate estimates earlier this year was very clear when it came to this point. She gave an indication to the Australian people that there would be no change.
But what have we heard today? What have we heard widely canvassed in the media? The Medicare levy surcharge threshold is going to double. That is bad public policy, because that is exactly the sort of policy that will lead us to the disastrous circumstance that we found ourselves in in 1996 when the Australian health system was out of balance. Membership levels will go down, and the minister in one of his answers today actually said, ‘Yes, some people will leave’. He did not tell us how many people. What is the definition of ‘some’? How many people will leave? Minister, you have not answered that question today at all. The minister says: ‘Some people will leave. The membership levels will go down and we all agree.’ This will have a further impact in accelerating future increases to health insurance premiums. People will leave private health insurance. This will put pressure on public hospitals, which are already under pressure—public hospitals that are being mismanaged by Labor state governments across Australia, with people not being able to access the services they need.
If you look at what has happened over the last 10 years with significant increases in the membership levels in the private health insurance system, private hospitals around Australia have taken responsibility for a dramatically increased share of healthcare services necessary to service the Australian people. What is going to happen now? Australians will leave private health insurance because Labor went back on its commitment prior to the last election. This is back to the future stuff. As I have said, the Howard government had to restore the balance in the Australian health system when it got into government. Peter Garrett was right, as I said in my introduction: ‘Once we get in, we’ll change it all.’ Tonight, when the Treasurer puts out the budget, we will all be able to see that that is exactly what will be happening from hereon in.
Before I call Senator Brown, I remind senators that if you refer to people in the other place they should be referred to by their correct title.
I have to say that I am not surprised about the opposition opposing the Medicare levy surcharge initiative because the opposition has shown over a long period of time that they are completely out of touch with the community. The Medicare levy surcharge initiative is a welcome relief to working families. They have been unfairly hit by the surcharge. The surcharge has not been adjusted since it was introduced in 1997, so the announcement by the Treasurer tonight will be a welcome one which will see the Medicare levy surcharge threshold rise from $50,000 to $100,000 for a single person and from $100,000 to $150,000 for families.
Mr Deputy President, there has been no increase in the Medicare levy surcharge threshold since 1 July 1997, resulting in an unfair targeting of many families earning average incomes. The revised thresholds will now ensure that the surcharge is applied to those who are high-income earners. If the Liberal opposition think that a wage of $50,000 for a single person is the wage of a wealthy person then it is no wonder the Australian people have lost faith in them. The whole point of the Medicare levy surcharge was to encourage people who could most afford it to take out private health insurance. However, the previous government, as usual, failed to plan for the long term and it did not provide for indexing the threshold. Now we are seeing hardworking Australians being slugged a surcharge that was meant to target high-income earners.
The Labor government initiative will be a welcome relief for many families. I have to concur with my colleague Senator McEwen’s amazement at the Liberal opposition raising the issue of health, because they have a record they should be ashamed of. We have seen a drastic cutting of the health budget over the 11 years the previous government was in power and a failure to tackle the GP shortage. That is in stark contrast to what the Labor government is doing. Since Kevin Rudd and Labor have come to power, two health ministers conferences have been held in the spirit of cooperation that now exists between Canberra and the state and territory governments. Much has been achieved.
The first conference in February concluded with an agreement on the need for immediate reform of the national health and hospital system and the need for public performance reporting. These sentiments reflect what Kevin Rudd has been saying since prior to the election—that the health and hospital system in this country is not working as it should and that there is a pressing need for reform. This is why the Rudd Labor government has made reforming and improving our nation’s health system a national priority. Our government is committed to building a modern health and hospital system, equipped to meet the health challenges of the future, including an ageing population, the rising burden of chronic disease and the ever-increasing costs associated with medical technologies. That is why, prior to the election, the government announced a comprehensive, long-term plan for health reform in this country, including a $2.5 billion commitment to improving health and hospital systems for all Australians. As is the case with many other public resources, hospitals were constantly underfunded and ignored by the Howard government. Now, as a result of 11 years of neglect, the health and hospital system is in desperate need of a complete overhaul.
Before I finish, I would like to take up the point about tax on alcopops. The Labor government makes no apology for this tax, and the federal opposition should be ashamed of its attacks on this initiative. Binge drinking is a community-wide problem that demands a community-wide response. This government is determined to take a strong, comprehensive approach to tackling binge drinking in our community. We know that young people are particularly at risk and we know that alcopops are used to hook them on drinking when they are young. (Time expired)
I just make the comment, once again, that people should refer to people in the other place by their correct title. It is quite appropriate to mention ‘the Rudd government’ or ‘the former Howard government’, but individuals should be given their correct title, as in ‘the member for’, ‘the Prime Minister’, ‘Mr Peter Garrett’ or whatever. I make that clear.
I rise to take note of the motion moved by Senator Colbeck. What is on the agenda? Tonight’s budget will double the income threshold for the Medicare surcharge from $50,000 to $100,000 for singles and from $100,000 to $150,000 for couples. This again proves that Labor is still ideologically uncomfortable with the private sector and has a heavy preference for the public system. What are the consequences for the taxpayers? The Rudd government is trumpeting that it has saved 2.4 million people from paying a Medicare surcharge. In fact, only 465,000 people have paid the surcharge and each one of them could have avoided it by taking out private health insurance.
A large number of sick people are already waiting unacceptable hours in public hospital emergency departments. People, especially our elderly, are waiting months for elective surgery. With the Rudd government changes to Medicare, they will now have to wait even longer. With the ludicrous threshold increases for singles, younger people will avoid taking out private health insurance. After all the work that has been done to encourage them to take out private health insurance, once again, they will abandon it and more pressure will be placed on public hospitals. This will force up premiums for those people who stay in private funds. Older Australians will also be affected due to these changes and possibly will not be able to continue to choose their level of private health cover which, at their age, is very important. For the two million uninsured people, there will be a tax break of up to $20 a week, straight into their pockets, but no further encouragement for them to get private health insurance.
The Australian Health Insurance Association expects that 400,000 young Australians will drop out of private health insurance. In today’s press, doctors and insurers warned that, as a consequence of this government’s changes, public hospital waiting lists will blow out as hundreds and thousands of young Australians ditch their private health insurance. Dr Michael Armitage, Chief Executive of the Australian Health Insurance Association, is convinced:
If people choose not to remain privately insured—and our modelling—
at least the Health Insurance Association could do some modelling but, unfortunately, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing today could not answer my question concerning the modelling of the Rudd Labor government—
shows that up to 400,000 people will not do so—
that is, continue in private health—
they will rely on the public system, which means the states will need to badger the Federal Government for more revenue.
The consequences for the states are quite amazing. Health ministers from WA, Queensland and Tasmania have already called for compensation from the Commonwealth if these changes are to be introduced. In the West Australian this morning, Dr Rosanna Capolingua, who is the national President of the Australian Medical Association, said:
You’d have to wonder if you’re setting up the states to fail as far as them being able to deliver across the public health care sector.
Professor Geoffrey Dobb, WA President of the Australian Medical Association, said the changes would cause elective surgery waiting lists to blow out and private health cover premiums to skyrocket. Unless the federal government is ready to provide extra funding to support Western Australia’s hospitals, they will be under siege if thousands of patients opt out of the private health system to be treated under the public system. I am a former member of the metropolitan hospital board, and we put into the system the Central Wait List Bureau. It was quite amazing, in the four years that that board existed, just how well we did with trying to get through the waiting lists. But, unfortunately, because of the hidden costs, there is a need for an interim long-term health reform plan to be put in place by the end of this year.
I just do not think this has helped the health system. In my home state of Western Australia it is going to be very difficult, and I am speaking about those rural Western Australians who have taken out private health insurance and are hoping that somehow they will be able to use it. It looks as if most of them will be forced to go back to the public system. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the President to a question without notice asked by Senator Allison today relating to the parliamentary computer network and Internet filtering.
This may seem like a small thing, but it seems to me to be a form of censorship which has absolutely no purpose. I object to the fact that someone else is deciding what is and what is not a morally appropriate website for me to observe. We are not clear on the rules here. We do not know what sorts of sites are going to be banned. We know pornographic sites are one of them.
I was looking up information on the web on the debate a couple of weeks ago about clean coal and the split in conservation groups on this issue, and the Herald Sun report on this matter was denied me because it was ‘malicious’. So, apart from the fact that the filter is unlikely to filter out those things which are truly dangerous and offensive to us, I think this is the thin end of the wedge in terms of determining what senators and their staff can and cannot see. As we know, there is an exemption for the library. Why? Because they do research. What do we do on the web? Research. Instead of that, we have this lame excuse by the Appropriations and Staffing Committee that the department has this filter and so should we—what is fair for one is fair for all. Well, it does not seem to me to be self-evident. There need to be cogent reasons why we have this filter.
The President says: ‘Look, it’s all all right. If you find you’ve been blocked on a site and you really need to get to it, ring up 2020.’ I do not know about you, Mr Deputy President, but I am often looking up websites at 11 o’clock at night, and certainly on the weekends, and, if you have tried ringing 2020 at that time, you will know that there is no response.
I do not object to illegal sites being banned. I think it is perfectly appropriate that, if someone is doing something illegal on a website, in the same way as on the road or anywhere else, they should be properly penalised for it. There is the capacity to interrogate the website access actions of senators and their staff. My question to the President was: where is the problem? Show us. Are there people around this chamber who are accessing pornography which is not related to their parliamentary duties? I do not think so. Are there members and senators who are looking up illicit drugs for the purposes of trading in drugs or using drugs themselves? I do not know. Is it a big problem? Let’s find out. Instead of that, we have a filter imposed on our access to websites which affects us all.
Since I have raised this issue a number of senators have come to me and told me stories about the sorts of harmless, morally sound information that they have been searching for on the web and has been filtered out. So I think this is a ridiculous concept. With the health portfolio, I look up many sites to do with sexual and reproductive health. It is pretty obvious that a lot of those will fall foul of this filter. Illegal arms is apparently one of the categories which will also trigger the filter. Will it also mean North Korea and its nuclear weapons? Will it also mean the small arms trade, the illegal transfer of guns to developing countries? These are things I am interested in, and I do not want somebody else telling me: ‘That’s not your job. You’re not to do that.’ I do not mind if there is a filter on things which are not for use in our parliamentary activities. Let’s put the filter on footy tipping; let’s put the filter on booking theatre tickets. That is fine by me. But what we have is a controlling act of censorship which is about morals.
We know that Senator Fielding was the one that raised this with the committee. We know that he, the moral protector of all of us in this place, went to them. I do not need that moral protection. I have been in the parliament for 12 years. We are elected to make laws and decisions for this country that affect the lives of humans in this country, but apparently we are not entitled to make decisions for ourselves about what we can and cannot see on the web. We are being treated like children. We are adults, we are fully human, and it is not up to somebody else to say this is or is not appropriate. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to make a statement relating to the Lobbying Code of Conduct and Register of Lobbyists.
Leave granted.
On 6 December 2007, when the Prime Minister released the ‘Standards of Ministerial Ethics’, he confirmed that the government would establish a Register of Lobbyists. The government is now delivering on that commitment.
Today, I am tabling the Lobbying Code of Conduct and announcing the establishment of the Register of Lobbyists.
The government recognises that lobbying is a legitimate activity and part of the democratic process. Lobbyists can help individuals and organisations communicate their views on matters of public interest to the government and, in doing so, improve outcomes for the individual and community as a whole.
However, there is a legitimate concern that ministers, their staff and officials who are the target of lobbying activities are not always fully informed as to the identity of the people who have engaged a lobbyist to speak on their behalf. The government believes that this information can be fundamental to the integrity of its decisions and should be freely available to those who are lobbied and to the wider public.
The public is also right to be concerned about politicians and others who leave office and immediately begin a career lobbying their former colleagues using contacts they developed and information they obtained while in office.
Respect for the institutions of government depends to a large extent on public confidence in the integrity of ministers, their staff and senior officials.
The Lobbying Code of Conduct is intended to promote trust in the integrity of government processes and ensure that contacts between lobbyists and government representatives are conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty.
The Standards of Ministerial Ethics prohibit, for a period of 18 months, former ministers having business dealings with government representatives on matters with which they had official dealings as minister. The combination of these standards and the lobbying code, means the public can be confident that ministers will not be able to use the experience and contacts they have gained in office to enhance their value to the private sector, either as lobbyists or as senior executives in business with the government.
The code requires a 12-month cooling off period for ministerial staff, senior public servants or defence personnel who have resigned or retired, who may want to work as lobbyists. They are prohibited from engaging in lobbying activities with government for a year in relation to any matter that they had official dealings with in the last year of their employment.
Honourable senators may be aware that I released an exposure draft of the Lobbying Code of Conduct for public comment on 2 April 2008. Twenty-eight submissions were received from companies involved in lobbying as well as from members of the public, and I thank all who put thought and effort into ways of enhancing the code. Suggestions have been taken into account and a number of changes have been made to the exposure draft of the code as a result.
As I have said, lobbying is a legitimate part of the democratic process. The revised code represents an appropriate balance, I believe, between the right of ministers, officials and the public to know who stands to benefit from the efforts of lobbyists, and the ability of business to be able to make views known to government. It will not impose unreasonable demands on the lobbying industry, business or ministers and officials.
Although there was a lobbyists register in place from 1984 to 1996, it was not a public register, and did not include a code of conduct to regulate lobbying practice. The new Lobbying Code of Conduct and Register brings our integrity checks on third-party lobbyists up to international standards. The European Parliament is moving to establish a mandatory public register of lobbyists and a code of conduct. Canada and the United States also have registers.
The Lobbying Code of Conduct will apply to third-party or consultant lobbyists—that is, those lobbyists who represent third parties including lawyers, accountants and business advisers who are employed in government relations roles in professional services firms, and professionals such as lawyers who may lobby on a regular basis.
It does not apply to government relations staff employed in major companies or peak industry organisations as the very nature of their employment means that it will be clear to ministers and others whose interests they will be representing.
The objective of the code is not to make every company whose staff or executives visit a minister sign a register; rather, it is to ensure ministers and other government representatives know whose interests are being represented by lobbyists before them and to enshrine a code of principles and conduct for the professional lobbying industry.
There are a number of other exemptions to the code. For example, it will not apply to individuals who make representations to the government on behalf of family members or friends. It will not include statements made in a public forum or to foreign trade delegations visiting Australia or to registered tax agents, customs brokers and other persons who are registered under an Australian government scheme regulating members of that profession, provided that their dealings with government are part of the normal day-to-day work of people in that profession.
These are sensible exclusions that will ensure that the register does not impede day-to-day communications with government.
The code makes clear this government’s determination that, from 1 July 2008, ministers, parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff and other government representatives do not grant access to lobbyists who are not on the register. Transparency will be further enhanced by requiring registered lobbyists who wish to make representations to ministers or their staff to declare who they are acting for and the nature of the matter that they wish to discuss before access is granted. This is the key strength of both the register and the code.
Through these requirements, the Register of Lobbyists will allow ministers and their staff to know who is engaged in lobbying and whose interests are being promoted. It is aimed at ensuring openness, transparency and accountability in government, rather than control.
And let us be clear—registration will not give automatic access to ministers, their staff and officials but, for those who are properly registered, the register will not impede free and open access to government.
The Register of Lobbyists will, for the first time, be available for public inspection. It will be administered by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Lobbyists will be required to update their details as soon as practicable in the event of any changes and confirm that they are up to date on a quarterly basis, failing which their registration will lapse. The department has undertaken to update the information on the register on a same-day basis in the event that a lobbyist needs to make urgent representations to government on behalf of a new client.
Lobbyists will also need to comply with the principles of engagement with government representatives set out in the Lobbying Code of Conduct. These principles describe a standard of conduct for lobbyists that will encourage a culture of ethical behaviour and integrity in their activities. Lobbyists who do not comply with the principles will be removed from the register.
To reinforce the importance that the government attaches to the need for lobbyists to be persons in whose integrity ministers and other government representatives can have confidence, any person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of longer than 30 months or who has been convicted as an adult of an offence involving dishonesty in the last 10 years will be refused registration. Lobbyists will need to provide statutory declarations to the secretary of the Prime Minister’s department confirming these matters before they are registered.
In addition, the Cabinet Secretary will be able to direct the secretary of the Prime Minister’s department to refuse to register an individual as a lobbyist, or remove an individual from the register. I expect that this power will only be used in exceptional circumstances.
A number of the submissions that were received in response to the exposure draft suggested that the power to remove lobbyists from the register, or refuse them registration, should be exercised only after the individual concerned had been given an opportunity to be heard. While that was always intended, the government has now included a clear statement to that effect in the revised code.
A further change as a result of the consultation process relates to the problem of lobbyists publicly disclosing a relationship with a client on the register which might result in market speculation about a pending transaction involving the client, when that transaction had not previously been disclosed by the client, or body corporate, in accordance with its continuous disclosure obligations under chapter 6CA of the Corporations Act 2001.
While the code will require the lobbyist to advise the minister of their client on a confidential basis in advance of any lobbying activity, the lobbyist will be required to include the client on the register as soon as the sensitivity has passed—otherwise the code of conduct will have been breached.
The registration requirements will apply from 1 July 2008. From that date, lobbyists must be on the register if they wish to make representations to government on behalf of their clients. In the meantime lobbyists can apply to the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to be included on the register. Further information about the process for applying for registration should be available later today on the department’s website.
The registration of lobbyists should be seen as part of the government’s determination to restore respect for the institutions of government and improved governance across the public sector.
To that end, the Public Service Commissioner and the Chief of the Defence Force have decided that the Lobbying Code of Conduct should also apply to the Australian Public Service and the Australian Defence Force. I understand that they will shortly be issuing guidance to the Australian Public Service and the Australian Defence Force on lobbying activities as they relate to members of the APS and the ADF.
The Prime Minister promised from day one of this government that a code of conduct for lobbyists would be part of the transparency and integrity provisions being established by the Rudd government. It was flagged in the ‘Standards of Ministerial Ethics’, along with the provisions which prevent ministers from working in their field of cabinet knowledge for 18 months after leaving office.
I am pleased to say that today we have another integrity provision in place to help restore public confidence in government and governance.
I table a copy of the statement I have just made, together with a copy of the Lobbying Code of Conduct, and seek leave to move a motion in relation to the documents.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the documents.
Before I call any senators, I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that, under standing order 169(2), the time limit on this debate is 30 minutes.
While the Greens welcome the Register of Lobbyists and the Lobbying Code of Conduct, this is way short of what is required to protect the interests of the public and the interests of democracy in our country in an age when vested interests put enormous pressure onto the elected representatives of office and, in particular, onto parliaments.
I give the example of the Sydney Morning Herald article on Saturday which mooted the line-up of coal industry executives who are currently lobbying the minister for matters related to climate change, Senator Penny Wong. The fact is that there is an open door to the coal industry but there is not an open door to community interests who may be affected by government policy when it comes to the huge range of climate change issues. I think there should be much greater openness about that, and maybe this will open the door.
I point to a question that I put to Senator Wong in estimates. I asked: ‘Since the election, on which occasions has the minister met representatives of the coal industry and what was discussed?’ I got the answer: ‘The minister is determined to meet as many individuals as possible, both formally and informally, in her portfolio. Generally meetings have been either held with the expectation of confidentiality or on the public record.’ In other words, ‘I am not going to tell you.’ I will be interested to see what a non-legislated Register of Lobbyists and a non-legislated Lobbying Code of Conduct will do about that.
The problem with Senator Faulkner’s proposals, firstly, is that they are not legislated; they ought to be. Secondly, they apply to ministers and perhaps, in some other circumstances, backbenchers of the government, though that is not clear, rather than to all members of parliament. Thirdly, they apply to some lobbyists but not all lobbyists. The minister has just given the example of public relations groups. The coal industry, the logging industry and the mining industry come to the fore with their big edifices here in Canberra, working as public relations officers—a prodigious lobby, unseen by the public in this place—with presumably a loophole a mile wide to escape the requirements that otherwise might ensure that everybody knows when they see ministers and when they do not and whether they are complying with the code of conduct.
This code should be legislated. This code should apply to all members of parliament. This code should apply to all lobbyists who see members of parliament. Let me give another big loophole. We are moving into a new balance of power situation in the Senate. All parties will be able to contribute to the balance of power. Not just the crossbench but all members of the opposition will hold the balance of power in given circumstances. I know from previously being in the position that, when it comes down to one or two people making a decision, the big end of town will be queuing up immediately to lobby them. Are Senator Fielding or Senator elect Xenophon, when he enters the Senate after 1 July, or indeed any of the five Greens, going to be under the purview of the register and the Lobbying Code of Conduct? No, they are not. We ought to be, and so should the lobbyists who come to see us. I would want to know that this Lobbying Code of Conduct applies not just in this parliament and in our electoral offices but at business lunches, fundraising dinners and everywhere where politicians are approached by lobbyists because of a sectional interest that they want to pursue.
We are here for all the people all of the time and the least we can do is let all the people all of the time know who is seeing us, what their case is and whether they have been successful. Let us be straight about it. There are thousands of lobbyists in all the great democracies. I understand there are 80,000 in Washington. They pervert and corrupt the democratic system because they get opportunities that the rest of the citizens do not. If we believe in a democracy of one person, one vote, one value, we have to go much further than this code of conduct and this register in correcting that imbalance. Senator Faulkner is quite right in that we have to hear from industries, from non-government organisations, from unions and from individuals. We are here in a representative democracy. All of us know that there are powerful interests at work which have huge sway on the body politic which the average citizen suspects but does not know about. And they change outcomes in parliaments. We ought to know about that. All of us who are involved in making decisions ought to be prepared to be totally transparent about those lobbyists who come to see us. This register and this code of conduct go nowhere near satisfying complete transparency of the forceful powers that come to sway not just on government but on all members of parliament and, indeed, as Senator Faulkner said, on the bureaucracy. There is a long way to go here.
I call on the government to legislate this code and this register; otherwise you leave it to the good people to do the right thing and to the crooks, the villains and those who want to get an advantage in the night to slide around the side. If you have not had an approach from somebody wanting an advantage and offering one in return, you have not been in this place very long. We have a long way to go beyond this. It is a very meek, tremulous and unsatisfactory start to really throwing open the power of lobbyists and the perversion that can occur in the political system—and did occur under the last government—being manifest. It is something we should go a lot further towards correcting. I congratulate Senator Faulkner for raising the issue onto the public agenda. I know it has been brought before the Senate on budget day. We have a long, long way to go before we satisfactorily ensure that the public is given total transparency when it comes to lobbyists, who are there either to represent them or to gain an advantage against their interests in the parliamentary system.
While the opposition broadly support the thrust of both the Lobbying Code of Conduct and the register of interests, we are deeply cynical about both the stated reasons for the code and the timing of its release today. I would like to make some general comments about the code and then get to the code specifically. The Lobbying Code of Conduct released today by the government will not stop the Brian Burkes of this world or other Labor identities from breaking the rules. Labor broke the old rules and Labor will break these new rules. The bottom line is this code will not stop the sorts of problems we have seen arise with former Western Australian Premier Brian Burke or the types of abuses we have read about in the media regarding Labor Party figures and the Wollongong council sex and bribe scandal. Let us not forget that we are only having this debate today for one reason: a string of problems involving Labor identities turned lobbyists who have overstepped the mark in their dealings with both local Labor councillors and state and federal Labor MPs.
I would now like to turn to the code. This code, like the draft, still gives the cabinet secretary unfettered power under section 10.3 to exercise absolute discretion to not register or remove a lobbyist from the register. The minister now defends this by saying that he expects ‘this power will be used in exceptional circumstances only’. Giving yourself complete and unaccountable power with the caveat that you do not expect to use it very much is to use words that should fill everyone involved in this matter with both fear and trepidation. It is still a case of all roads leading to the Special Minister of State and Prime Minister Rudd.
The Rudd government has somewhat addressed the lack of recourse for those who are struck off or denied joining the register but only after the issue was exposed by the opposition. The process by which the cabinet secretary contacts a lobbyist or individual and discusses a potential breach is done in secret. Our question is: where is the accountability in that change?
Also of great concern to the coalition is that this code does not even once mention unions. Unions are not only aggressive campaigners in federal elections but also the most aggressive lobbyists in politics. Their power and influence over Labor governments is not just confined to visitations in ministerial offices. Last Australia Day, representatives of the MUA enjoyed the hospitality of the Prime Minister at the Lodge. Who knows what was discussed and what was agreed. There certainly would not have been any minutes kept of the discussions that day.
In this code, unions come under part (f) of the description of ‘lobbyist’ in section 3 and, remarkably, are therefore exempted from this code. Everyone agrees that unions have the right to put their case forward on policy issues and be walking the corridors of Parliament House, but this exemption for unions, combined with the tens of millions of dollars they donate to the Labor Party, raises serious questions about how effective this code will be in the real world. The omission of unions from this code is breathtaking but, despite this flaw being pointed out by the coalition to Prime Minister Rudd, he has chosen to ignore this advice and persisted with giving unions special privileges. The community will quite rightly ask the rhetorical question: ‘Why are unions being given special privileges in this matter?’ If this code is to have any credibility it simply must deal with the issue of lobbying by union officials.
Like the draft code, this code provides no penalties for government representatives who breach the code. It also still fails to account for the realities of government. What constitutes an oral communication under section 3? Does a chance meeting at the Parliament House coffee shop ‘Aussie’s’ fall under this definition? What happens if a lobbyist has a chance conversation with a ministerial staffer out of sitting hours who is unaware of their engagement as a lobbyist? The provisions of this code certainly will not stop the sort of clandestine meetings we have read about in the media involving the likes of Brian Burke or the types of activities of those Labor figures on the Wollongong Council.
This code, like its predecessor draft, does not properly deal with conflicts of interest or even mention the conflicts relating to spouses or close relatives. While I am sure it is not its intention, in practical terms this code may exempt Prime Minister Rudd’s chief of staff, whose wife is a senior lobbyist. Another practical flaw with this code which may lead to ministerial personnel problems down the track is the prohibition on ministerial staffers taking jobs in the private sector in an area in which they had official dealings. There is no definition of ‘official dealings’. Who makes that decision? Is it the Prime Minister? Is it the Special Minister of State?
While the provision of section 7.1 for former ministers appears reasonable, the prohibition under section 7.2 affecting current Labor ministerial staffers does not appear to take into account situations where they may lose their jobs under reshuffles or the like. In practical terms, this provision appears to be totally unfair. To take a practical example, what happens in a situation where, hypothetically, Treasurer Wayne Swan loses the Treasury portfolio in a reshuffle? What happens to his economic advisers? Under this code there are restrictions on what future jobs they can take. Surely this is a disincentive for potential budding ministerial staffers to enter the political fray. This provision can only have long-term consequences for the quality of staff that ministers can recruit.
Another flaw in this code is that, by exempting companies who lobby directly, there is nothing to stop the Brian Burkes of this world working as employees for a company part-time. It exempts companies who put a former politician on their board of directors for lobbying purposes. It encourages companies to hide their lobbying activities by doing it directly—that is, outside the code—and it discourages an open and transparent understanding of lobbying.
The register requires lobbyists to list all the clients they are lobbying on behalf of. Some would say that is fair enough. But what happens in the circumstances where the Hawker Brittons of this world are in Prime Minister Rudd’s office for a political and strategy briefing and they happen to mention one of their clients or an issue affecting one of their clients? The code does not cover that situation.
I am pleased that Senator Faulkner took on board the coalition’s concerns about the draft code effectively giving Labor law firms a special deal. As the coalition argued on the day the draft was released, by giving lawyers a special exemption we would be moving towards the American model, where most lobbyists are registered as law firms, gaining their clients special lawyer-client legal privilege. Fortunately the coalition was successful in forcing that change.
Finally and importantly, why is this very important debate occurring just hours before the Prime Minister’s first budget? Here is a new government, where Prime Minister Rudd cynically talks about openness, accountability and transparency, and they are dropping this controversial code in the afternoon before the budget so that it gets lost in tomorrow’s newspapers. It is a tactic classically out of an episode of the West Wing. The fact is the Prime Minister wants this debate, which is essentially about the cultural problems of the Labor Party, to be buried under an avalanche of media reports about the budget. It may be a smart short-term political tactic but it has all the characteristics of a government that, in its infancy, is already successfully avoiding accountability. There is no justification, as Senator Bob Brown said, for this matter to be raised today. This is an issue that should not be lost in tomorrow’s budget papers. This is an issue that deserved greater transparency, greater discussion and the ability for the media to be commenting on this matter. They will not comment on this because they will be commenting on the budget. This is not openness. This is not transparency. As I said earlier, we broadly support the thrust of this; we are deeply cynical about both its rationale and the timing of its release.
I am going to start with two notes of congratulation. The first is because, for a change—because it has been put aside as a form of courtesy—we have a ministerial statement to which we can actually apply a debate. It had become the practice under the previous government to drop them into the Senate with no debate, so I am glad to see a return to proper Senate consideration of a ministerial statement. Attached to that note of congratulation is of course a congratulation to the government for having put out an exposure draft two months ago, and for there being adequate time for both the media and politicians to examine this and to come forward with their final conclusion at the earliest opportunity, which is the first sitting day of the new session. I thought the previous criticism outlined was both ungracious and inaccurate.
My second note of congratulation is for the introduction of the code itself. This is an advance in accountability and integrity. This is a movement forward. It is a bit like people criticising a situation where there has been no house and a house has then been built which has not got two bathrooms, only one, and has got only one bedroom and should have two. We have got a house; now let’s build on it. That is going to be the thrust of my remarks. I welcome and I am pleased with the initiative of the government. I want to say to you: it is inadequate and it needs further additions.
When I and my party have looked at the business of lobbying and the question of how a lobbying register should be set up, we have had to address the same fundamental questions which I am sure the minister has addressed. In viewing these questions, the great thing the minister has been able to do is to overcome the natural inertia—in fact the very considerable forces that are always against these sorts of moves. It is no accident that in the previous government they did absolutely zip on this, because the powers that were opposed to a lobbyist register were very strong indeed, despite there being members within the Liberal Party who would certainly have thought it a good idea.
The basic questions you need to cover when you are dealing with something like a lobbyists register are, firstly, who should be on it, how the applications should be made, how decisions as to who should be on it are made and whether there is review of decisions. Secondly, there is the question of how it should be administered and whether that is independent or in house. Thirdly is the question of who should be affected by a lobbying register and, fourthly, what should be the means for enforcement and discipline?
Going to the third question of who should be affected by it, obviously this register covers cabinet ministers, junior ministers and parliamentary secretaries, but there is the question of caucus committee chairs and members of those caucus committees, there is the question of Senate and House committee chairs and their members, and there is the question of members and senators themselves and, as Senator Bob Brown rightly said, particularly with respect to senators who may hold the balance of power on particular issues before the Senate. There is the question of who in the public sector should be covered by it, whether it is those covered by the Financial Management and Accountability Act or the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act, and there is the question of whether the register should apply not just to the Commonwealth but to all states and territories. The basic issue of lobbyists is the same whether you are in the Commonwealth or in the states or territories.
When we think about those who lobby, sometimes those who get the most flak for being basically creatures for hire are those who lobby for anyone—in other words, they are firms whose business is lobbying. But they are no different to accountants or lawyers who accept a fee for service. In that sense, they are a business for hire. The second group are those who lobby for a specific sector or group. There are organisations representing for-profits—peak organisations such as those who lobby for miners or farmers or those sorts of people who are making a profit. There are lobby groups who lobby for specific not-for-profit sections of the community such as unions or clubs. There are lobby groups who represent churches, religions or sects.
There are those who lobby for their own corporation or entity, whether for profit or not for profit—that would be people like Telstra or big not-for-profit organisations such as, say, the Catholic health body. There are those who lobby on their own account as individuals—they have a specific problem with a specific law—and those who lobby in the public interest who have no self-interest but are attached to causes such as environmental groups or civil liberties groups.
The criticisms that surround the register that we have been presented with cover many fields. They cover the fields of independence, they cover the fields of enforceability and they cover the fields of exemption. The Australian Democrats have recognised that this is a complex and difficult issue and it is one on which we need the Senate to form a consensus and push the government for a better standard. We do not simply need to hear the sorts of criticisms without solutions that some might offer. Consequently, I have today put down in the Senate a notice of motion, a signed version of which I have submitted, which asks that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration inquire into and report on this lobbying code of conduct by the first sitting Thursday of August 2008. I should note that, when I put it down, I had an exposure draft before me and it was titled ‘Exposure Draft’. But that of course is now replaced by the documents before us.
I have asked that the committee examine the code of conduct issued by the government and whether the proposed code of conduct is adequate to achieve its aims—in particular, (a) whether a consolidated code applying to members of both houses of the parliament and their staff as well as to ministers and their staff should be adopted by a joint resolution of the two houses; (b) whether the code should be confined to organisations representing clients or should be extended to organisations which will lobby on their own behalf; (c) whether the proposed exemptions are justified; and (d) any other relevant matters. Frankly, I am open to having those terms of reference changed, improved, except for the one which says ‘any other relevant matters’, because I do not want it to be narrowly confined. Having given the minister a lead that he may propose additions to the terms of reference if he wants to accept the notice of motion, I am happy to do that.
In concluding my remarks, I say let us be clear that this is a very significant milestone—a very significant advance. The minister and the government should be congratulated on it, but the Senate should do its work to improve and add to what we have been offered to make us a leader in the world, not just a follower, with respect to this issue.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death of Lance Corporal Jason Marks while on a combat operation in Afghanistan andplaces on record its appreciation of his service to his country and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
On behalf of the Australian government and members of the Senate, I extend my deepest condolences to Lance Corporal Marks’s wife, Cassandra, their two children, Connor and Ella, and his parents, Paul and Sharon. Lance Corporal Marks was a loving father, husband and son. He was also highly respected by his peers and renowned for his dedication and his enthusiasm for his job. He had a distinguished career in the Army, rising to the position of Commando in the 4th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment. He deployed to East Timor and Afghanistan on more than one occasion. He received numerous service medals and was awarded a Unit Citation for Gallantry in 2006.
The sad death of Lance Corporal Marks gives us pause to reflect on the extraordinary strength of character and courage that all our service men and women display. In particular, our soldiers deployed to Afghanistan are making a significant contribution to the region. They are working with coalition partners and the government of Afghanistan to rebuild the country and provide security for its people.
Just over two weeks ago, on Anzac Day, the nation reflected on the Australian traditions of courage and of fighting for freedom and the common good. These traditions are part of who we are as a nation, but tragedies such as this remind us that they come at a terrible cost. As the Prime Minister reminded us a few weeks ago, our commitment to Afghanistan will come at a very high cost. Our successful operations in Iraq, where we suffered a very low level of casualties, created a false sense in the minds of the Australian public of the risks faced by Australian personnel deployed in active combat zones. What we have learnt in Afghanistan is the reality of our commitment to combat and the real costs that our soldiers and other service personnel pay.
The Rudd Labor government and, I think, all members of the Senate take our responsibilities very seriously when we take a decision to send our service personnel into harm’s way by committing them to combat activity. We all carry a heavy burden when we see the cost of our decisions to commit our troops on behalf of Australia. Lance Corporal Marks made a significant contribution to the national interest and to securing peace and nation building in East Timor and Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Marks lost his life serving his nation with courage and honour, and his sacrifice will not be forgotten. It is with great sadness that we pause today as a mark of respect to Lance Corporal Marks and honour his service to the nation.
I rise on behalf of the coalition to support the motion moved by Senator Evans. I want to place on record our support for the motion and our very deep regret at the tragic death of Lance Corporal Jason Marks, who was killed while serving with the Special Operations Task Group in Afghanistan. As a member of the government that decided to commit our Special Operations Task Group to Afghanistan, and now as the shadow defence minister, I am particularly saddened by his death. We note and record that Corporal Marks was a loyal and dedicated member of the Australian Defence Force. We on the coalition side join with the government in expressing our sincere condolences to Lance Corporal Marks’s wife, Cassandra, and their children, friends and family for this very sad and tragic loss. I also take this opportunity to express our profound wishes for a speedy recovery for the four soldiers wounded in the fighting that resulted in Lance Corporal Marks’s very sad and untimely death.
I want to add to the record the Democrats’ support for this motion. The important contribution our service personnel make, and the risk that they face everywhere they are in the world, should always be noted. Regardless of people’s views about the merits or otherwise of particular conflicts, we should always ensure that does not spill across into any loss of support for the importance of the role our armed forces play. I would also, as always, emphasise that needs to include continuing to support their families—those that can also pay a price. In this incident, of course, the family—the children and spouse of this soldier killed in action—should not be forgotten.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 27 March 2008 of Ruth Nancy Coleman, a senator for Western Australia from 1974 to 1987.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 27 March 2008, of Ruth Nancy Coleman, former senator for Western Australia and places on record its appreciation of her long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement.
I had the pleasure of knowing Ruth Coleman, and growing up in the Western Australian Labor Party while she was a leading, and firebrand, light. She was a woman of great passion, great commitment, and great tenacity, and she took the view that no challenge was too much for her. She was a real inspiration for the participation of many women in the Labor Party, and in politics, and that continued throughout her career in the Senate.
She was born in the coalfield town of Collie in Western Australia on 27 September 1931 and, like so many working-class children of her generation, she left school at 14 and went to work in a variety of jobs before ending up in advertising and public relations. Before entering federal parliament Ruth’s political activism was focused on consumer affairs. She became very well known in the Western Australian community as a very strong advocate for the rights of consumers at a time when such activity was not commonplace.
Ruth became heavily involved as secretary of the Consumer Action Movement, and she was appointed by the Western Australian government as a foundation member of the Consumer Affairs Council of WA. She was also a member of the Retail Trades Advisory and Control Committee. Together with former senator Pat Giles, she brought a whole new aspect to the membership and participation of women in the Western Australian Labor Party.
Ruth was elected as a senator for Western Australia in 1973. She was then only the third woman ever to be elected to the Commonwealth parliament from Western Australia, and one of only four women in the Senate at that time. During those years, the male dominance of the parliament manifested itself in many ways, and Ruth was quick to come up against the male political establishment. She became known for challenging those establishment rules. When she was first elected, there were no bathrooms for women senators, and she started by waging a campaign for more female bathrooms on the Senate side of Parliament House. She insisted on using the male senators’ bathrooms until her demands were met.
Later that same year, Ruth joined in a protest by 30 members of the Women’s Electoral Lobby against the men-only bar of the Canberra Rex Hotel. They had originally been refused service, but a week later—after Ruth led another well-fought publicity campaign—the hotel relented and opened up the bar to women as well.
Ruth was also famous for the controversy she generated in 1975 when she tried to play for the parliamentary cricket XI. Ruth had volunteered to play on the parliamentary team in the annual politicians versus press gallery cricket match. To the great shame of the Democrats, the then team captain, the late Don Chipp—he might have still been in the Liberals then; that may explain it—refused to have her on his side, telling her that he could not accept the mind-bending prospect of crouching in the slips beside a woman.
Undeterred, the following year Ruth led her own mixed side against the press gallery, which had decided to place a ban on Chipp for male chauvinism. It is worth noting that, despite this incident, the two of them went on to become great friends. Ruth was that sort of character.
Ruth also took on the Taxation Office in 1978, when it refused to grant her deductions for childcare costs. Eventually the Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled in her favour, in what was hailed at the time as a victory for working mothers across Australia. Unfortunately, we are still having the same debates.
Beyond these stories, Ruth was a very active and effective senator during her 13 years in parliament. She fought against discrimination in all areas. She was passionate and outspoken on a range of issues, including consumer affairs, women’s rights, human rights, Indigenous affairs, world peace and disarmament, and she was particularly well known for her anti-uranium views. I know she was unhappy with my role in the ALP changing its policy in that regard last year.
During her time here, Ruth was the co-convenor of the Parliamentary Disarmament Group and was heavily involved in the Australian Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International. Ruth also served on a number of standing, select and joint parliamentary committees. These included the Senate Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on National Development and Ownership and Control of Australian Resources Committee, the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control, and the Senate Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes. She chaired the Senate Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on Industry and Trade and the Senate Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce. In her valedictory speech, Ruth told the story of her first Senate caucus meeting. Those present were discussing the various committees, and one of her colleagues suggested that she would be best suited to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare because she was a woman. In response, Ruth made a point of registering her interest in the standing committee on industry and trade. It was typical of her tenacity and talent that she became not only a member of the committee but eventually the committee chair. You didn’t mess with Ruth! In addition she also served as Temporary Chair of Committees from March 1976 to June 1987.
Like all Western Australian politicians, Ruth worked hard at trying to balance her work and family life, given the demands of travel, and no doubt her exhausting workload contributed to the cerebral haemorrhage she suffered in 1984. It was a terrible thing, but she displayed her trademark courage and determination to overcome that event. She returned to the Senate in 1986 but stepped down just before the 1987 federal election. In fact, I was due to replace her at that time but we had a double dissolution and I got done by the Nuclear Disarmament Party—which was a good thing for me! I had some dealings with her when I was seeking to succeed her and she really put up an enormous fight to contribute to politics and community activism despite the very severe health issue she suffered from, which was very debilitating. As I said, she showed great bravery in dealing with that and great purpose of mind.
Ruth Coleman was a pioneering woman in the Senate and did much to change public perceptions of the role of women in politics. It is a testament to the battles she fought and won that at the time of her retirement in 1987 the number of women in parliament had increased to 25, with 17 of them in the Senate. Of course that number has continued to grow since then. Ruth was known as a crusader for many worthy causes, and throughout her life she showed courage and determination in everything that she applied herself to. Ruth passed away on 27 March. On behalf of the government I offer my condolences to Ruth’s two children, Terry and Brad, and to her grandchildren, Kelly, Shane and Glen. Ruth will be missed.
On behalf of all coalition senators, I want to join with Senator Chris Evans in extending our sympathies to the family for former Senator Ruth Coleman, who passed away on 27 March 2008, aged 76. Senator Evans has more than adequately described the very colourful life that former Senator Coleman lived and the enormous contribution she made. I think it is more than appropriate that we should all join in celebrating most particularly what was obviously a tremendous contribution with the very worthy aim of ensuring the proper representation of women in the Commonwealth parliament. That is something we, particularly we males, should all acknowledge is vital. She obviously made a huge difference to that cause. Certainly as a former party official I have always thought that it is really important that we all work to encourage more women to put their hand up to serve in the Commonwealth parliament in particular and that women do bring a different perspective, and often it is a very civilising and important perspective.
I think Ruth Coleman showed the great virtues of passion and energy and a determination to make a difference, something which I always try to encourage in younger aspiring and actual parliamentarians: ‘Don’t come here and just be a timeserver and enjoy it. If you are going to be here try and make a difference.’ Obviously Ruth Coleman had the tremendous energy and determination to do that and had an extraordinarily colourful life in so doing. Without being unduly sensitive, I am sure Don Chipp’s then membership of the Liberal Party had nothing to do with him thinking that cricket should be played only by men, because I love seeing women play sport and I encourage it—and good on Ruth for making sure that Don got the message. I am pleased to hear that indeed they ended up good mates after that.
I also note, and I am sure Senator Evans sympathises with this, that those of us in the nearer states always have great admiration for those who serve in this place representing electorates in or the state of Western Australia. To represent Western Australia in this place, Western Australia being the biggest and the furthermost state, is extraordinarily demanding, particularly for those with families. So we acknowledge that and acknowledge what was obviously the enormous support that Ruth got from her family in undertaking that very difficult role. In fact, that is why I have always thought that the capital of Australia should have been Adelaide, to make it easier for Western Australians to come to parliament. As John Stone said, perhaps placing Canberra here was the nation’s biggest mistake. No doubt Western Australians would agree.
The other interesting thing about Ruth Coleman was this passionate opposition to uranium mining, something we on this side have never quite understood. It is very interesting to reflect on the hysteria that uranium used to cause in the Labor Party. I used to be the Liberal Party spy at national conferences of the Labor Party and witnessed the extraordinary, passionate debates about whether or not uranium should be dug out of the ground and, of course, Ruth was at the forefront of that. It is remarkable that to this day her state of Western Australia continues to ban uranium mining, much to the great benefit of my state of South Australia, which all the uranium miners are pouring into because they are not allowed to go into Western Australia. So Ruth’s passionate opposition to uranium mining continues to live on in her home state. That is a surprise to us all but that is a reflection of the passion she brought to her public life and to that issue in particular.
So we are pleased to join with Senator Evans and the government in extending to her family our deepest sympathies. Clearly, she had to recover from a very serious illness 20-odd years ago. While we are grateful that her family had another 20-odd years of sharing life with Ruth, nevertheless 76 is too young to leave this life. We are saddened by that and we extend our best wishes to her family.
I wish to associate the Australian Democrats with this condolence motion and debate. I did not have the privilege of knowing former Senator Coleman personally, but clearly she served in this chamber during the time of many Democrat senators. A couple of her experiences with key founding Democrat member Don Chipp have already been mentioned. I do not know if the particular incident that was mentioned was before or after he shifted to the Democrats but, given their similar views on the issues of uranium and nuclear disarmament, I am not surprised that any earlier disagreements with regard to other matters were overcome.
It is also particularly important for us as Democrats to pay tribute to pioneering women, something the Democrats as a party have always given a lot of significance and importance to. I think it is important to make two points. Firstly, for all the progress that has been made, we do need to emphasise that we are certainly well short of equality, even basic equality in numbers in this chamber and in parliament more broadly. Just 30 or so years ago, in 1974, Ruth Coleman first came into the Senate. It is not that long ago, and to think of a Senate that had less than a handful, only two or three, female senators is quite extraordinary. We have made progress since then and, whilst there is still undoubtedly progress to be made, I think it is fair to say that it is a hell of a lot harder being one woman amongst three or four than being one amongst 20 or 30. We particularly have to pay tribute to those who performed that pioneering role, whilst continuing to emphasise the need to make further progress.
In some ways it sounds minor to be singling out Ruth Coleman’s role in the simple matter of having female toilets available for senators, which is mentioned in some of the media commentary about her life. The bizarre situation in Old Parliament House of two toilets being available, one marked ‘senators’ and one marked ‘officials’, outside the Senate chamber sounds laughable now, but I am sure it was not funny at all at the time. Those sorts of basic mechanisms for exclusion might sound minor but are very telling.
Ruth Coleman played a role not just in the anti-uranium debates but in nuclear disarmament and in issues which, in the 1980s in particular, were very fierce. In some ways I wish, particularly in terms of disarmament issues, that the debates were as passionate today as they were back then. She was a key player in those battles. It was interesting to read her final speech to this Senate in June 1987, in which she mentioned her disappointment with their changing policies on uranium issues, which is obviously no secret to the Labor Party. She also made statements which, sadly, are not out of place with ones many of us would make—in fact, I may well be making a similar one in a month’s time. They were statements about being disappointed with the lack of progress in Indigenous affairs, an area that she was also a strong campaigner on in Western Australia, and in human rights issues. I was interested to read about her role. Indeed, she was sentenced to jail—but ended up not going because her fine was paid—for breaching a Western Australian law of the time, a section of the Police Act which sought to restrict meetings to no more than three people without police permission, which is reminiscent of some of the laws that used to be in place in Queensland in the 1980s.
Senator Boswell interjecting—
It may well not be severe. We will not have a debate on that now, Senator Boswell. The simple fact is that, at least in how it is described, it was clearly a very severe law with regard to basic civil liberties. It was probably no surprise, given the picture of Ruth Coleman that has been painted. She was at the forefront of challenging that law directly by speaking at a meeting in 1980 and, after making a speech claiming her right to address constituents, being amongst 42 people arrested in Forrest Place. As I said, she faced jail because of her refusal to pay the fine, until it was paid by someone unknown. She was clearly a woman not at all afraid to speak her mind. She spoke out on behalf of other women and of other people. That role of a senator, speaking on behalf of people whose voices would otherwise not be heard, is a very important one.
The tenacity she demonstrated by overcoming the very severe and serious brain haemorrhage that she suffered without warning just before the 1984 election should be noted, as it has been by others. To recuperate from that and come back after a year or so of convalescing shows determination and also, as I think she also said in her speech upon returning, her love of the role of the Senate and the work that she could do there.
It is a bit unfortunate, but totally understandable, that we sometimes have few people speak to condolence motions for people who last served in this place many years ago. In some ways, I guess we all hope that we will live long enough that, when we do die, there will be no-one left serving here who remembers us. That would mean we have managed to survive for a fair while, so it is probably not a bad thing in lots of ways. But it does tend to mean that former senators’ contributions may not be as fully recognised as they might otherwise have been.
Clearly, Ruth Coleman was a pioneering woman in many ways. She has left a legacy not just for the Senate but for public engagement and political debate more broadly. As I think Senator Evans mentioned in his contribution, Ruth Coleman left school at the age of 13 or 14. She is one of a number of people who showed that a lack of formal education was no barrier to contributing incredibly effectively to the wider community, and indeed to political debate. That of course is not an exhortation that people should forget about school and go do something else; it is a reminder that, when people have that tenacity, that determination and that talent, they can overcome a lot of hurdles. Ruth Coleman did that in lots of ways. I am sure that the Senate, her state of Western Australia and the nation are better for her contribution. I associate the Democrats both with this motion and with condolences for her family.
Senator Ruth Coleman, who died on 27 March, served in the parliament from 1974 to 1987 as a senator for Western Australia. When elected she was one of only five women in the federal parliament—four in the Senate and one, Joan Child, in the House of Representatives. A feminist and fighter for many women’s causes, she commented in 1975, soon after being elected:
I think we are not mature enough yet to accept that women can be just as successful in the political field as in any other, and once this maturity arrives, we won’t appear so freakish. It’s unfortunate that we only have five female members out of 187. I’d like to see 25 to 30 women in—I don’t think that is too many out of 187, but I’ll not see it in my lifetime.
Well, she did see it in her lifetime, and she also saw encouraging progress during her time of service in the parliament. When she retired from the Senate in 1987 there were 25 women in the parliament, 17 of them in the Senate. And of course it is due to trailblazers like Ruth Coleman that we now have a total of 68 women—28 senators and 40 members—in the parliament. We owe her and those early women in the parliament a huge debt.
The return of the Whitlam government after the double dissolution in 1974 saw three Labor women elected to parliament: Ruth Coleman and Jean Melzer to the Senate and Joan Child to the House of Representatives, which had been without a woman member since October 1969. By 1984 Senator Coleman was the longest serving Labor woman in the federal parliament. Her background as Secretary of the Consumer Action Movement ensured that consumer protection was one of the issues she pursued here, and one that featured in her maiden speech. She served on many committees, including one on Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory and another on the Family Law Act. Not wanting to be restricted to so-called women’s issues, she chose to serve on, and later chair, the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade rather than the health and welfare committee initially offered to her. She was co-convener of the parliamentary disarmament group and belonged to the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International and to the ALP Parliamentarians Committee for Peace and Justice.
Senator Ruth Coleman’s maiden speech heralded the arrival in this parliament of a passionate feminist. She spoke of the discrimination faced by women in obtaining finance and of the requirement then for a male guarantor for financial loans and other matters. Soon after her arrival in the Senate she began campaigning for more women’s toilets in the parliament—such practical things—and she joined a protest by 30 members of the Women’s Electoral Lobby who were refused service in a ‘men-only’ bar at the old Canberra Rex Hotel. These issues received comprehensive press coverage. More importantly, perhaps, she highlighted the desperate shortages of women’s refuges, especially in Western Australia, and spoke of systematic police violence towards Aborigines in the north-west of Western Australia, sparking calls for a royal commission into these allegations. Another passionate cause for Senator Coleman was her anti-uranium mining and antinuclear weapons campaigns. She featured at protests at which she, with other Labor politicians, was arrested. She was indignant at one time when her court-imposed fine was paid by an anonymous supporter so that she did not go to jail.
Ruth was respected by, and in turn respected and maintained friendships with, a great number of the parliamentarians of her time including, for example, Liberals Fred Chaney and Peter Baume. On her retirement in 1987 Senator Chaney spoke of the trust and appreciation that had built up, and Senator Coleman spoke of the cross-party friendships, built often through committee work. In her valedictory speech she vowed to continue to apply pressure on questions of human rights, Aboriginal health and land rights, and in the debates on uranium and nuclear issues.
Susan Ryan, who was elected to the Senate in December 1975, commented of Ruth that ‘the constant travel from Perth to Canberra was cruel, but she withstood it stoically’. However, at the end of 1984 she suffered three severe aneurysms on the brain and spent 1985 fighting her way back to health. The Senate welcomed her back at the beginning of 1986, with many comments on her courage. Among her many interests were Scrabble and bowls, and in 1983 she was the first woman to win the parliamentary snooker handicap competition.
Of the senators in this current parliament only three served with Ruth Coleman, the only Labor senator being Senator Robert Ray, who of course has left us. I am very sorry that Senator Ray has left us. Senator Ray would remember the great controversy over the parliamentary cricket team of 1975, when Don Chipp sought to field a Parliamentary XI to play the Australian Cricket Society. Senator Coleman asked to be included in the team. Don Chipp, then on the Liberal opposition front bench, replied, inter alia:
My dear Senator, I am proud that I have never been accused of male chauvinism ... God knows, and all Members of Parliament know, that it is International Women’s Year ...[but] I must draw the line somewhere. To me, cricket is a sacred game, and as one of its many purists ... it is with great reluctance—but equal firmness—that I withdraw the invitation to you to play cricket in the Parliamentary Xl ...
Subsequently he was reported as saying:
If she bowled as fast as Thompson, with the guile of Lindwall, the hostility of Lillee, batted with the panache of Ian Chappell and the grace of Greg Chappell, and kept wickets as well as Marsh or Knott, the dear lady still would not play in my cricket team.
Complaining of Mr Chipp’s patronising air, and the fact that he had not bothered to determine whether or not she could play, Ruth set about recruiting a rival parliamentary cricket team to play a mixed team from the press gallery. The two teams played on the same day, with Don Chipp’s team being defeated and Ruth Coleman’s team scoring ‘a disputed win’.
I would like to associate the National Party with this condolence motion. I was one of the people who served in this parliament with Ruth Coleman. She was going out when I was coming in. Her term was from 1974 to 1987 and mine started in 1983. From memory, I think there was a parliamentary group of Amnesty International that was made up of one person from every party in the Senate, and I believe I was representing the Amnesty International group, or the disarmament group, for the National Party, so I had a fair bit to do with her on occasions.
I acknowledge her pioneering role and her involvement in promoting women into parliament. I can remember that she was totally committed to the anti-uranium movement. She was interested in Aboriginal affairs and I can recall her championing all those causes. She was a pioneer in her day. She broke new ground for women and it sounds as though she was well and truly able to stand up for herself and use whatever she could to promote women. Whether it was gaining a drink at the front bar of the Rex Hotel or playing a mixed cricket match, she used those avenues to promote her cause very cleverly. I give my best wishes to her family in this time of sadness.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 8 April 2008, of Senator the Hon. John Norman Button, a senator for the state of Victoria from 1974 to 1993. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 8 April 2008, of the Honourable John Norman Button, former federal minister and senator for Victoria, and places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Today we note the passing of a great Australian, Labor Party activist, senator for Victoria for 19 years and one of the most eminent industry ministers in our nation’s history. It has not been a good parliamentary break for the Labor Party, having lost Ruth Coleman and John Button. Although John Button was small of stature, he was a giant of the Labor Party. In tributes to John Button, he has also been described as a rare phenomenon in Australian politics, someone who commanded the affection and respect of people throughout the country and not just in political circles. You certainly got a sense of this at his funeral last month, which I had the honour of attending, along with the Deputy Prime Minister and many other members of the government. The Labor Party generally respects its former leaders and senior figures very well. I think many of the Liberal Party wish that they also did in that regard.
It was a great funeral. I know I should not describe a funeral in that way, but it was a great celebration of a life, a great celebration of John Button’s contribution, his energy and his humour. The church was packed to the brim, with mourners also outside. In this parliament a number of the support staff who worked at Parliament House when John was a minister came and sat in my office to watch coverage of the funeral service on TV. It shows the sort of affection in which he was held, and everyone had a John Button story. As I said, the funeral was a great celebration. The speeches were fantastic and the best was delivered by Bill Hayden, the former Governor-General, former Leader of the Opposition and former leader of the Labor Party. Bill Hayden gave the best speech I have ever heard him give. It was a fantastic speech, full of compassion and humour. It really was a great contribution to the marking of John Button’s life, particularly as their relationship had been remarked upon because of the role John Button played in suggesting to Bill Hayden that he ought to stand down as leader of the Labor Party just prior to the 1983 election. Bill noted in his contribution that, despite the deep hurt and their falling out over that event, they went on to renew their friendship and he was very pleased to speak at the funeral in honour of John Button.
John Button was known for being a straight-talking man. A commentator once gave him the title ‘the Minister for Possum Stirring’. John’s unwavering honesty meant that he never failed to kick up a stir, particularly in government circles. But it meant that he always commanded enormous respect, not just within the ALP but across the political spectrum.
Perhaps what endeared John so much to the Australian people and those who knew him was his complexity. He had a rich and varied life beyond politics, which made him an interesting and lively character to be around. Many of us are accused of being whitebread politicians; no-one ever accused John Button of that. John was a well-respected and very talented writer as well as a lover of literature and theatre—and, of course, a mad Geelong Cats fan, only equalled, I gather, by Senator Glenn Sterle. As Leader of the Government in the Senate, John worked out of the office that I now occupy. I am told that, in between pushing through the Hawke and Keating governments’ legislative program, he would sit at this table, mulling over team selections and drafting letters of advice to Geelong’s coaches. Apparently, he would do this regularly. He was quite forthright in his advice to Geelong coaches as well. He was, as I say, a very committed supporter and he tried to organise his affairs so as not to miss a Cats game. It was a terrible irony that, in the year that John’s beloved Cats won the AFL premiership and the ALP was returned to federal government, John was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, which ended his life. But, as John once said, as a lifelong Geelong supporter, he had developed an endless capacity to endure pain.
John grew up in Ballarat, but he left home in 1946 to take up a boarding scholarship at Geelong College. He went on to study combined law-arts degrees at the University of Melbourne, again on academic scholarship. After graduating from university, he spent two years travelling around Europe. He lived in different countries, worked a variety of jobs and even joined the Italian Communist Party at one stage—but, apparently, only so that he could get a free trip to a youth festival in Moscow. He was not regarded as a communist inside the Labor Party in later years. In 1959, John returned to Melbourne and joined the well-known Labor firm of Maurice Blackburn and Co. and, by the time he ran on Labor’s Victorian Senate ticket in 1974, he had become a senior partner.
John first joined the Labor Party in 1952, while he was at university. He said that he was drawn to politics by the Menzies government’s attempt to ban the Communist Party the year before. He lived through the 1950 split of the Victorian Labor Party, an experience that led him to spending the sixties as a party activist, pushing for internal reform. In 1965, John joined with other barristers to form a small independent group called the Participants. I am pretty sure that Barney Cooney was also part of that group. They waged a hard-fought campaign for change and ultimately helped modernise the Victorian branch of the ALP, which was a major factor in making the Labor Party electable in 1972. His role inside the Labor Party, in its reform, was critical and is well appreciated by many of us who have succeeded him.
Despite all these years of political activism, it was not until John was 41 that he stood for election to the Senate. His election marked the beginning of a 19-year parliamentary career. But, after just a brief taste of government, Labor lost power in 1975. John moved across to the opposition benches, where he served as a member of the opposition shadow ministry from 1976, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate from 1977 to 1980 and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate from 1980 to 1983—and, as Senator Minchin is now learning, it is a thankless task.
Much has been written about the influential role that John played in the ALP’s election win in 1983, under the leadership of Bob Hawke. John has spoken about how difficult this was for him, and the Labor Party is indebted to him for the courage, strength of character and honesty he showed in encouraging Bill Hayden to step aside for Bob Hawke. In doing so, he changed the course of Australian political history.
John Button was at the heart of the reformist Hawke and Keating governments. As a commentator noted, the only other people who were as involved as John across all the workings of those governments were Bob Hawke and Paul Keating themselves. In addition to taking on the role of Leader of the Government in the Senate, John had the opportunity to choose his portfolio and, to the surprise of many, he chose industry. John did not have a background in industry; he was a lawyer, and he had to undergo a steep learning curve when he took up the portfolio at what was industry policy’s most critical juncture in Australian history.
John may not have had industry experience, but he brought fresh eyes, a sharp mind and a reformist energy to the portfolio, with remarkable results. The enormity of John’s role in reforming Australian industry policy cannot be overstated. He modernised Australian industry, driving cultural change and implementing reforms that have since propelled it into the 21st century. In essence, John Button was responsible for rolling back the protectionism that was suffocating Australian industry and for opening it up to global markets. He is best remembered for the Button car plan, which saved Australia’s car manufacturing industry, and the Button steel plan. However, John was also responsible for initiatives across a wide range of other key industries, including telecommunications, uranium, pharmaceuticals and textiles, and he made a huge contribution in the IT area.
Not only did John Button oversee the restructuring of Australian industry but also he changed the nature of the policy debate. He was an independent thinker, and that was reflected in his style as the minister. He sought a contest of ideas on industry policy and, while he remained committed to his core social democratic values, he was known for being flexible and innovative as a policymaker. All up, John served as the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications from 1983 to 1984 and he was Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce from 1984 until his retirement.
John retired from the Senate in 1993, but he never strayed too far from the public’s consciousness. His breadth of interests outside of politics meant that he slid easily into new roles, most famously as a prolific writer. In addition to his three books, John wrote articles and essays for newspapers and magazines about politics, football and the future of the ALP. The Quarterly Essay he wrote in 2002, titled ‘Beyond belief’, was a powerful exposition of the need for reform in the Labor Party, and he won the 2003 Victorian Premier’s Literary Award.
I discovered at the funeral of John Button that he was an even more prolific writer than I had thought. Apparently, he had a very long career producing great correspondence under a pseudonym; and I understand he did not hold back in his critiques of the people to which he sent correspondence. Immediately after retiring, John took up a position as a professorial fellow at Monash, led a number of trade missions and joined several company boards. He also continued to cultivate his passion for the arts, serving as chair of the Melbourne Writers Festival from 1996 to 2001 and even posing nude as Rodin’s ‘Thinker’ for a portrait that was entered for the Archibald Prize.
John passed away on 8 April 2008. He leaves behind his partner, Joan, and his two sons, Jamie and Nick, who did him proud at the funeral. Tragically, his other son, David, died as a teenager. On behalf of the government I offer my deepest condolences for the loss of a great Australian. We are a stronger, better nation because of John Button’s service. We are a better Labor Party as a result of John Button’s contribution. I think that no-one in public life could ask for a greater legacy than that which he provides.
I rise on behalf of opposition senators to extend our sincere condolences to the family of John Button, who died on 8 April this year aged a tender 74. His death has saddened many, right across the political spectrum. The numerous public statements of regret are passing testament to the very strong regard in which John Button was widely held by politicians across the spectrum, journalists and, of course, the communities that he represented as a senator and a government minister. On our side, I think we would regard John Button as something of a legend of the Australian Labor Party—a key player in the turning points of modern Labor history and someone who made a very significant contribution in his only portfolio in government, that of industry.
We join with Senator Evans in his tribute to a great career. He was, as Senator Evans noted, elected to represent Victoria as a Labor senator in the double dissolution of 1974 and then had a year and a bit in government before being plunged into opposition where he served as Deputy Leader of the Opposition from 1977 and then as leader of the Labor Party in this place, both in opposition and in government. I must say that I feel some close affinity with John Button because we do have in common our services as government leader and opposition leader in this place and our service as industry minister.
John resigned just three months before I commenced my first term, together with Senator Evans. But of course my good friend and former colleague Fred Chaney, who was opposition leader in the Senate for seven years when John was leader of the government, publicly commented that John was a man who served Australia well, bringing great wit and grace into politics. Though it would have been a great privilege to have served with John Button in this chamber, only a handful of those here today had that privilege. Fred Chaney stated that he held the same high opinion of John Button at the end of their period as opposite numbers as he did at the beginning. It is a sign of John’s character, his performance as leader and the respect in which he was held by all sides of politics that, even after their many years of facing each other at this very table, such a statement could be made.
Senator Evans has reminded us that perhaps John Button is most notorious for his critical role in persuading the hapless Bill Hayden to step aside from the Labor Party leadership and make way for Bob Hawke, which of course coincided with Malcolm Fraser calling the 1983 election some nine months early. It is poignant for me because I was, at that time, the deputy federal director of the Liberal Party and responsible for our market research and I knew better than most how very popular Mr Hawke was. I tried desperately and unsuccessfully to persuade Malcolm Fraser not to call that election early because I thought we needed at least the nine months available to us to try to diminish the popularity of Bob Hawke. That was not to be and we lost that election quite significantly. So, Mr Button certainly played a significant role in ensuring that the Labor Party was very successful in that year by his very tough, very difficult role in persuading Bill Hayden, who is equally admired and respected on our side, to step aside.
It is also interesting, as Senator Evans has mentioned, that as Senate leader John Button had a choice of portfolio. On thinking about it for a day or two, he chose the industry and commerce portfolio—which might not have been an obvious choice, and a difficult one for a Victorian coming from an industrial state. To then spend a decade oversighting that portfolio from 1983 to 1993 was a tough gig. As I said, I was also an industry minister and I can certainly attest to the challenge of that portfolio, also coming from an industrial state. Indeed, I became industry minister only five years after John had left the job, and the Button legacy was still very strong at that time. Of course, it is an extremely demanding portfolio and he had the challenge of persuading his own side of politics, and the union movement in particular, that the old ways of producing automobiles and of making steel simply could not go on and that the industry in this country had to accept the reality of the need to internationalise and become competitive in their operations. The country and industry, and the people who work in industry in this country, to this day owe John Button a great debt for his courage in ensuring that the Labor movement was mugged by the reality that industry in this country simply had to become competitive or disappear. He was, of course, the longest serving minister in a single portfolio during the Hawke and Keating years and he has left a great legacy. I was privileged as an industry minister to inherit that legacy and continue, in effect, his work.
John Button was also a great parliamentarian and someone who really understood the culture of this place. In his memoirs he spoke fondly of both the Senate and his Senate colleagues, and he talked about the burden of representing both Mr Hawke and Mr Keating in the Senate chamber. As someone who had to represent both Mr Howard and Mr Costello in this chamber, I know exactly what he was talking about. He did understand, I think as most of us do, that this is a different place; it does require a more constructive and conciliatory approach than the more combative approach in the House of Representatives, and he was a master of that.
So, on behalf of our opposition, I express our deep sympathies to John’s family and friends. He was taken early. We regret very much that he has left us prematurely. To his partner, Joan, his sons, James and Nick, and their families, we place on record our appreciation and my own personal appreciation of John’s long and meritorious public service. We tender our profound sympathies to his family in their bereavement.
The Hon. John Norman Button was a senator in this place from 1974 to 1993. I rise to pay my respects to his life and to express my condolences to his family on behalf of the National Party. I admired John Button tremendously, as a political foe, as an Australian and as a friend and colleague. I read his book, John Button: As It Happened, and appreciated and learnt from it.
I do not recall John Button ever being bested in question time when he was a minister. I recall one particular instance when Bronwyn Bishop, who was very combative, decided to take Senator Button on. She asked a question, and then added, ‘Senator Button, I don’t want you to tap-dance around this one.’ I can recall that his response was: ‘Well, Senator Bishop, if I had to tap-dance I wouldn’t have to dance with you.’ That was off the cuff, spontaneous—it was one of the responses he could come up with. He was generally completely across his portfolio and the machinations of the Labor Party, whose faithful servant he was all his life.
John Button was a rare individual in that he could keep the pressure of politics and government in perspective thanks to a sense of humour and of personal humility. I will never forget the private support he gave me during a difficult time in my family life. We both lost sons. I attended his state funeral out of respect for a man who came into this place for the right reasons and stuck loyally to his motivations. It takes courage and strength to avoid being distracted by the trappings of power and fiefdoms. Australia is a better place because John Button entered this place, and you cannot say better than that of any senator.
He was one of the characters of the Hawke and Keating governments, given to more candour than most senior government figures. He was confident and droll. He was a great performer in the Senate. John Button was Labor from head to toe, but he held no illusions or delusions about the party, politics or politicians. He was dedicated to Labor Party reform. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate from 1983 to 1993, he earned the respect of this place as few ever have. Add the three years he spent as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate from 1980 to 1983 and you have a personality who ran the Labor side of this house for 13 years—an achievement that will be very hard for anyone to ever repeat.
Much has been written about him since his passing by many groups from different fields, from sports to politics to academia. From this you know you have been privileged to play on the same field as him, even if on a different side. But, after all, we are all playing for the Australian team in the end. There are several quotes which show better than anything the quintessential character of this man. Of Gough Whitlam, John Button once wrote:
I admired Gough Whitlam, but not as much as he did. I didn’t believe that anybody had all the answers. I was a doubter. But I had a few hopes. I thought politics could at least make a difference in the margins of people’s lives.
And so it can, but John Button was being modest, for his contributions were more than just at the margins. John Norman Button was the centre page in modernising the Australian economy and the Labor Party. In an interview with the Melbourne Herald in 1988, John Button said: ‘I’ve never had any high expectation in life and I have a capacity for suffering.’ In the end, John Button greatly exceeded his expectations of himself. That was perhaps due to his capacity for suffering, which was called upon regularly throughout his life.
When John Button resigned from the Senate, he did it at his press conference and never had an opportunity to give the traditional valedictory speech in the Senate, but he did use the press conference to reflect on farewells. The year John Button resigned, there was also the valedictory of Senator Florence Bjelke-Petersen. I know that former Senator Button and former Senator Florence Bjelke-Petersen had a very great soft spot for each other. They would regularly chat across the chamber. I know that Florence would want very much to be associated with this valedictory for John Button.
So farewell to John Norman Button. If there were a short list of the greatest senators, he would be on it.
John Button was indeed a substantial man. He was a man who thought and wrote crisply, clearly, honestly and independently. He was a generous man, endlessly curious and fearlessly open minded. All his life, he loved and understood the importance of the nation’s cultural and intellectual life as the way in which we come to understand ourselves—that films and literature, history and music are the mirror up to nature. He was passionate about sport and the tribal contest inherent in it. But there was always in him an element of detachment and scepticism. This was part of his humour, his sense of irony. As a member of an Italian delegation to the Sixth World Festival of Youth and Students held in Moscow in 1957, he reflected:
… there was something decidedly Orwellian about 100,000 people fervently chanting the festival slogan ‘peace and friendship, peace and friendship’ with the apparent conviction that it had something to do with the international situation and the prevention of a third world war.
He added:
I met no Russians who thought everything as wonderful as the average Communist visitor did. I find it difficult to resist the temptation to write a few pages on the subject of Communist doublethink.
His loyalty to the Labor Party and to the nation was loyalty in the broadest and best sense of the word—critical and reforming. He held fast to the principles he believed in. He kept his eyes on the prize. As Peter Gebhardt wrote in a poem for John’s funeral, he held fast to the:
… horizon of hope …
never losing sight of it,
or the promise of it.
In the 1960s, on his return from two years abroad, John Button’s analysis of the circumstances of Australia and the Australian Labor Party was that both were a morass of tired and borrowed ideas. He wrote:
I was personally very disturbed by Australia as a nation. I thought, this country is very, very isolated, not taking advantages of the opportunities we’d got. The country’s political leaders exuded the scent of middle-aged grey power. The idea of excellence, where it existed, was narrowly based and shallow rooted. … Australia was easygoing, good natured, sporty and mediocre.
He was nothing if not honest in his judgements—what was dull or outmoded was dull and outmoded; what was ineffective and needed to be changed must be changed. And he had the intellectual capacity to see and understand the trends that were occurring around him. He believed that a man must participate in the life of the nation in ways that worked to the good. And he was a participant, active and practical.
In the 1960s, the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party was undemocratic and exclusionary. As the Scoresby letter of 1965 stated, the party suffered ‘declining membership, appalling electoral outcomes, secretive management and exclusive control by a small band of unions’. Its branches were unable to influence policy or preselections. All was bogged down in the preordained positions dictated by the old disputes of the split and the rigid control of the Victorian central executive. Change was clearly necessary—not just to make the Labor Party electable, but to ensure that more progressive, forward-looking ideas were offered for the better governance of the country. This change, for Button, was a matter of structural and organisational change in the party, and it was grounded in ideas about the kind of Australia that he wanted to see.
John Button belonged to, and helped to revive, the Fabian Society. The Fabian Society was about the contest of ideas. Series of lectures were organised: in 1965 there was ‘Australia Fair: a hard look at our visual environment’; in 1966, ‘The Blurred Image’, which asked, ‘What do Australians stand for?’ These lectures attracted, as Button himself reported, ‘considerable attention and an audience of over 800 on each of three nights’. And he believed the series:
… contributed to the changed climate of ideas, something which the Australian political process, and the Labor Party, seemed to be incapable of doing.
For John Button, debating ideas, in whatever forum could be devised, was never a waste of time. His was a life devoted to independent thinking and idiosyncratic views.
But changing the Labor Party was a tough endeavour. In 1965, four members—Richard McGarvie, Xavier Connor, Barney Williams and John Button; ‘the Participants’—set up a nameless, clandestine organisation:
… a loose alliance—the four just men, as Connor jokingly called it—to promote reform of the Party and progressive policies.
It attracted significant and influential support—John Cain, Race Mathews, Michael Duffy, Barry Jones, Jim Jupp and Jim Beggs. They were academics, lawyers, trade unionists and teachers. They worked for four years, writing, arguing, criticising, persuading and lobbying for change. They were supported by, and then they supported, Gough Whitlam in his efforts to reform the party, particularly its processes for selecting candidates. New policies were pushed through at the party conference. But it was federal intervention in 1970 that finally changed the party in Victoria and removed the greatest impediment to the victory of the Labor Party at a federal election. After the intervention, Button, amongst others, was appointed to a new advisory council set up to develop more democratic party rules and processes. It was a case of new blood, new life and a commitment to excellence. And it worked. Labor came to power after 23 years in the wilderness in December 1972.
John Button was elected to the Senate in the double dissolution election of May 1974 and began a 20-year parliamentary career, first as a backbencher in the Whitlam government, then as an opposition member and shadow minister during the Fraser government and finally as a minister in the Hawke and Keating governments. He was an active backbencher. He saw committee work as a ‘part of the parliament that worked’. As the chair of the Senate privileges committee during the ‘tortuous’ inquiry into the loans affair in 1975, he was described as a respected chair whose management of the inquiry was ‘just marvellous’. When tabling the report, Button announced wryly that there was a majority report, a minority report and four addendums. He added:
I think I can say on behalf of the committee that we felt that we did well to arrive at that position as a conclusion.
As a minister after 1983, Button was courageous in implementing policy that he believed was necessary but knew to be unpopular. He was described in 1984 as ‘the minister in a no-win portfolio’. Again he was about carrying through reform—reform of what he described as ‘industrial museums’ or ‘industrial relations bearpits’. For Button, the old issues of decline, decay and stultification applied. The country was in recession, unemployment was 10 per cent, the steel industry was in a mess, factories were closing down and the European market had closed off traditional markets. Australia lacked an export culture and entrepreneurial skills. It was a technologically deficient nation and it was uncompetitive in industry.
Industry, unions and the party platform all demanded increased protection. Button came to believe there was greater logic in the advice of experts such as the Industries Assistance Commission, which recommended a reduction in tariffs. The pressure not to follow this advice was enormous. The economic summit of 1983 was to be the basis for economic reform, economic recovery and the kind of structural adjustment that has served Australia well over the subsequent quarter of a century. At the summit, Button argued against short-term responses and that protection was not a panacea for industrial reconstruction. He faced what seemed to be insurmountable problems, such as entrenched attitudes, poor management, truculent unions and mutual knee-jerk hostilities. Button’s response was intelligent, analytical and aimed at long-term public goals. In visits to dozens of businesses, he observed practice and listened to argument. He planned, cajoled, negotiated and finally directed fundamental changes to Australian industry. He saw government’s role not as providing tariffs or subsidies but in facilitating research and development, in supporting new technologies, in training and development and for what Hawke described as the ‘compensating policies designed to spread the burden of change’. He has acknowledged in his autobiography that the government was fortunate that the opposition of the day chose not to oppose them even though they had lacked the courage to pursue such policies.
In two areas of industrial reform the Button approach was known to all: the steel plan and the car plan. These industries were large and significant. On steel, Button negotiated and required obligations and sacrifices from all players: the companies, the unions, the state governments and the federal government. Governments would look to market share and keep government charges low, companies would reduce workforces by voluntary retirements, and unions would abide by dispute settlement procedures and productivity would be improved. The federal government would assist with job creation and structural adjustment. These were signed agreements and commitments, to be valid over five years and for five years only. After nine years, a study by McKinsey reported:
The fundamental long term change that we need to make in manufacturing is starting to happen in a quite spectacular fashion.
John Button felt that his years of hard work were vindicated. Hawke, Keating and Button, through the wages accord, the deregulation of the financial system and industry policy, had modernised the Australian economy and, although painful at times, prepared it for the prosperity it has since enjoyed. John Button’s biographer, Patrick Weller, summed up Button’s career in the following terms:
He seemed to cross difficult terrain and remain unaffected and untouched. He survived as a parliamentary leader for sixteen years without satisfying that pre-condition for a Labor career, a strong factional base. He remained popular with the public, even while introducing unpopular policies.
Reform and regeneration in politics is a constant. In 2002, John Button found himself again arguing for a re-energising of the Labor Party, then six years in opposition and at a low ebb. He likened the condition of the Labor Party to chronic fatigue syndrome. His description in his quarterly essay in that year is reminiscent of the feeling he had in 1965. Through this essay, he was embarking on a similar crusade for party reform with the same affectionate honesty and directness. The Quarterly Essay article ‘Beyond belief’ was a detailed analysis and, as was the case with the participants in 1965, created a huge and, I think, productive debate. On general policy, he said that there was no clear articulation of the position that took account of the real decline in working people’s standard of living. Factions dominated to the detriment of policy development. Members’ discussions were about ‘arithmetic, not philosophy’ and ‘factional allegiances and deals led to mediocrity’. On the Tampa crisis, the party had failed to take a ‘courageous political stand’ in the face of the ‘coalition’s grubby opportunism’.
Button reminded his readers of the basic idealism of the party and its political heroes: ‘integrity and humility’ and ‘a belief in bringing something better to people, better standards of living, greater happiness to the mass of people’. He believed, as he always had, that Labor could maintain its heart and soul but must be contemporary and relevant, that ‘Labor is most electable when it has a strong agenda for change’. He believed in Labor as the party of reform and the party of change. For John Button, power was not an end in itself but a means to a better society.
Finally, in my contribution to the condolence debate, I would like to read a letter that John Button wrote to me on 17 November last year:
Dear John
I watched the policy speech. He did very well. When you came on at the beginning I told one of the nurses here, ‘I know him’, and I felt she was very impressed.
The main purpose of this letter, however, is to thank you for your kind wishes and the get well gift from Kevin and yourself. It was a nice thought at such a busy time.
I think you will win next Saturday. I don’t know what your intentions are, but I hope you will stay on, win a spot in the Ministry, and take on the vexed question of Parliamentary reform, accountability in government, and honesty of Ministers (no snouts in the trough!). I really believe that if the Labor Party makes some serious changes it will benefit greatly, and force ideas back on the political agenda.
Congratulations on your part in the campaign, and best wishes for the ensuing months and beyond.
With warm regards
John
He was a true and a constructive believer to the end. Vale John Button.
I rise to support the condolence motion on the death of our former colleague John Button. The previous speakers have outlined in quite some detail the achievements of John Button as a Labor Party activist, as a reformer, as a minister, and his work as Leader of the Government in the Senate. I attended the state funeral for John Button held at St Michael’s Uniting Church in Melbourne. Not surprisingly, the church was very crowded indeed and I was pleased to see so many of my Liberal colleagues there in attendance. Dr Francis Macnab, the former state premier John Cain, the former Governor-General Bill Hayden, the former ALP state minister Jim Kennan and Morag Fraser delivered, to be quite frank, absolutely outstanding tributes to John Button. His son James Button spoke movingly of his father, and Nick Button read a poem written by Peter Gebhardt in tribute to John Button.
Our careers overlapped in the Senate by just three years. There was no doubt, as other speakers have drawn to our attention, that John Button was a consummate parliamentary performer: confident, well briefed, and always ready with wit to deal with some troublesome senators—and I bore my fair share of Button’s wit from time to time. He used to refer to me as coming from ‘that rusty old think tank, the IPA’, and occasionally would refer to me as ‘Old Think Tank’.
Early on, he had worked out that my father’s views on industry policy were somewhat closer to his position than my own, and he would sometimes speak in glowing terms about my father in the hope that this would cause some family annoyance and tension. It certainly did not annoy my dad, and my father kept on telling me that I was far too harsh on John Button. He recalled one time—and this gave John Button great amusement—when he said that if my father could hear my views he would roll over in his grave, and I called out that that would be difficult as my father was not dead yet. John Button rather enjoyed this exchange and repeated it to me years later.
Some years ago, I bumped into John Button in Collins Street and he said that we should have lunch together. We had a number of these lunches and, when I asked curiously why he would want to have lunch with me, he said, rather kindly I thought, that he would rather have lunch with an employed Liberal minister than an unemployed, complaining, Labor ex-minister. He was, as everybody knows, just great company, and we had frank exchanges of political gossip. On one occasion we discussed a new book I had published on historic parliamentary speeches and he asked me to send him a copy. I received a very gracious letter in reply, and this is what his letter said:
Dear Rod,
Many thanks for sending me a copy of your book ‘Speaking for Australia’.
You are a strange person. Any politician who keeps his promises can only be so described. And when the promise is made ‘on the wing’ in Collins Street, well what does one say.
The book (on preliminary examination) seems an important collection. Modestly you have omitted some of your own fine speeches and sadly some of mine. In the next edition you should perhaps include a speech of mine on the [siting] of the new parliament house (I think about 1974) or the speech to the 1984 Economic Summit which chilled the minds of rent-seeking industrialists succoured by protection. Your father would have approved.
As for the inclusion of a speech by your good self, any one would do.
Again, thanks and best wishes.
Yours sincerely
John N. Button
I took John Button’s advice and went to those speeches, and they are well worth reading, so perhaps I was in error not to include them in my book. The speech on Parliament House—others will know his views better than mine, but I was not aware of it—was one that John Button made in the Senate on 24 October 1974. John Button would have preferred that this Parliament House were sited elsewhere and made a very passionate speech about that. Among other things he asked:
What sort of parliament building do we want? Again the question arises: Do we want one which symbolises the aspirations of the people as they are ‘on the level’ of people or do we want one which symbolises the aspirations of politicians? Surely there is no quarrel with the proposition that one cannot make statesmen out of politicians by putting them in a castle or by putting them in a prominent parliament house which dominates the capital city of Australia rather than being sympathetic with it. I remind honourable senators of what happened to the residents of the tower of Babel and many other residents of edifices constructed upon hills in the way in which the symbolic view of Capital Hill is expressed.
It was a very passionate speech. He did not win that debate, but it was clearly one which he felt strongly about, and it was one which he drew to my attention. Witnessing his performances in this place, I never doubted that he thoroughly enjoyed being in this Parliament House, but I was also interested in his comments.
The other speech he said should have been included in my book was the one that I think Senator Faulkner referred to, at the National Economic Summit Conference on 14 April 1983. It was a speech of its time, and it was probably bold at its time—it probably seems less bold today. He said, for example:
In dealing with longer term reconstruction issues however, there should not be too narrow a focus on the issue of protection.
Protection was a very controversial policy. He went on to say:
Protection is only one element in an array of policy instruments which Australian governments have at their disposal to assist the various sectors of industry. It is not in itself a panacea for industrial reconstruction.
He went on and asked a number of questions:
Is Australian management adequately trained and flexible enough to cope with change;
What role should union leaders be playing in persuading their members of the need to adjust to changed circumstances ...
It is, again, a speech which is well worth reading, and I think it is appropriate in this condolence speech today that this be recorded.
My colleague Senator Michael Ronaldson hoped to be able to make a contribution today, but he said to me that he would like me to record that John Button was one of Ballarat’s favourite sons, a man who enjoyed for a very long period, and still enjoys, an enormous amount of respect and affection in that great city.
During a speech that I made many years ago on a condolence motion for Sir John Kerr, John Button was very upset with what I was saying and—I think probably for the first time in parliamentary history—took a point of order during a debate on a condolence motion. This led to a vigorous exchange between the two of us. I rather hope that John may be happy with the remarks I have made today.
His speeches, of course, always had very interesting and amusing jokes, and one of the reasons that John Button was such good company was his enormous sense of humour. This story comes from one of these speeches which I have just referred to. He tells the story of a patient who goes to a psychiatrist complaining of an inferiority complex:
After a brief examination he is told by the psychiatrist: ‘I’m sorry, I can’t help you. You don’t have a complex, you’re just inferior’.
No-one could say that John Button was not simply a superb senator. No-one could say that he did not make a superb contribution to this country. The affection that is felt for John Button transcends party lines. To his two sons—who, as I said, spoke so movingly at their father’s funeral—James and Nick Button, and their families I send my condolences and hope that in their sorrow they recognise, as I am sure they will, that their father was a man who enjoyed enormous community affection.
I seek leave to incorporate Senator Carr’s comments to this condolence motion.
Leave granted.
The incorporated speech read as follows—
In 1993, I had the honour of succeeding John Button as Labor senator for Victoria.
John and I were supposed to trade places when his term expired on 30 June, but during the election campaign he took me aside and said, “I’m not going back to Canberra.”
He resigned soon after polling day and I was appointed to the casual vacancy in April.
John was tired after a decade as industry minister, and he wanted to get back to his writing.
He had written poetry as an adolescent and continued to write short stories into his twenties. He flirted with drama and in the early sixties co-founded the Emerald Hill Theatre.
He thought that in his autumn years he might “have a go at the novel to out-do Dostoevsky” —an interesting choice betraying both the scale of his ambition and the astringency of his vision.
The books he wrote in retirement – including the wonderful memoir As it Happened (1998) – show what a fine writer he was. He often wondered whether he’d chosen the wrong career. Some good literary judges would say he did.
Maybe I’m just not literary enough, but I think John chose exactly the right career.
He had a vision for the future of Australian industry, and he pursued that vision – often in the face of entrenched opposition – until it had been substantially realised.
John frequently had to fight on two fronts. On the one side were the more atavistic elements of the union movement and industry, who resisted any change that threatened their vested interests.
On the other side were members of the economics club, who opposed any intervention that did not fit their arm-chair theories, no matter how firmly it might be grounded in economic and social reality.
John demanded innovation and a global outlook from Australian business and he practiced what he preached in a series of brilliantly creative industry plans which drew in part on what he had learned from Sweden, Japan and other international exemplars.
Several of these plans – for steel in 1983, the car industry in 1984, and the textiles, clothing and footwear industries in 1986 – were to some extent exercises in crisis-management.
But though they might have been prompted by the circumstances of the moment, they were anything but ad hoc.
One hallmark of John’s policy style was his willingness and ability to meet short-term problems with long-term solutions.
Because everything he did was strategic, there isn’t really that much to distinguish his salvage plans for steel, cars and TCF from his development plans for shipbuilding in 1984, pharmaceuticals in 1987 and information technology in 1988.
The same could be said about measures he introduced for other industries such as telecommunications and aerospace.
All involved similar solutions – and those solutions invariably included a judicious mixture of carrot and stick.
As industry minister, John was essentially a deal-maker, a horse-trader – applying the skills he had acquired in the backrooms of the labour movement on a much larger stage.
It was all about give and take:
And always – always – an emphasis on building resilience by building skills.
That might mean re-training workers who lost their jobs as a result of structural adjustment.
It might mean schooling small-business operators in business planning and management techniques that would help them stay afloat on stormy economic seas.
It might mean cajoling captains of industry to lift their eyes to the horizon and consider their place in the wider world.
John never forgot the lessons he learned on a visit to Sweden in 1984.
As John wrote much later, this was a country where “Government funds were spent on research and development, venture capital for small firms, export incentives, and training and re-training of workers.”
Most of the industry plans had an R&D component. The car and shipbuilding industries received funding for R&D, while pharmaceutical and IT companies had to meet R&D targets to qualify for other forms of assistance.
But the most important fruit of John’s belief in research and development was the R&D tax concession introduced in 1985.
It revolutionised industry attitudes to innovation. Business R&D spending as a share of GDP grew 8.8 per cent a year in the ten years after the concession was introduced.
This momentum was halted in 1996 when the past triumphed over the future and the conservatives reduced the concession from 150 to 125 per cent —this at a time when most other OECD countries were maintaining or increasing their R&D support.
In the following decade, business spending on R&D as a proportion of GDP grew by an average of just 2.5 per cent a year. In several years it actually fell.
By 2005-06 we had tumbled from eighth to fifteenth in the OECD rankings for this measure.
What John understood – and what the Howard government did not – is that industry policy is first and foremost about cultural change.
It is about creating what John called a “culture of innovation”.
This is a phrase I use myself. It’s an ideal I find myself explaining and defending just as John did. That’s how little progress we have made in the last decade of squandered opportunities.
We need innovation to increase productivity and exports. Innovation has the capacity to transform Australian industry, and with it the Australian economy. It is the only basis on which a country like Australia can compete in the global marketplace.
The OECD tells us that “Most of the rise in material standards of living since the industrial revolution has been the consequence of innovation. New or improved products and services – and new and improved ways of producing them – have for a long time been the main motor of economic growth.”
John understood this better than any politician of his generation – with the possible exception of his colleague and occasional sparring partner Barry Jones.
But he also understood that there was more than one way to innovate.
Innovation may mean wiping the slate clean and starting afresh. But more often it means looking for ways to do things just that little bit better – harnessing creativity to make the most of what you’ve got.
John’s interest in science and technology can be traced back to his work with the Fabian Society in the sixties and culminated in his forward-looking decision to add technology to the industry portfolio in 1984.
But his view of science—like his view of most things—was essentially pragmatic. He firmly believed in the transformative power of science and technology, but he wasn’t going to wait around until they delivered us into utopia.
“Protection offered hope from the past,” he once wrote. “Sunrise industries offered distant hope for the future.” His concern was with the here and now.
He was not about to let the allure of the next big thing blind him to the importance of existing industries —industries that account for the bulk of our output and employment now, and that still have enormous scope for growth and innovation in the future.
John was often accused of being too disengaged, and some thought his detachment bordered on disloyalty.
Yet this detachment was precisely the quality that underpinned his success. It granted him the independence to see and think for himself, and to act as an honest broker. It liberated him from the prevailing orthodoxies and enabled him to develop highly original solutions to seemingly intractable problems.
It allowed him to find ways around entrenched positions without attacking them head-on. It was the source of his candour and directness – qualities that sometimes infuriated his colleagues, but which endeared him to just about everyone else.
In a life otherwise full of purpose, the Geelong Football Club allowed John to express his quixotic side.
As a minister he was besieged by proponents of hare-brained schemes, but that didn’t stop him maintaining a one-sided correspondence with the club setting out his ideas for winning the flag.
He tried to impress Margaret Thatcher by dropping Gary Ablett’s name and Ablett by dropping Thatcher’s, even though he was pretty sure neither knew who the other was. Last year’s premiership came just in time.
We are fortunate that John agreed to be interviewed by the doyen of Australian political psychology, Alan Davies, while the two were in London in 1959. John appears in Davies’ Private Politics (1966) disguised as “Tom Barrow, Union Lawyer”.
Davies noted how class was central to the young Button’s worldview —as a child of the manse and the squattocracy trying to make his way in the labour movement, he was acutely conscious of class differences.
But as far as John was concerned, it was values rather than interests that divided the classes. His account of class relations was entirely free of what Davies called “struggle imagery”.
This may have disappointed old-school leftists, but his refusal to see the interests of employers and employees as eternally and irreconcilably opposed was obviously critical to the design and success of those give-and-take industry plans.
John may have been more interested in the contest of values than class warfare, but there was never any doubt about which side of that contest he was on. His values were progressive, humane, and unapologetically social democratic.
He recognised that equality of opportunity was a liberal ideal – there is nothing wrong with it, but it’s a long way short of what social democrats should be aspiring to.
He knew it was unrealistic to demand strict equality of outcomes, but he was never afraid to argue for a fairer distribution of wealth and what he called “all those services fundamental to human security and development.”
For social democrats, he argued in 2002, “The emphasis is on rights rather than opportunity.”
It is the duty of social democratic governments to honour those rights, and to address the many problems and fulfil the many needs and aspirations “for which markets provide no answers.”
Alan Davies describes the lonely migrants and pensioners for whom John did pro bono legal work early in his career. Davies suggests that John idealised these outsiders as Forgotten Men, and may have seen himself as one of their number.
John Button was an insider during some phases of his career and an outsider during others.
Either way, he is never likely to be forgotten.
John Button was elected in 1974 and served as senator for Victoria until 1993. I would like to take this opportunity to reflect upon his career in his capacity as minister for industry and commerce. He is remembered as the architect of Labor’s industry and tariff reforms, as well as for his good humour and wit, which we have heard a little bit about today. Much is being said and written about his great contribution to Australian public life, and I note that the Parliamentary Library has included in its collection of biographical information on John Button a selection of his writings on topics ranging from politics to travel; an Australian republic, which he supported; and the AFL football team Geelong, which we know he strongly supported. I commend this biographical collection to senators. He was a principled politician as well as an entertaining writer.
I would like to pay particular attention to the role that he played with respect to the development of policy that saw the support and growth of Australia’s information technology industry. This might seem a little specific for a condolence motion, but, having paid serious attention to our IT industry over many years, I could not count the times that people from both the private and public sectors have reflected on the contribution of John Button’s policies towards the growth of IT in this country.
There were two major public policy programs: the partnerships for development associated with public procurement and the partnering of local IT companies with multinational companies, and the fixed term arrangements program, which again created relationships between large and small companies and saw the growth of the Australian IT industry through a period of time when it would have been pretty easy to just rest on our laurels. Senator Button did the opposite. He took the opportunity and applied his intellect to some extremely clever policies that gave Australia a greater capacity to create growth from innovation and the applied use of technology. He understood the global market, and we all know so many of his policies were about improving Australia’s engagement with the global economy. Labor’s leading policies in this regard have certainly stood us in great stead with respect to our credentials on industry policy ever since.
I will not speak longer, but I am here on behalf of people and businesses in the IT industry in Australia who I know would like me to acknowledge the contribution that Senator Button made to that particular aspect of industry policy. I take great inspiration from his work and I would like to convey my condolences to his family at this time.
I had the honour to call John Button a colleague in the Senate for the first 15 years that I served as a senator. My memories of him will never fade as he was one of those outstanding contributors to the business of this chamber and to the government of Australia. His passing has removed from our presence a character whose wit and repartee was matched by very few, whose dedication and sheer ability stood out amongst his party colleagues and whose positive contribution as a minister will long deserve the praise of those who benefited from his leadership and listened to his speeches. He will be sadly missed.
John Button had a connection with my stamping ground of Northern Tasmania as his mother came from Strathroy near Launceston. His contribution to the stability and the future of one of Launceston’s largest employers—and I refer to the ACL Bearing Company—depended greatly on his ability to guide Australia’s motoring industry into a firm future, at least in the middle term. The ACL Bearing Company, as well as many other businesspeople in Launceston, held John Button in very high regard and fondly remembered him for his motor industry plan and the investment regime that it fostered for many years.
Like so many in this parliament, John came from a legal background, but he was also deeply immersed in ensuring that his beloved Labor Party rose again from the troubles of the 1960s. He was an active contributor to its strength during the Hawke-Keating years—as has been demonstrated today—when he was minister for industry for a decade. John Button was instrumental in guiding much of Australian industry into the modern global world economy and ensuring that many of the tariff barriers and artificial protection systems were shed so that Australians could find out where they were competitive and where they were not.
He was not particularly silver tongued or diplomatic at all times and I suspect that he may have told some home truths to his party colleagues and to Australian businessmen in a style they may not have previously heard. However, in his role as industry minister John Button was often required to speak to groups of foreign visitors and to travel overseas promoting Australian interests. His diplomacy was certainly evident on all these occasions. I remember being told by an interpreter that he was particularly aware that his well-developed sense of humour, which served him well amongst Australians, needed great care when applied to audiences from different backgrounds and different languages. He was careful to ensure that the interpreters of his talks fully understood the nuances of his jokes so that there could be no risk of offending his foreign-language-speaking audiences with jokes which might have had a particular Australian bent.
Among his other qualities, John Button was also a practical reformer, not just for reform’s sake but because he could see that it was vital for Australia’s economic future. His genuineness just shone through. He was a politician who also lead a very busy life outside the protected walls of the parliamentary arena and who benefited from regular contact with that we sometimes call the ‘real world’. I include in this his down-to-earth love for his beloved Geelong Football Club.
We will remember John Button not only because he appeared to be honest but also because he was honest and he made no pretence of the issue either in his daily life or in his politics. People believed that what they saw was what they got, and with John Button this was certainly the case. John Button had unusual titles for many of us in this place. Senator Kemp referred to one—I think it was the ‘rust bucket think tank’, I suppose because he came from Victoria. In my own case, he referred to me as the ‘refugee from the textile industry’ and maybe that was because I had a particular sympathy with certain protection issues that he disagreed with.
John served this parliament as a leader of his party, both in opposition and in government, in this Senate for a period of nearly 13 years and as a minister for 10 years. During his 19 years as a senator, he showed a great strength of will, a uniqueness of character and a determination to make a difference which can be seen in only very few senators who pass through this place. He grasped opportunities as they came and he certainly did make a difference. So, to John Button’s family, I wish to offer my sincere condolences at the loss of a great man and the family’s great loss. My prayers are certainly with them during this period of deep sorrow. Be assured, though, that those who knew him will fondly remember John Button. Vale John Button.
I also seek to make a contribution to this condolence motion for John Button, albeit hopefully a brief one. John Button has been described in many forums in the past few weeks as a minister of the Crown, a senator, an industrial barrister, a letter writer, an author, a creative thinker, a Geelong Football Club lover and a Parliament House sunbaker. I am glad I never met him in that role, but I did meet John in the role of a government minister, senator, industrial barrister and certainly a creative thinker.
I first came across John Button some 38 or 40 years ago when we were both active in the Labor Party in Victoria. He worked for the legal firm that did the legal work for the shipwrights union in Victoria, where I spent a period as state secretary. I was quite a young, green union official in the early 1970s and I had a case before the full bench of the industrial commission, seeking a 35-hour week for shipwrights who were working on the Melbourne waterfront, subsequent to the waterside workers winning that condition in the mid-1960s. I went to John for some advice—we could not afford to pay for it, because we did not have that many members—and he sat down with me and painstakingly took me through the processes that I would have to follow in the commission to present the argument and make sure the argument got heard. As a consequence, we actually won the case. So that was a successful contribution that John made to the wages and working conditions of shipwrights in Victoria at that time.
I knew John as a senator during the period of the Whitlam government and in the period of Labor opposition consequent to the election of the Fraser government in 1975. I met him on a couple of occasions when I appeared before Senate committees dealing with industrial relations issues, in particular the amendments to the Industrial Relations Act that were pursued by Ian Viner in the late seventies and early eighties in order to enshrine company unions in the act. It was a forerunner of the type of structure pursued by John Howard in Work Choices. Most importantly, I had a great deal to do with John in the 1980s when he was industry minister.
The nature of the man was shown when, in a television interview with George Negus, he said that politics causes brain damage and that the dosage is worse in opposition. For those of us who have spent 10 years in opposition, we can attest to the truth of that statement. Certainly the period in opposition that John spent in the late seventies did not seem to do much damage to him, as he appeared to be unaffected by that period in opposition.
John was an extremely effective industry minister. It is interesting, as others have said, that he chose his own portfolio when Labor won government in 1983. He chose the role of industry and commerce—a role which surprised many of his friends and supporters, given his strong involvement and keen interest in issues of civil liberties and social justice. At the time, Paul Keating asked John, after his swearing-in as industry minister, ‘What are you going to do with this job?’ John’s response was: ‘I dunno; something! God knows, something needs to done.’ He was immediately thrown into a crisis because, around the time of the election of the Hawke government, BHP had announced publicly its plans to shut down the steel industry, with a loss of some 30,000 jobs in Newcastle, Port Kembla and Whyalla. John set about working through the issues of that industry with the company, the unions and the membership in the industry. As a consequence, the steel plan was born. He played a significant role—a role he was thrust into—and he assiduously worked his way through the process and came up with a plan. The plan certainly cost jobs but it created the foundations of a steel industry in this country that has continued to thrive since 1983.
John did a lot for industry in this country. He was a reformer, both in the Labor Party and as a member of the government. He was instrumental in reforming the Australian economy and the manufacturing industry. He was one of the key ministers in the Hawke government, all through the 1980s, that pursued and put in place the processes of reform that opened up the Australian economy. As we in this place all know, John is perhaps best known for the Button car plan—a legacy that helped the car industry in this country survive for decades. He was also responsible for the TCF industry plan. It is a tribute to his foresightedness that both those industries still exist in this country today, and with significantly less assistance from government than they were receiving in the eighties.
We should not ignore John’s role in putting in place the steel industry plan, which saved that industry at the 11th hour, and we should note that that was an industry on the verge of closing when he became industry minister and was thrown in at the deep end in terms of putting a plan in place. But there are many other industries in this country that survive and prosper today because of John’s support for and revitalisation of the Australian Manufacturing Council, which during the 1980s carried out a massive collaborative effort between capital and labour that renewed and revitalised many industry sectors. The shipbuilding industry is one example. The shipbuilding industry in this country was ‘gone the goings’, for all intents and purposes, in 1976 under Malcolm Fraser and Peter Nixon. When John took over the industry portfolio, the industry was floundering. Most of the big shipyards had shut down. There were a number of small shipyards around the place, but the industry was pretty fragmented. He put in place a shipbuilding consultative group, of which I happened to be a member, that worked assiduously for four years with the industry to redevelop its attitudes and views about its future. It became outward looking and got into the export market, and that was the forerunner of the industry we have today, which is building the fast aluminium ferries that we are exporting all around the world. That industry has been actively surviving in the export market with no assistance and competing effectively and maintaining its levels of employment.
The work that was put in in the eighties through the Australian Manufacturing Council laid the foundations for the significant growth in manufactured exports that occurred during the first half of the nineties and, in fact, for the broadening of our economic base, which was part of the strategy adopted by the Hawke government in the eighties. In the early nineties, we saw significant growth in our manufactured exports—elaborately transformed manufactures, or ETMs, as they are more commonly known—from about three per cent to something like 17 to 18 per cent in 1996 when Labor lost office. That position, unfortunately, was squandered under the previous government. The export of manufactured goods is back down to about two to three per cent of our total exports. It has all been squandered. All the activities, efforts and structural change that occurred during the eighties and the early nineties were squandered under the Howard government and we are back effectively to where we were when Labor first came to power in the early eighties.
John Button’s efforts, for example, in revitalising our heavy engineering industry laid the foundation for subsequent government decisions to source defence purchases in Australia and significant projects such as the Collins submarines and the frigates for the Australian and New Zealand navies, and very effective defence shipbuilding industry activity and the consequential subsidiary operations that support that in electronics and equipment and so forth.
While the car plan and the textile, clothing and footwear industries dominate discussion on John’s role as industry minister, we should not see his role in a narrow sense but in the broader sense of the effect he had right across the whole of our manufacturing industry sector, in all its facets, including improvements that were made in that sector during his period as industry minister. I have to say that if those ministers who follow him, particularly Labor ministers, achieve half of what he achieved as manufacturing minister, then the future of manufacturing in this country will be bright indeed.
There was one thing about John Button that you could not help but notice: whilst he was a small man he was born with a huge dose of scepticism. It continually flowed in comments he made from time to time on issues that were going on. I can recall two, which I think are examples of John’s wit. The first one occurred at a meeting in Old Parliament House in the cabinet room, during a discussion between a number of senior ministers and members of the national executive of the party about the direction of the government’s policy in early 1987, prior to the election that was held later that year. There was concern about the direction the government was going in a number of areas. As anyone involved in such discussions would know, they are pretty wide ranging. In the midst of that conversation, Paul Keating, then Treasurer, started to wax lyrical about the fact that he had been named as the world’s greatest treasurer by a meeting of the Socialist International that had occurred just before the meeting. I happened to have been sitting beside John Button and John said, ‘The only thing wrong with this is that they do not get a vote in our elections, otherwise we would not have a worry in the world.’ I said to him, ‘What are you drinking?’ Aussie, as we now know him, kept bringing drinks to the table for the ministers who were there—not for the visitors. John said: ‘It’s whisky. Why? Would you like some?’ True to his word, about 30 seconds later, Aussie turned up with a glass of whisky. I did not know at the time that there was a button under the table that you pressed and they would bring you your favourite beverage—tea, coffee, Coke or whatever. John was enjoying the whisky, and he and I had a very pleasant evening in the corner of the cabinet room listening to the discussion from that point on.
The second example was in relation to a proposal I had worked up in my role as deputy chair of the Manufacturing Council at the time. It involved putting a package together to promote technology diffusion across our manufacturing sector. A lot of the small companies in this country were not aware of the technologies that were available and being developed by some of the industrial giants around the world. The proposal was for a package of $20 million to fund an office of technology diffusion. You had to be careful about how you used words when you had a discussion with John Button, as many will attest—you used your words very carefully. In the middle of the discussion, I happened to say, or it might have been the person with me, ‘The problem is we don’t have anyone in this country who understands the technology and can promote it, so we need this fund to get it going.’ He said, ‘If I give you $20 million, who will you appoint?’ We said: ‘We don’t know. We’ll have to think about that.’ He said, ‘I’m not giving you $20 million until you come back with someone who you know can actually do the job.’ It was interesting that not long after that when I became a senator, I noticed there was a line in the budget papers in the department of industry for technology diffusion and a budget of $20 million. John adopted the idea, but he was not going to be sold on putting the $20 million on the table before he knew that it was capable of being used in the way in which it was promoted.
One could go on for a long time talking about John Button and his role in the Labor Party, about John Button as a human being and our experiences with him. Suffice to say, I wanted to ensure that the breadth of the role he played was on the record in terms of his support for manufacturing as minister for industry during the Hawke and Keating governments. I think his role in that area will probably remain unsurpassed. I wish to convey my condolences to his partner, Joan, and to his children on John’s passing.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:
Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Murray to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Allison and Senator Murray to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Siewert to move on 15 May 2008:
Senator Hutchins and Senator Forshaw to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Siewert to move on 15 May 2008:
Senator Minchin to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Hutchins to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Mark Bishop to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Nettle to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Bob Brown to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Moore to move on the next day of sitting:
The following items of business were postponed:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of The Nationals in the Senate (Senator Scullion) for today, proposing the disallowance of the Road User Charge Determination 2008 (No. 1), postponed till 14 May 2008.
General business notice of motion no. 41 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) for today, proposing the introduction of the Commonwealth Electoral (Above-the-Line Voting) Amendment Bill 2008, postponed till 14 May 2008.
General business notice of motion no. 55 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Allison) for today, relating to schools funding, postponed till 14 May 2008.
General business notice of motion no. 64 standing in the name of Senator Milne for today, relating to the 5th Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development, postponed till 14 May 2008.
General business notice of motion no. 65 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) for today, relating to Parliamentary approval before committing Australia to war, postponed till 14 May 2008.
General business notice of motion no. 66 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) for today, relating to the restoration of the Plastic Bag Levy (Assessment and Collection) Bill 2002 to the Notice Paper, postponed till 14 May 2008.
General business notice of motion no. 67 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) for today, relating to the death penalty, postponed till 14 May 2008.
I table a statement by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, and I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
Today I am announcing one of the Australian government’s initiatives to help drive economic prosperity in regional Australia and deliver on our commitments that we made in the lead-up to the election.
One of our key regional election commitments was that area consultative committees (ACCs) would provide the basis for the creation of Regional Development Australia (RDA).
Consistent with this commitment, today the government announces that area consultative committees will transition to become local Regional Development Australia committees. As a first step, the ACC Chairs Reference Group will become the RDA Interim Board until 31 December 2008. I have spoken to the chair of that reference group today and he has very much welcomed this announcement, as have the ACC representatives who are here in the parliament for this debate.
The Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia, Gary Gray, and I will convene a meeting with the interim board to discuss the transition of the ACC network to RDA, including the development of a charter for Regional Development Australia and its proposed responsibilities. We shall also want to discuss with the interim board ways of ensuring closer ties with the local government sector. Regional Australia’s communities and economy will benefit from a closer relationship between the new Regional Development Australia and the local government sector.
The ACC network was established by the previous Labor government in 1994 under the Employment Services Act 1994. ACCs originally provided advice and generated support for labour market programs. Over time their role has evolved and recently their primary role has been to promote and identify projects and assist in the development of applications for the Regional Partnerships program.
There are 54 ACCs across Australia, which are not-for-profit, community based organisations. Hundreds of Australians give their time to serve their communities as members of area consultative committees. Only the chairs and their deputies are appointed by the government. Committee members are volunteers from all walks of life: businesspeople, farmers, retirees, local government representatives and educators. They are united by their commitment to their local communities. They are a valuable source of local knowledge and advice for government. Some have been more effective than others and there is a need to recognise that regional development requires a reform of existing advisory structures.
The new Regional Development Australia network will build on the success of its predecessor, but will take on a much broader role to develop strategic input into national programs to improve the coordination of regional development initiatives and to ensure that there is effective engagement with local communities. The Rudd government is committed to listening to communities and the Regional Development Australia organisations will assist that process.
The actual roles and responsibilities of Regional Development Australia will reflect our consultations. I am confident that the interim board will have ideas to present to the government. The role of individual RDAs and the network as a whole could provide advice to government on a range of issues. These include:
I am looking forward to working with Regional Development Australia and receiving valuable advice on the development needs of regional Australia. The time frame will of course conclude this year, which is why we are maintaining the existing interim board, and I am pleased the chair has committed to active participation in this.
To conclude, this government’s new vision for regional Australia is based on building partnerships to ensure the government is responsive to local priorities and needs, but is underpinned by major new investments in the areas of infrastructure, broadband, housing, health care, education, skills development, innovation and water.
The message to regional communities is clear—this government will work with you to make your solutions work. We will bring fresh ideas and a new approach which will harness the potential of our regions and develop them for a better future.
Today’s announcement relating to the establishment of Regional Development Australia is the first in a number of initiatives of the Rudd Labor government that we will make in terms of regional development.
We will strengthen and invest in the future of regional Australia.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I rise to make some comments in regard to the ministerial statement on Regional Development Australia. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for recognising regional Australia through his statement. I am particularly pleased the government will be continuing with the process of the area consultative committee network, even though I concede it is getting—as with many things when government changes—a name change.
It should be pointed out that the area consultative committee network has done an absolutely outstanding job, particularly in developing a network across all of the areas that it covers. They have made an outstanding contribution to the development of regional Australia, particularly through prioritising. Everybody understands there are never unlimited funds in government, and it is just fantastic to see a process where people will, from a grassroots level, identify those programs and projects that are closest to the hearts of those communities.
I am concerned, as I am sure are many senators, that the area consultative committees not be allowed to go into some sort of hibernation mode while the interim arrangements, consultations and reviews are taking place. I understand that the circumstances at the moment are that the area consultative committees, or parts of them, will remain in place until December 2008. As I said, certainly many senators on this side are concerned that the work that they do continues. It is absolutely vital that their work continues.
The reason that we are a little concerned is that, I understand, no projects have received funding since the government took office. When projects are approved applicants are notified of the success of the proposal. Disturbingly, their actually entering into contractual discussions with the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has been put on hold. Communities have an expectation that there is going to some sort of outcome. There are obviously contractors and people within those communities that are putting their best foot forward for some of the work and some of the funding. People have an expectation that proposals they have worked so hard for are in fact going to be funded.
We always look for signs in a new government, and the fact that they have been put on hold is hardly a sign of a committed government—one who stops all progress for nearly six months. Time and effort, and in many cases significant funding, have already been put into getting these proposals up and ready. Again, because of the commitment of the ACCs and all of their staff and the significant effort that has been put in by entire communities, it is simply unfair of the Rudd government to keep these people hanging around for some sort of answer whilst it continues to conduct another review.
The minister has stated that the message to regional communities is clear. This is one of the key statements: ‘This government will work with you to make your solutions work.’ Predictably, Labor’s actions again appear to have fallen well short of their rhetoric—just another example of the government being prepared to say whatever they need to say to get elected. But it seems that when the rubber hits the road there is not a lot of traction. Perhaps we should have taken slightly more seriously the fairly prophetic remarks of the member for Kingsford Smith during the election that once Labor won and got in they were just going to change everything.
Already the Minister for Finance and Deregulation has gutted Regional Partnerships by announcing that the government will be cutting the coalition’s Growing Regions program by $145 million. The Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia, Gary Gray, has been telling people that the government will be further slashing the Regional Partnerships program tonight, and we will be watching very carefully. It is vital that the new Regional Development Australia network is adequately funded; otherwise it is in danger of becoming nothing else but a rubber stamp.
I notice that regional Australia was a government pre-election commitment, and I remind the house of another pre-election commitment made by the then Leader of the Opposition in Perth on Friday, 16 November, in relation to the approvals process of the Regional Partnerships program. The Prime Minister, then as Leader of the Opposition, was asked in an interview:
Mr Rudd, can you explain your position on how you would administer the Regional Partnerships Program? Surely if you’re really serious about total independence you’d take it right out of the hands of a minister and the minister has no say in it?
And today’s Prime Minister said:
... it must pass through three stages—
he was very clear about this and he is a very articulate individual, and I will commend him for making this so clear—
Number one: for anything to be considered by us under this program, it would need to have the endorsement of either a) the local council; b) the local area consultative committee; or c) the State government.
No problems. He went on to say:
Secondly, it would need to form part of that community’s local economic or community infrastructure ...
Fair enough. He went on to say:
... and thirdly it would then need to pass the departmental seal of approval in order for it to proceed.
The obvious question from the journalist:
So ministers wouldn’t be able to overturn the recommendations of the department, is that what you’re saying?
The Prime Minister said:
According to the three stage process I’ve outlined, absolutely.
So he has ruled that out completely. We there have, prior to the election, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, categorically saying that he will make sure that the department is the final arbiter of Regional Partnerships—in effect, that ministers are not going to interfere in this stuff at all and those processes will be adhered to.
I do not understand how it is then, given the Prime Minister has said the department is the final arbiter of these programs, that the $2.6 million dead tree project at Barcaldine is going to be funded. That is right: the pet project from those on the other side, the Tree of Knowledge, a project which I understand was rejected by the minister’s department, is now going to be funded against departmental advice. That involves the second undertaking of that little tranche of undertakings—that it would be the department only; ministers would not intervene. But I will take you to the second part—and I am not sure about this; perhaps it is for the house to decide—which is that this dead tree would need to form part of that community’s local, economic or community infrastructure. Perhaps I do not know enough about that particular tree, but I would have thought that was a fairly tenuous grasp of the second aspect.
We’ll bump up the Labor vote there!
We have got interjections from the other side: something about bumping up the Labor vote. I will not take that interjection because perhaps I will get the sway of it wrong. Perhaps the other side need to recognise that there are a number of people who are confused by this matter and perhaps they could explain it to the members of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, who are patiently waiting for notification of whether this government is going to match the $600,000 that they have raised themselves to fit out a medical centre to expand this vital service to rural and regional Australia. So we have got a problem: we have got a Labor Tree of Knowledge and we have got people in the outback. Suddenly, one of these projects manages to push through all the processes and gets through.
It is going to be absolutely pointless, if we have a new Regional Development Australia board and a network, if the ideas and advice are never implemented. It does not matter that we have again had: ‘Core election promises will never be broken’—that has been shattered on a number of issues. But, clearly, we have an evidentiary trail to say that the Prime Minister was not fair dinkum when he said, ‘I’m going to stick to this promise.’ It was some other sort of promise, but let us leave all that aside. This is not going to work if the advice and the ideas are never going to be implemented, simply because we do not recognise the importance of rural and regional Australia. It is the boiler room of the economy of Australia, and we need to ensure that funding is adequate, timely and in response to a whole suite of advice that can only be provided through the area consultative committee network.
It is absolutely essential that the network survives with the new government—I recognise that these things change. This has been an outstanding program that was put in place by the previous government and, over a great deal of time, it has improved the worth of those people in rural and regional Australia. So, despite the duplicity of the Prime Minister and those opposite in terms of the election promise, we support the broad intent of the government’s plans for Regional Development Australia. Whilst not completely endorsing it, we are looking forward very much to some of the details later on.
Question agreed to.
Pursuant to standing orders 38 and 166, I present documents as listed below which were presented to the President, the Deputy President and Temporary Chairmen of Committees since the Senate last sat. In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised.
The list read as follows—
(a) Committee reports
(b) Government documents
(c) Reports of the Auditor-General
(d) Statements of compliance with Senate orders
Ordered that the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, the Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee, the Economics Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee reports be printed.
by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Economics Committee, Senator Hurley, I move:
That the final report of the Economics Committee on Australia’s mandatory last home warranty insurance schemes, be presented by 16 October 2008.
Question agreed to.
by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Community Affairs Committee, Senator Moore, I move:
That the final report of the Community Affairs Committee on the provisions of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008, be presented by 15 May 2008.
Question agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 8.00 pm
I table the following documents:
Budget speech 2008-09—Statement by the Treasurer (Mr Swan), dated 13 May 2008.
Budget papers—
No. 1—Budget strategy and outlook 2008-09.
No. 2—Budget measures 2008-09.
No. 3—Australia’s Federal relations 2008-09.
No. 4—Agency resourcing 2008-09.
Ministerial statements—
Australia’s international development assistance program 2008-09
Climate Change, the Economy, the Environment
Closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians
Education Revolution
Strengthening Rural and Regional Australia
I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the budget statement and documents.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the statement and documents.
Debate (on motion by Senator Sherry) adjourned.
I table particulars of proposed expenditure as follows:
Particulars of proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2009.
Particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2009.
Particulars of proposed expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2009.
Particulars of proposed supplementary expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2008.
Particulars of certain proposed supplementary expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2008.
I seek leave to move a motion to refer the documents to standing committees.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the particulars documents be referred to standing committees for consideration of estimates.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the President, I table the portfolio budget statements for 2008-09 for the Department of the Senate and the Department of Parliamentary Services. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office.
I table portfolio budget statements for 2008-09 and portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements for 2007-08 for portfolios and executive departments in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber.
The list read as follows—
Estimates of proposed expenditure for 2008-09—Portfolio budget statements—Portfolios and executive departments—
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio.
Attorney-General’s portfolio.
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy portfolio.
Defence portfolio.
Department of Climate Change.
Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio.
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts portfolio.
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio.
Finance and Deregulation portfolio.
Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.
Health and Ageing portfolio.
Human Services portfolio.
Immigration and Citizenship portfolio.
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government portfolio.
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research portfolio.
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.
Resources, Energy and Tourism portfolio.
Treasury portfolio.
Estimates of proposed supplementary expenditure for 2007-08—Portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements—Portfolios and executive departments—
Attorney-General’s portfolio.
Department of Climate Change.
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio.
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts portfolio.
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio.
Health and Ageing portfolio.
Human Services portfolio.
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government portfolio.
Treasury portfolio.
Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
As many senators would be aware, this month we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the birth of the state of Israel. This is a special occasion not only for Israel but also for the very close relationship it has established with Australia. Israel is the only state so far to be created by the United Nations. This occurred at a time when an Australian occupied the presidency of the General Assembly, and it gave us a unique opportunity to be one of the first countries to step forward and show our support for the creation of the new Jewish state.
All these decades on, Israel stands as a bulwark of democracy in the Middle East and an enduring symbol of courage and determination in the face of daily security threats and extreme geopolitical adversity. Indeed, Israel’s history has been characterised by challenges, by conflict and by a struggle to survive in a sea of regional turbulence and tension. Upon its establishment in 1948, Israel was soon invaded by surrounding states. It has remained under direct threat from many of its neighbours for much of its history.
Following this inauspicious beginning, the first decades of Israel’s nationhood saw a fragile peace interspersed with conflict. The new state provided a safe haven for Jewish people from around the world, among them the disempowered survivors of the Second World War. To many, Israel represented a place of safety from oppression and exclusion and the opportunity to build a life in a free and enterprising new society. Over the last 60 years, Israel’s population has grown from a mere 200,000 people to almost seven million.
Despite its unsettled beginnings, Israel’s economy grew quickly. In the early days, its unique kibbutz system allowed for the growth of a strong agriculture industry on land that for many years had been considered infertile. As the decades progressed, Israel’s economy developed rapidly, particularly its technology sector and its educational institutions. The result is an economy which has became one of the most technologically intensive and innovative of any around the world.
In relation to demography, the diverse mix of national backgrounds that makes up Israel’s population has led to a rich and diverse cultural life and allowed Israel to boast many world-class writers, composers, playwrights, dance groups and orchestras.
Regrettably, today, as at the time of its birth, Israel sits in the heart of an unstable and uncertain Middle East. While it offers a stable and energetic model of democracy for the region, sadly it is not one that to date has been emulated. Israel is yet to secure an enduring peace with its neighbours behind secure borders. Despite all efforts to resolve the complex issues involved, several factors prevent any meaningful resolution. Not least, the peace process is hampered by divisions among the Palestinians. Fatah is perhaps less corrupt and politically incompetent than was once the case, but it remains ‘a thin reed’ on which to build regional peace. Another major obstacle to peace is the militant and extremist nature of Hamas. Despite having won the 2006 Palestinian elections, this hardline extremist group continues to prosecute the destruction of Israel and, as a result, cannot make any substantive or constructive contributions to the peace process. The contrast between the two sides could not be more obvious. While Israel has strong representative institutions, the Palestinian people do not, and they have been ill-served by those who purport to speak for them.
Australia shares Israel’s earnest desire for a just and secure peace. It is one of the many things that have bound our two countries together over the last 60 years. We have been a close friend and ally of Israel throughout this period and we have developed deep political, economic and cultural relationships. Both countries share a strong belief in the principles of democracy and the rule of law. We also share the experience of welcoming a diverse range of peoples and cultures to our respective countries.
Trade is also an integral part of the Australia-Israel connection. From small beginnings, Australia and Israel have developed a wide-ranging trade relationship. In the early 1970s, trade between the two countries totalled only $10 million. In the last financial year, it reached over $800 million, and it continues to grow. The exchange of ideas is another important aspect of Australia’s relationship with Israel. As a result of strong bilateral business networks, Australia has been able to share in Israel’s advanced technology and IT industries, as well as its education and training services sector. Under Operation Paladin, Australia’s defence forces work closely with Israel and other regional partners as a part of the United Nations’ Truce Supervision Organisation. Australia has supported this operation since 1956.
In 2002, the Howard government established the Australia Israel Cultural Exchange. The exchange fosters cultural links and embraces the full range of the cultural diversity of both countries, promoting Australian culture in Israel and Israeli culture in Australia. Today, Australia is also the home of a strong, active and growing Jewish community of around 120,000 people. This makes Australia the 10th largest Jewish community in the world. Australia continues to foster this connection by encouraging Jewish students to come to Australia through a range of scholarships and the active promotion of our university sector.
On this auspicious occasion, I would like to take this opportunity to wish Israel all the best for its 60 year anniversary celebrations. I wish Israelis well for their next 60 years, and for many years beyond. I express the hope that the new American peace initiative may bear fruit and lead to a stable peace between Israel and its neighbours. I look forward to the close relationship between Australia and Israel remaining strong and continuing to grow closer as the years go on.
Budgets come and budgets go but today I want to talk about something that is far more important than budgets brought down annually by the Australian government—and that is to recognise the service of Australians in various world wars, in particular the First World War. I raise this at a time immediately following the Anzac Day commemorations in Australia and elsewhere.
This year I had the great opportunity to attend the first dawn service at the Australian War Memorial at Villers-Bretonneux. The service was the first dawn service ever held at Villers-Bretonneux and was held along with the traditional dawn service at Anzac Cove at Gallipoli, as well as, of course, the dawn services that are conducted right around Australia in all of the major cities and in most other regional and village communities throughout our nation.
I was privileged to be involved in the first dawn service at Villers-Bretonneux. The service was attended by, in my estimate, something like 5,000 people. Many of them were Australian and, as I walked through the crowds later on, I was surprised at the number of people I personally knew who made the pilgrimage to that first dawn service on the 90th anniversary of the very significant battle of Villers-Bretonneux.
That battle, 90 years ago on Anzac Day eve, was really the first of the final turning points of the First World War. In 1918 the Germans had undertaken a major offensive which drew the allied lines back towards the west as far as they had ever been. As they approached the town of Villers-Bretonneux, it was Australian troops—for the first time under an Australian commander—that not only confronted the German advance but turned it round, marking the first significant allied advance in that final year of the First World War.
Ever since that particular battle, the people of Villers-Bretonneux have expressed their gratitude to Australians, New Zealanders and other allied troops by conducting a service on the Saturday closest to Anzac Day each year for the last 90 years. This year the dawn service was conducted by the Australians, and I particularly want to congratulate the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for the way they executed the dawn service there and, I know I can say, everywhere else in the world where there were significant dawn services.
Mr Mark Sullivan, the Secretary to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and his team deserve the utmost congratulations for the work that they did in the first dawn service at Villers-Bretonneux. I want to particularly thank Mr Bruce Billson, the former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, who put all of these arrangements in place a couple of years ago. I was delighted that the Australian government was represented at the dawn service by the current Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Mr Alan Griffin, who I thought acquitted Australia very well in the way that he led the official government involvement in the dawn service.
I also express congratulations to Mr David Ritchie, the Australian Ambassador to France, for the work he and his team did to facilitate the dawn service. I should also mention Major General Paul Stevens, from the Office of Australian War Graves. He was an integral part of the dawn service. In fact, Major General Stevens was master of ceremonies for the actual dawn service and did that with great aplomb and style.
The minister spoke, and there were a number of other participants at the dawn service. The Australian Federation Guard provided the catafalque party. It was indeed a very moving and very significant ceremony. I want to repeat my congratulations to all of those involved. It was not an easy task arranging such a significant event in a foreign country, and I was so proud of the Australian officials who were able to put together that dawn service and really make a significant commemoration of all of those tens of thousands of Australians who gave their lives in the defence of their country and the empire back in that war of 1914-18. The Australian casualties at Villers-Bretonneux were greater than those at Gallipoli. We do rightly recognise the impact of Gallipoli on Australian nationhood and the numbers involved there. But it was somewhat of a surprise to me to learn that the Australian casualties on the Western Front were indeed far greater than those that we suffered during the months we were at Gallipoli.
The service on the Friday, Anzac Day, was followed on the next day by the community service. This is the service that has been put on by the French, by the Villers-Bretonneux people, every year for the last 90 years. It was a real honour to be involved in that service, which was also at the Villers-Bretonneux Australian memorial.
The master of ceremonies was Ms Elise de Rouville, from the Australian Embassy in France. I particularly mention her because she did an excellent job in MC-ing all of the functions that occurred that day, the Saturday immediately following Anzac Day. Members of the Australian Federation Guard again provided the catafalque party and various Australians contributed to that community service, including Major General David Morrison, the Deputy Chief of Army. That service was followed by a service in the town of Villers-Bretonneux at the French memorial, a very moving service commemorating the Frenchmen who died in the First World War.
Following that, the official party moved to Bullecourt, where again there were wreath-laying ceremonies, first of all at a roadside leading to Bullecourt and later within the town of Bullecourt. It was an interesting exercise. The first service was the Australian service held at the church in Bullecourt. That was a very moving service. Wreaths were laid, and I again had the honour of laying a wreath as I had done the previous day at Villers-Bretonneux. Once the Australian ceremony finished in this small community on one side of the road, you turned around to the French memorial and did practically the same service again, recognising the French who had given their lives in that major conflict in the first part of the 20th century.
All in all, it was a very moving experience for all of us who had the honour and the opportunity to participate in those celebrations and commemorations of all those who gave their lives in the First World War. They were commemorated by the services at Villers-Bretonneux and Bullecourt in that Anzac week of this year. My congratulations go to all those who had a part in them. Those ceremonies and also those conducted right around Australia on Anzac Day this year again showed that we will never forget those who fell.
Tonight I advise the Senate that I had the pleasure and the honour of organising a group of 17 trekkers from Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and the ACT who walked the Kokoda Track in Papua New Guinea from 20 April to 30 April. The trek was organised to honour our diggers who helped save Australia in 1942, while raising funds for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Fund. The trekkers funded their own expenses to ensure 100 per cent of the money raised goes to the JDRF.
Step by arduous step we followed the path of our Australian soldiers along the Kokoda track in Papua New Guinea, with a special Anzac Day service en route. It was hard physically but just as hard emotionally as we pondered the conditions of our Aussie diggers from July 1942. We did not have to worry about snipers, the odd ambush and booby traps like our diggers did when they took a stand and helped save Australia. Our rations were an improvement on the bully beef and biscuits that were offered to our diggers at the time. Sir William Slim, a former Governor-General, summed up the performance of the Australians in Papua New Guinea when speaking at the opening of the Bomana War Cemetery at Port Moresby. He said:
It was the Australians who broke the spell of Japanese invincibility on land and inflicted on that arrogant army its first defeat. Let Australians never forget this. It is, like Anzac, part of their noble tradition—and these men made it.
We had been in serious training since January because the 96-kilometre track is gruelling—an unforgiving walk through dense jungle, across numerous waterways and up and down steep ridges. It was hot and humid, with the largely clay ground very slippery and dangerous in places. But the training worked. All our trekkers made it with only a few blisters and scratches—nothing serious. Interestingly, during our eight days on the track there were five medical evacuations of sick and injured trekkers from other groups. Last year three people died on the track from dehydration, heart attack and other illnesses.
Our trek’s aim was to honour our diggers while raising funds for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and it was supported by the RSL. The Kokoda battles of 1942 were some of the most important, yet least recognised, in Australia’s history. More than 2,000 Australians were killed and over 3,500 were wounded. Casualties due to malaria and sickness were three times these numbers. Historians estimate that 200 Tasmanians were among the casualties. The fighting was some of the most desperate and vicious encountered by Australian troops in the Second World War. The southern end of the track is less than 50 kilometres from Port Moresby, a deepwater port where Japan could have established a southern Asian base. Remember also that this historic battle took place on Australian soil: PNG at this time was Australian territory. At a similar time, over a 22-month period the Japanese undertook 64 bombing raids on Darwin and dropped more bombs there than on Pearl Harbor.
Anzac Day was a highlight for all of our trekkers. The two veterans of our group, Ivan Dean MLC, from Launceston, Bruce Scott, President of the RSL in Scottsdale in north-east Tasmania, and I presented two very elderly PNG nationals, affectionately known as ‘fuzzy wuzzy angels’, with an RSL flag and Senate gifts as a thank you for their service to our Australian diggers. Ovuru Idiki told us he served the Australian Army by carrying supplies and returning injured Australian soldiers on stretchers for medical treatment for four years and six months at £5 a year. In my view, it is shameful that the Australian government has not yet officially acknowledged and thanked these men for their service. I am advised that a key reason is that it would pave the way for compensation. How ridiculous. I will be working with the RSL to argue that the fuzzy wuzzy angels should be officially honoured.
On 14 August 2002, at the address for the dedication of the Isurava Memorial in PNG, the Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP said:
And the true significance of what was achieved here at Isurava and in other battles on the Kokoda Track was the courage, the commitment, the professionalism and the raw love of country of the Australians.
The Australian Army inflicted the first defeat on land of the Japanese Imperial Army. To their everlasting honour and credit those defeats injected heart and hope into an Australian population that grew increasingly worried about the likelihood of direct and overwhelming invasion of the Australian mainland.
I note that Arch Bevis MP and Chris Bowen MP, a frontbencher for the current Labor government, have both supported official recognition for these fuzzy wuzzy angels. On 17 August 2005, Chris Bowen MP said:
I think that it is a matter of some regret that this nation has not formally recognised the efforts of the fuzzy wuzzy angels.
I do hope that this government, and indeed all members of the Australian parliament, reconsider our need to recognise these fuzzy wuzzy angels.
Families of Kokoda veterans asked that their beloveds’ ashes be spread on the track. The ashes of Jack Wood, born in Burnie, were spread at Brigade Hill by my brother, Nick Barnett, together with Kila, a local PNG national, and the ashes of Harry Norton of Launceston were spread at Isurava, the site of a bloody four-day and -night, battle. In this past week, I met with Ian and Bev, his son and daughter, and his sister, Leola, and provided photos of the event. The spreading of the ashes was conducted by Ivan Dean MLC, Baradea, a local PNG national, and me. Bruce Scott, President of the RSL of Scottsdale, delivered the ode. Isurava is also the site of the main memorial on the track, displaying four large granite pillars with the following words inscribed: courage, endurance, mateship, sacrifice. Again at Eora Creek we held a memorial service in honour of Sergeant George Rudd, who was killed in battle at that site. Ron Rudd of Burnie, his son, was three years old at the time. I met with Ron Rudd and his wife, Jane, at Latrobe last week, and I had photos of the memorial for them. It was a very special meeting. Understandably, none of us came home without crying. Each day was emotionally challenging, especially for our veteran trekkers.
The climax of our trek was our visit to the Bomana War Cemetery in Port Moresby, where more than 3,000 Australians are buried under beautiful white marble headstones. It was a well-kept, solemn and humbling place. After a few moments there, there was not a dry eye amongst us. Another trekking group found an Australian Bren machine gun at Brigade Hill and asked if I could help return it to the Australian War Memorial. It was quite a find and in remarkably good condition. It remains in Papua New Guinea while we navigate the protocols and regulations regarding such a possibility.
Whilst all 17 team members struggled through the 96 kilometres of intense heat and jungle, fellow trekker Caroline Burridge of Hobart and I experienced a few extra challenges managing our type I diabetes. Being in a remote jungle location, we undertook regular—hourly, on average—finger prick checks and snack stops to maintain a healthy blood glucose level despite the difficult conditions. In addition to our once in a lifetime experience, the team are extremely proud to have raised over $150,000 to date for much-needed research into type one diabetes
Hear, hear!
Thank you, Senator Parry. I would specifically like to recognise the trekkers: Ivan Dean MLC, and Bruce Scott, President of the Scottsdale RSL; Caroline Burridge, fellow person with type 1 diabetes; Angela and Will Edwards; Patrick Fleming; Courtney Hogan; and Kristi Seymour—all from Tasmania; my brother, Nick Barnett; Paul Dale; Marco Fragiacomo, who is in the gallery tonight—and I acknowledge Marco’s presence and his strong support and friendship, both along the track and continuing; David Lloyd Jones; Sam McCardel; Alisdair Norton; Matt O’Brien, Chief Executive Officer of Diabetes Australia; and Christopher Perry. I want to give particular thanks and acknowledgement to our platinum sponsor, Medtronic. They gave us tremendous support, and without their support we could not have achieved the success we did. Our gold sponsor was Executive Excellence, our silver sponsor was Eli Lilly and our bronze sponsors were Abbott Diabetes Care, GSK, Medibank Private, Forest Enterprises Australia, Insync Surveys, McDonald’s and sanofi-aventis. It is with great pleasure and great honour that I acknowledge them and thank them for their support. I note that there are special events coming up in the near future in Launceston on 24 May and a dinner in Melbourne on 30 May. In Parliament House in Canberra on 26 June, we will hear from Patrick Lindsay on Kokoda and its importance to Australia.
I thank the Senate for the opportunity to share in this story and this trek.
The Pilbara Area Consultative Committee recently held a conference in Karratha entitled ‘Riding the Boom’, designed to find solutions to the local problems created by the so-called China boom in the resources industry in the Pilbara and the towns around there. Whether this objective was achieved is a moot point but overall some interesting discussions occurred. Tom Senti, from the Tweed area of New South Wales, spoke about the success that had been achieved in Tweed Heads in introducing new industry to the area, while Paul Pisasale, the Mayor of Ipswich in Queensland, gave an inspiring speech entitled ‘Leadership, Vision, Passion: Making economic development programmes work and building communities’.
However, the contemporary Pilbara is a different kind of area to any other part of regional Australia. For a start, with the exception of Port Hedland, which was established in 1896, most of the towns are regarded as being new. Considering such places as Karratha and Dampier, and the inland mining towns of Paraburdoo, Tom Price and Newman were established in the 1960s, and so are now around half a century old, ‘new’ is not really an apt description of them. Perhaps their supposed newness should not be used to excuse deficiencies in community facilities.
As John Nicolau, the chief economist of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA, pointed out, the small business sector in the Pilbara towns is very small and the local economies of the Pilbara towns are dominated by large mining companies, such as BHP in Port Hedland and Rio and Woodside in Dampier and Karratha. This means that the life of the Pilbara towns very largely revolves around the interests of the big mining companies. Especially since the adoption of 12-hour shifts and a fly-in fly-out workforce, the companies seem to regard the Pilbara towns as mere dormitories for their workers, who are flown in for a two- or three-week period from their home bases scattered around Australia. By contrast, the permanent residents of the Pilbara towns want to see their communities develop into what might be described as ‘normal’ towns in regional Australia.
I lived full-time in Port Hedland from 1974 to 1996. In those years Port Hedland was a very vibrant town with many active sporting and service clubs and community groups. However, today in Port Hedland, along with other Pilbara towns, sporting associations and clubs are in decline. For example, Rotary, which had a membership of over 30 in the 80s and 90s in Port Hedland, now has a membership of fewer than 10. On Anzac Day a St John Ambulance volunteer told me it was very hard to find volunteers for that very important community service.
The same story of community decline is repeated in the other Pilbara towns, and it is largely due to the fact that fly-in fly-out workers on 12-hour shifts do not have the time to devote to local community activities in the Pilbara towns. A commonly heard theme in the Pilbara towns is that, given the huge amount of wealth that is taken from these towns in the form of royalties and taxes, some should be returned to provide better community facilities and amenities. While the argument has some validity, particularly in terms of the provision of community infrastructure such as roads, when one compares the shopping malls, aquatic centres, libraries and day-care centres in the Pilbara towns with those found in some of the small towns found in the wheat belt of WA such as Pingelly, the Pilbara towns are not too badly off, I have to say. One of the differences is, however, that the residents of the Pilbara towns are mostly displaced suburbanites from the capital cities of Australia and New Zealand rather than real country folk. Accordingly, their aspirations are different—but, nonetheless, should not be lightly dismissed.
Regrettably, the Rudd government representative at the meeting, Gary Gray MP, the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia, who heads the newly established Northern Development Agency, was anything but sensitive when he described the request for extra funding for community amenities and infrastructure as ‘whingeing’—a bad call by Mr Gray, who showed nothing but his lack of understanding of the very real issues facing the communities in the Pilbara in their sincere efforts to develop the region on a long-term, sustainable basis.
In the opening forum of the conference a delegate said that conferences, such as this one on ‘riding the Pilbara boom’, were often mere talkfests that seemed to achieve little in terms of practical outcomes. Regrettably, I have to say that the Pilbara boom conference achieved less than I for one hoped it might, for there was no list of problems and possible solutions drawn up.
Having been associated with the Pilbara from the mid-70s, and having been in local government there for nine years—for three of which I was the Mayor of Port Hedland—and having been on the board of the Pilbara Development Commission, which is a state agency concerned with promoting regional growth, I have some views about the hurdles that need to be overcome to develop sustainable communities in the Pilbara. I would like to put some of those on record in the Senate tonight.
The high price of housing is a major issue in the Pilbara, with rentals reaching $2,000 per week for a house in both Karratha and Port Hedland, and house purchase prices mostly being in excess of $1 million for quite ordinary houses. Ordinary people and small businesses cannot afford housing for their employees or match the terms and conditions offered by the mining companies. As a consequence small businesses are having a very tough time in the Pilbara, and many are closing down and leaving the area. There are a lot of empty shops in the South Hedland Shopping Centre for this reason.
An important part of the solution to the housing problem is speeding up the release of land, which seems a curious problem to have for the Pilbara towns when one considers they are surrounded by millions of hectares of vacant land. However, native title is an issue in some places and development is slow in others. Undoubtedly, some lateral thinking is needed. Rather than developing single homes on single blocks, particularly given the shortage of land, high-rise apartments should be considered as they would provide accommodation for a large number of people. For years there has been such a high-rise development in South Hedland, but more are needed.
FIFO—fly-in fly-out, as it is commonly known—is destroying the sense of community in the Pilbara towns. This is, as I said, because FIFO workers, as they are called, do not regard the Pilbara towns as their home. As detailed already, local clubs and organisations such as Rotary and others, which depend on volunteers, are collapsing. Fly-in fly-out was originally introduced as a cheaper option for the mining companies than building towns for a local residential workforce. However, FIFO has proved to have some serious adverse social consequences, such as a high incidence of stress, marital disharmony, alcoholism and drug abuse. I was told by a mining company executive in the Pilbara last year that the benefits of FIFO operations were, increasingly, regarded as marginal. Given that, I would like to see the mining companies consider reviewing the overall cost effectiveness of FIFO operations versus returning to a residential workforce, with local FIFO to regional mining operations, say, out of Karratha and Port Hedland, which would do much to contribute to the stabilisation of the established Pilbara towns. Mr Acting Deputy President, I am running out of time, so I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my speech in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The remainder of the speech read as follows—
Local Government in the Pilbara is chronically short of funding to service the communities largely because the exemption the mining companies were given from paying rates on their tenements under the State Agreement Acts of the 1960s are still in place. However as the Mining Companies operations are now well established and highly profitable there is a case to be made for them to voluntarily make contributions to local councils in lieu of rates. Such contributions I am informed might amount to five or six million dollars per year which is a very small amount by Pilbara standards but which would be very helpful to local government endeavours to improve community facilities.
In the Pilbara there is a strong sentiment that the State and Federal governments should allocate a small percentage of the billions of dollars in royalties and taxes drawn from the Pilbara for infrastructure, services and amenities.
Of course the federal Government can only allocate funding as part of an Australia wide program and the previous government announced a $200 million “growing regions plan” shortly before the last federal election which was designed to provide for regional Australia’s future needs in infrastructure, health and telecommunications.
A program such as that which was targeted at fast growing regions would have provided a vehicle for funding the desires of the local Pilbara residents for improved facilities and infrastructure in those towns.
The Indigenous people of the Pilbara are largely bystanders amidst the wealth of the area and deserve better housing, health and education services. It is encouraging that the Mining Industry is now committed to employing Indigenous people, led by Rio Tinto in its various operations, but there is still a long way to go.
As I have remarked the “new Pilbara” towns and ports were established 50 years ago and perhaps now a psychological shift is required to regard them as a permanent part of regional Australia where increasingly people who grew up there are happy to remain. It is obvious that an overall plan is needed for the Pilbara, however, and one can only hope that the state and Federal governments will have the vision to develop such a plan for the Pilbara region which contributes so much to the Australian economy.
The following government documents were tabled:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner—Reports for 2007—
Native title.
Social justice.
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)—Office of Development Effectiveness—Annual review of development effectiveness 2007.
Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited (LiveCorp)—Report for 2006-07.
Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997Report for 2006-07 in relation to compliance with the funding between the Commonwealth of Australia and Australian Livestock Export Corporation Ltd (LiveCorp).
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—Quarterly report for the period 1 October to 31 December 2007.
Commonwealth Grants Commission—Report—Indian Ocean Territories 2007.
Dairy Australia Limited—Report for 2006-07.
Dairy Produce Act 1986Report for 2006-07 in relation to compliance with the funding between the Commonwealth of Australia and Dairy Australia Limited.
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation—Report for 2006-07—Correction.
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and Life Insurance Act 1995Report—
Review of the income tax exemption for structured settlements—Report by Alan Cameron AM, dated December 2007.
Government response.
Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997Quarterly report on the maximum movement limit for Sydney Airport for the period 1 October to 31 December 2007.
Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992Report for 2007 pursuant to section 34A of the Act.
Wheat Export Authority—Report for 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007 [Final report].
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:
[Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) number]
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act—
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) (Child Care Benefit — Receipts) Rules 2008 [F2008L00954]*.
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) (Child Care Benefit — Record Keeping) Amendment Rules 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00955]*.
Aged Care Act—
Accountability Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00894]*.
Aged Care (Amount of flexible care subsidy — multi-purpose services) Amendment Determination 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00909]*.
Aged Care (Payroll Tax Supplement) Amendment Determination 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00816]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy — amount of accommodation charge top-up supplement) Determination 2008 [F2008L00915]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy — amount of accommodation supplement) Determination 2008 [F2008L00906]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy — amount of charge exempt resident supplement) Determination 2008 [F2008L00907]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy — amount of concessional resident supplement) Determination 2008 [F2008L00908]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy — amount of maximum asset threshold) Determination 2008 [F2008L00914]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy — amount of pensioner supplement) Determination 2008 [F2008L00913]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy — amount of respite supplement) Determination 2008 [F2008L00910]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy — amount of transitional accommodation supplement) Determination 2008 [F2008L00911]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy — amount of transitional supplement) Determination 2008 [F2008L00912]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy — basic subsidy amount) Determination 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00818]*.
Allocation Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00895]*.
Approval of Care Recipients Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00828]*.
Certification Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00896]*.
Classification Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00830]*.
Community Care Grant Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00897]*.
Extra Service Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00898]*.
Flexible Care Grant Principles 2008 [F2008L00899]*.
Information Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00900]*.
Quality of Care Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00834]*.
Records Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00832]*.
Residential Care Grant Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00902]*.
Residential Care Subsidy Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00833]*.
Residential Care Subsidy Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L00903]*.
User Rights Amendment Principles 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00905]*.
Air Navigation Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 57—Air Navigation (Checked Baggage) Repeal Regulations 2008 [F2008L01059]*.
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act—
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Amendment Instrument 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01170]*.
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Amendment Instrument 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L01285]*.
Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2004-2005, Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2005-2006 and Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2006-2007—Determination to reduce appropriation upon request—Determination No. 5 of 2007-2008 [F2008L01190]*.
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No. 1) 2004-2005 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No. 1) 2007-2008—Determination to reduce appropriation upon request—Determination No. 3 of 2007-2008 [F2008L01189]*.
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No. 1) 2007-2008—Advance to the Presiding Officer—No. 1 of 2007-2008 [F2008L01020]*.
AusLink (National Land Transport) Act—Variations of AusLink Roads to Recovery List Instruments Nos—
2008/1 [F2008L00953]*.
2008/2 [F2008L01325]*.
Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposals Nos—
1 of 2008—Survey of Employment and Earnings.
2 of 2008—Agricultural Resource Management Survey.
Australian Citizenship Act—Instrument IMMI 08/018—Instrument of Authorisation [F2008L01312]*.
Australian Film, Television and Radio School Act—Determination of Degrees, Diplomas and Certificates No. 2008/1 [F2008L01172]*.
Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act—Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (High Quality Beef Export to the European Union) Order 2008 [F2008L00979]*.
Australian National University Act—
Academic Board and University Policy Committees Statute 2007—Academic Board and University Policy Committees Rules 2008 [F2008L00987]*.
Programs and Awards Statute 2006—Examinations Rules 2008 [F2008L00988]*.
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Act—Statement under section 7—Disclosure of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s interests in company.
Australian Postal Corporation Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2008 Nos—
25—Australian Postal Corporation Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00792]*.
26—Australian Postal Corporation (Performance Standards) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00793]*.
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act—Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (Confidentiality) Determinations Nos—
4 of 2008—Information provided by locally-incorporated banks and foreign ADIs under Reporting Standard ARS 320.0 (2005) [F2008L00946]*.
5 of 2008—Information provided by locally-incorporated banks and foreign ADIs under Reporting Standard ARS 320.0 (2005) [F2008L01092]*.
Australian Research Council Act—
Linkage International Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2009 [F2008L01061]*.
Linkage Projects Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2009—Variation (No. 1) [F2008L01034]*.
Aviation Transport Security Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 58—Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01057]*.
Broadcasting Services Act—
National Television Conversion Scheme Variation 2007 (No. 1) [F2008L00981]*.
Variations to Licence Area Plans for—
Innisfail Radio – No. 1 of 2008 [F2008L00957]*.
Lithgow Radio – No. 1 of 2008 [F2008L01314]*.
Charter of the United Nations Act—
Charter of the United Nations (Designated Commonwealth Entity) Declaration 2008 [F2008L01044]*.
Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Iran) Regulations 2008—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Iran) (Export Sanctioned Goods) List Determination 2008 [F2008L01286]*.
Charter of the United Nations (UN Sanction Enforcement Law) Amendment Declaration 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01045]*.
Charter of the United Nations (UN Sanction Enforcement Law) Declaration 2008 [F2008L00952]*.
Select Legislative Instruments 2008 Nos—
29—Charter of the United Nations (Dealing with Assets) Regulations 2008 [F2008L00917]*.
30—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) Regulations 2008 [F2008L00925]*.
31—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Iran) Regulations 2008 [F2008L00927]*.
41—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Afghanistan) Regulations 2008 [F2008L01023]*.
42—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01051]*.
43—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Côte d’Ivoire) Regulations 2008 [F2008L01029]*.
44—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Democratic Republic of the Congo) Regulations 2008 [F2008L01031]*.
45—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Iraq) Regulations 2008 [F2008L01033]*.
46—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Lebanon) Regulations 2008 [F2008L01037]*.
47—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Liberia) Regulations 2008 [F2008L01040]*.
48—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Rwanda) Regulations 2008 [F2008L01041]*.
49—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Sierra Leone) Regulations 2008 [F2008L01042]*.
50—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Somalia) Regulations 2008 [F2008L01043]*.
51—Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions — Sudan) Regulations 2008 [F2008L01026]*.
Circuit Layouts Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 19—Circuit Layouts Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00778]*.
Civil Aviation Act—
Civil Aviation Order 82.3 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2008 [F2008L00901]*.
Civil Aviation Regulations—
Civil Aviation Order 40.1.7 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2008 [F2008L01015]*.
Civil Aviation Order 40.6 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2008 [F2008L01010]*.
Civil Aviation Order 100.5 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2008 [F2008L00598]*.
Instruments Nos CASA—
43/08—Permission and direction – helicopter charter operations [F2008L00099]*.
146/08—Determination of meteorological minima [F2008L00693]*.
183/08—Approval and directions – operations without an approved digital flight data recorder [F2008L00982]*.
EX21/08—Exemption – training and checking organisation, flight check system [F2008L00517]*.
EX24/08—Exemption – refuelling with patients on board [F2008L01113]*.
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations—
Airworthiness Directives—Part—
105—
AD/A320/212—Braking and Steering Control Unit [F2008L01245]*.
AD/A320/222—Elevator Aileron Computer Software [F2008L01145]*.
AD/A330/31 Amdt 3—Airworthiness Limitations Items – Time Limits/Maintenance Checks [F2008L00774]*.
AD/A330/77 Amdt 2—Flap Down Drive Shaft [F2008L00773]*.
AD/A330/86 Amdt 1—MLG Bogie Beam [F2008L00772]*.
AD/AB139/5—Exhaust Tailpipe Assembly [F2008L00877]*.
AD/AC/93 Amdt 2—Wing to Fuselage Attachment [F2008L01213]*.
AD/AMD 50/45—Wing Primary Structure [F2008L00771]*.
AD/AS 355/58 Amdt 2—Rear Bench Cushions [F2008L00770]*.
AD/AT/22 Amdt 2—Wing Centreline Splice Joint [F2008L01342]*.
AD/ATR 42/23—Rear Pressure Bulkhead Area – Electrical Wire Chafing [F2008L01098]*.
AD/B727/208—Fuselage Crown Skin [F2008L00769]*.
AD/B727/209—Fuel System Airworthiness Limitations [F2008L01248]*.
AD/B737/315—Door R1 Slide Compartment Modification [F2008L00768]*.
AD/B737/318—Main Slat Track Downstop Assemblies [F2008L01255]*.
AD/B747/373—Evacuation System Shear-Pin Restraints [F2008L00766]*.
AD/B747/374—Korry Pushbutton Switches [F2008L00874]*.
AD/B767/236—Evacuation System Shear-Pin Restraints [F2008L00767]*.
AD/B767/237—Korry Pushbutton Switches [F2008L00873]*.
AD/B767/237 Amdt 1—Korry Pushbutton Switches [F2008L01254]*.
AD/B767/238—Airconditioning Mix Manifold Ducting [F2008L01252]*.
AD/B767/239—Electrical Power Ground Brackets [F2008L01246]*.
AD/BEECH 23/25—Main Landing Gear Supports [F2008L00882]*.
AD/BEECH 23/28—Control Column and Mixture Control [F2008L00866]*.
AD/BEECH 23/37—Engine Hose Assembly [F2008L00831]*.
AD/BEECH 23/42—Engine Control Rod Safety Washers [F2008L00829]*.
AD/BEECH 33/8—Engine Mount Bolt Nut [F2008L00827]*.
AD/BEECH 33/10 Amdt 1—Propeller Governor Control Linkage [F2008L00826]*.
AD/BEECH 33/31 Amdt 1—Sponge Filled Fuel Reservoir Tanks [F2008L00825]*.
AD/BEECH 33/46—Grimes Strobe Lights [F2008L00824]*.
AD/BEECH 35/16—Pitot and Static Pressure Line Routing [F2008L00823]*.
AD/BEECH 35/17—Tachometer Shaft [F2008L01219]*.
AD/BEECH 35/18—Insulation of Ammeter Terminals [F2008L01220]*.
AD/BEECH 35/30 Amdt 1—Propeller Governor Control Linkage [F2008L01237]*.
AD/BEECH 35/34—Turbocharger Oil Inlet Fitting [F2008L01235]*.
AD/BEECH 35/37—Fuel and Hydraulic Lines in Engine Compartment [F2008L01232]*.
AD/BEECH 35/42—Internally Lighted Altimeter [F2008L01234]*.
AD/BEECH 35/57 Amdt 1—Sponge Filled Fuel Reservoir Tanks [F2008L01229]*.
AD/BEECH 36/3—Fuel Gauge Placard [F2008L01225]*.
AD/BEECH 36/9 Amdt 1—Propeller Governor Control Linkage [F2008L01222]*.
AD/BEECH 36/19—Internally Lighted Altimeter [F2008L01228]*.
AD/BEECH 36/30 Amdt 1—Sponge Filled Fuel Reservoir Tanks [F2008L01224]*.
AD/BEECH 50/2—Cylinder Head Thermocouple [F2008L01206]*.
AD/BEECH 50/7—Magneto Ground Leads [F2008L01203]*.
AD/BEECH 50/13—50 Amp Motor Overload Circuit Breaker [F2008L01207]*.
AD/BEECH 50/20—Outer Wing Electrical Wiring [F2008L01205]*.
AD/BEECH 50/24—Exhaust Augmenter Clamps [F2008L01204]*.
AD/BEECH 200/2—Flap Gearbox [F2008L00764]*.
AD/BEECH 200/6—Wing Tip Fuel Filler Anti-Siphon Door Assembly [F2008L00872]*.
AD/BEECH 200/11—DC Power Panel Harness [F2008L00871]*.
AD/BEECH 200/12 Amdt 2—Vertical Stabiliser [F2008L00763]*.
AD/BEECH 200/13 Amdt 1—Aft Cowling Door Forward Latch Pin [F2008L00762]*.
AD/BEECH 200/16—Rudder Control System [F2008L00761]*.
AD/BEECH 200/17—Nacelle Wheel Well Fender Installation [F2008L00760]*.
AD/BEECH 200/19—Main Landing Gear Torque Tubes [F2008L00759]*.
AD/BEECH 200/23 Amdt 1—Inboard Aileron Hinge Arms [F2008L00758]*.
AD/BEECH 200/24—Fuselage Clip Installation [F2008L00756]*.
AD/BEECH 200/25—Flap Safety Switch Linkage [F2008L00870]*.
AD/BEECH 200/27—Engine Hose Assembly [F2008L00869]*.
AD/BEECH 200/32—Left Hand Rudder Cable Installation [F2008L00868]*.
AD/BEECH 200/56—Landing Gear Actuator Pivot Mounting [F2008L00867]*.
AD/BELL 412/54—Rescue Hoist Hook [F2008L01038]*.
AD/CAP 10/13—Flight Controls Tie Rod Bolts [F2008L01024]*.
AD/CAP 10/14—Weight and Balance [F2008L01111]*.
AD/CESSNA 170/81—Fuel Return Line [F2008L01250]*.
AD/CESSNA 170/82—Seat Base/Back Attach Bracket [F2008L01216]*.
AD/CESSNA 170/83—Alternate Static Air Source Valve [F2008L01363]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/92—Seat Base/Back Attach Bracket [F2008L01215]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/93—Alternate Static Air Source Valve [F2008L01358]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/49—Alternate Static Air Source Valve [F2008L01357]*.
AD/CESSNA 205/24—Alternate Static Air Source Valve [F2008L01356]*.
AD/CESSNA 206/64—Seat Base/Back Attach Bracket [F2008L01214]*.
AD/CESSNA 206/65—Alternate Static Air Source Valve [F2008L01354]*.
AD/CESSNA 207/39—Alternate Static Air Source Valve [F2008L01362]*.
AD/CESSNA 208/22—Alternate Static Air Source Valve [F2008L01361]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/2—Nose Gear Downlock – Modification [F2008L00822]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/18—Alternator Earth Lead – Inspection [F2008L00821]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/23—Hydraulic Pressure Line/Trim Tab Chain Interference – Inspection [F2008L00820]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/24—Hydraulic Line – Inspection [F2008L00819]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/27—Rudder Trim Chain – Inspection [F2008L00815]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/28—Gear Warning and Fuel Pump Switches Operating Cable – Inspection and Replacement [F2008L00814]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/31—Fuel Reservoir Fitting – Inspection [F2008L00813]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/34—Ammeter Type and Position – Inspection and Modification [F2008L00812]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/37—Turbocharger Oil Return Hose – Replacement [F2008L00811]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/40—Fuel Tank Filler Neck – Inspection and Replacement [F2008L00810]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/47—Fuel Vapour Return Line – Repositioning [F2008L00809]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/51—Wing Tip Navigation/Strobe Lights Installed in Flint Aero Wing Tip Tanks – Inspection and Modification [F2008L00808]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/53—Oxygen Indicator Lights – Modification [F2008L00807]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/74—Alternate Static Air Source Valve [F2008L01360]*.
AD/CESSNA 303/13—Alternate Static Air Source Valve [F2008L01359]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/3—Oxygen Line – Modification [F2008L00806]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/4—Voltage Regulator Shield – Installation [F2008L00805]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/6—Air Intake Heater – Installation [F2008L00798]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/9—Main Gear Door Mechanism – Inspection [F2008L01240]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/11—Landing Gear Torque Tubes – Inspection [F2008L01239]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/13—Fuel Pressure Switch – Relocation [F2008L00787]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/22 Amdt 1—Rerouting of Suppressor Cable – Modification [F2008L01227]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/23—Fuel Line – Inspection [F2008L01221]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/24—Fuel Line – Inspection and Modification [F2008L01238]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/26—Fuel Crossover Line – Inspection and Modification [F2008L01236]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/31—Fuel Crossfeed Lines – Inspection and Modification [F2008L01233]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/45—Main Landing Gear Down Lock Pin and Set Screw – Inspection [F2008L01231]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/50—Wing Locker Fuel Tank Filler Cap – Rework [F2008L01230]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/58—Fuel Flow Transducer [F2008L01244]*.
AD/CESSNA 320/5—Fuel Pressure Switch – Relocation [F2008L01210]*.
AD/CESSNA 320/6—Nose Gear Uplock Torque Tube – Replacement [F2008L01226]*.
AD/CESSNA 320/7—Fuel Lines – Modification and Inspection [F2008L01209]*.
AD/CESSNA 320/13—Fuel Crossover Line – Modification [F2008L01208]*.
AD/CESSNA 320/18—Fuel Crossfeed Lines – Inspection and Modification [F2008L01211]*.
AD/CESSNA 336/1—Fuel Line – Replacement [F2008L01109]*.
AD/CESSNA 336/2—Cooling Fan – Inspection [F2008L01102]*.
AD/CESSNA 336/4—Open Wire Aerial Installation – Modification [F2008L01108]*.
AD/CESSNA 337/1—Fuel Line Replacement [F2008L01105]*.
AD/CESSNA 337/3—Open Wire Aerial Installation – Modification [F2008L01106]*.
AD/CESSNA 337/7—Alternator Field Fuse – Installation [F2008L01101]*.
AD/CESSNA 337/16—Alternator Cable Protection – Modification [F2008L01103]*.
AD/CESSNA 337/23—Battery Lid Retaining Channel – Modification [F2008L01104]*.
AD/CESSNA 337/26—Oxygen Indicator Lights – Modification [F2008L01107]*.
AD/CESSNA 340/35—Fuel Flow Transducer [F2008L01243]*.
AD/CESSNA 400/114—Fuel Flow Transducer [F2008L01242]*.
AD/CIRRUS/9—Rudder and Aileron Rigging [F2008L01249]*.
AD/CL-600/96—Stick Pusher Capstan Shaft [F2008L01256]*.
AD/DH 83/4—Streamline Wires [F2008L00733]*.
AD/DH 84/4—Streamline Wires [F2008L00731]*.
AD/DH 85/2—Streamline Wires [F2008L00730]*.
AD/DH 87/3—Streamline Wires [F2008L00729]*.
AD/DH 89/4—Streamline Wires [F2008L00728]*.
AD/DHC-2/32 Amdt 1—Magneto Cannon Plug [F2008L00784]*.
AD/DHC-3/37 Amdt 1—Magneto Cannon Plug [F2008L00783]*.
AD/DHC-8/139—Spoiler Cable Disconnect Caution Light [F2008L00782]*.
AD/DHC-8/140—Elevator Overload Bungee [F2008L00781]*.
AD/DHC-8/141—Elevator Centering Torsion Springs [F2008L00780]*.
AD/ERJ-170/9 Amdt 1—Low Stage Engine Bleed Check Valve [F2008L00779]*.
AD/ERJ-170/11 Amdt 1—Hydraulic Hose Clamps [F2008L00777]*.
AD/ERJ-170/13—Ram Air Turbine Bearings [F2008L00776]*.
AD/ERJ-170/15—Pressure Equalisation Valve [F2008L01251]*.
AD/ERJ-170/16—FADEC Software Load V5.40 [F2008L01097]*.
AD/ERJ-190/4—Inertial Reference Unit and Primary Flight Displays [F2008L01247]*.
AD/ERJ-190/5—Forward and Rear Door Emergency Evacuation Slide Packs [F2008L01218]*.
AD/ERJ-190/6—Aft Avionics Compartment Smoke Seal [F2008L01217]*.
AD/F50/59 Amdt 1—Engine Electronic Control System [F2008L01212]*.
AD/SF340/105—Landing Gear – Emergency Extension Valve [F2008L01241]*.
AD/TBM 700/49—Emergency Landing Gear By-pass Selector Inspection [F2008L01201]*.
106—
AD/ARRIEL/28—Fuel Control Unit 3-way Union Plug [F2008L00875]*.
AD/CF34/15—Fuel Metering Unit Wiring [F2008L00786]*.
AD/DART/32—Fuel Burner Flow Calibration Checks [F2008L00785]*.
AD/PW200/2—Compressor Turbine Disk Retaining Nut [F2008L00881]*.
AD/PW300/1 Amdt 1—Engine High Pressure Compressor Drum [F2008L00879]*.
AD/TFE 731/35—High Pressure Turbine Rotor Discs Curvic Couplings [F2008L01253]*.
AD/THIELERT/8—Piston Cooling Nozzles [F2008L00878]*.
107—
AD/AIRCON/10—Janitrol Cabin Heaters [F2008L00876]*.
AD/APU/22—APS 3200 APU Software Upgrade [F2008L01156]*.
AD/FSM/31 Amdt 1—Precision Airmotive Fuel Injection Servo Plugs [F2008L01322]*.
AD/INST/56—Avidyne Corporation Primary Flight Displays [F2008L00984]*.
Instrument No. CASA EX23/08—Exemption – participation in land and hold short operations [F2008L01077]*.
Manual of Standards Part 139 Amendment (No. 2) 2008 [F2008L01090]*.
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act—
Classification (Waiver of Fees) Principles 2008 [F2008L01346]*.
Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games Amendment 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00850]*.
Guidelines for the Classification of Publications Amendment 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00849]*.
Commissioner of Taxation—Public rulings—
Class Rulings—
Addendum—CR 2007/108.
CR 2008/26-CR 2008/34.
Errata—CR 2008/15, CR 2008/19 and CR 2008/22.
Fuel Tax Ruling FTR 2008/1.
Goods and Services Tax Determination—Addendum—GSTD 2006/3.
Goods and Services Tax Rulings—
Addenda—GSTR 2000/1 and GSTR 2000/37.
GSTR 2008/2.
Product Rulings—
Addenda—PR 2006/145, PR 2006/146, PR 2007/39, PR 2007/58, PR 2008/2, PR 2008/4, PR 2008/11, PR 2008/21 and PR 2008/22.
Notices of Withdrawal—PR 1999/4, PR 1999/100, PR 2000/96, PR 2001/3, PR 2001/119-PR 2001/121, PR 2001/141, PR 2001/176, PR 2002/85, PR 2003/39, PR 2004/19, PR 2004/22, PR 2004/48, PR 2004/100, PR 2004/101, PR 2005/38, PR 2005/39, PR 2005/42, PR 2006/10-PR 2006/13, PR 2006/15, PR 2006/16, PR 2007/42, PR 2007/78 and PR 2007/79.
PR 2008/26-PR 2008/43.
Self Managed Superannuation Funds Determination SMSFD 2008/2.
Taxation Determinations—
Addendum—TD 2003/28.
Notices of Withdrawal—TD 93/77, TD 94/37, TD 94/41 and TD 94/59.
TD 2008/2-TD 2008/12.
Taxation Rulings (old series)—
Addenda—IT 333 and IT 363.
Notices of Withdrawal—IT 24, IT 27, IT 69, IT 2078, IT 2278, IT 2383, IT 2502, IT 2520 and IT 2569.
Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 69—Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01258]*.
Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 70—Electoral and Referendum Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L01223]*.
Corporations Act—ASIC Class Orders—
[CO 08/10] [F2008L00757]*.
[CO 08/11] [F2008L00956]*.
Currency Act—
Currency (Perth Mint) Determination 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01168]*.
Currency (Royal Australian Mint) Determination 2008 (No. 3) [F2008L01064]*.
Customs Act—
Select Legislative Instruments 2008 Nos—
20—Customs Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00846]*.
21—Customs Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L00930]*.
22—Customs (Prohibited Exports) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00928]*.
23—Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00929]*.
64—Customs Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 3) [F2008L01200]*.
65—Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L01199]*.
Tariff Concession Orders—
0702852 [F2008L01287]*.
0703237 [F2008L01288]*.
0710840 [F2008L01289]*.
0711154 [F2008L01290]*.
0711532 [F2008L00998]*.
0711603 [F2008L00853]*.
0713878 [F2008L00999]*.
0716092 [F2008L01000]*.
0716958 [F2008L00854]*.
0717269 [F2008L01001]*.
0717414 [F2008L00855]*.
0718648 [F2008L01291]*.
0718749 [F2008L01079]*.
0718813 [F2008L00856]*.
0718848 [F2008L00857]*.
0718991 [F2008L00858]*.
0719098 [F2008L00859]*.
0719350 [F2008L00843]*.
0719751 [F2008L00860]*.
0719752 [F2008L00861]*.
0719753 [F2008L00862]*.
0719766 [F2008L00844]*.
0719768 [F2008L00863]*.
0719789 [F2008L00864]*.
0720078 [F2008L01169]*.
0720221 [F2008L01292]*.
0720222 [F2008L01171]*.
0720282 [F2008L01002]*.
0720375 [F2008L00865]*.
0720488 [F2008L01009]*.
0720574 [F2008L01153]*.
0720624 [F2008L01005]*.
0720626 [F2008L01006]*.
0720710 [F2008L01133]*.
0720739 [F2008L01150]*.
0720740 [F2008L01293]*.
0720741 [F2008L01294]*.
0720742 [F2008L01295]*.
0720743 [F2008L01296]*.
0720744 [F2008L01297]*.
0720749 [F2008L00851]*.
0720878 [F2008L00852]*.
0720879 [F2008L00968]*.
0720893 [F2008L00841]*.
0720906 [F2008L00839]*.
0720910 [F2008L01008]*.
0720929 [F2008L00842]*.
0720930 [F2008L00845]*.
0720931 [F2008L00680]—Explanatory Statement [in substitution for explanatory statement tabled with instrument on 19 March 2008].
0720954 [F2008L00801]*.
0720968 [F2008L01004]*.
0721025 [F2008L01007]*.
0721033 [F2008L01003]*.
0721239 [F2008L00840]*.
0721282 [F2008L00969]*.
0721689 [F2008L00838]*.
0721690 [F2008L01131]*.
0721697 [F2008L00941]*.
0721698 [F2008L01132]*.
0721764 [F2008L00802]*.
0721765 [F2008L01298]*.
0721785 [F2008L01151]*.
0721786 [F2008L00803]*.
0721787 [F2008L01152]*.
0721788 [F2008L01134]*.
0721789 [F2008L01147]*.
0721821 [F2008L01280]*.
0721822 [F2008L01149]*.
0721823 [F2008L00976]*.
0721824 [F2008L01154]*.
0721866 [F2008L00972]*.
0721876 [F2008L01301]*.
0721916 [F2008L01049]*.
0721917 [F2008L01048]*.
0721918 [F2008L01084]*.
0721919 [F2008L01046]*.
0721922 [F2008L01076]*.
0721923 [F2008L01188]*.
0721937 [F2008L01148]*.
0721938 [F2008L01281]*.
0721939 [F2008L00799]*.
0721940 [F2008L01047]*.
0721949 [F2008L01080]*.
0721973 [F2008L01276]*.
0721994 [F2008L01303]*.
0721995 [F2008L01083]*.
0721996 [F2008L01085]*.
0721997 [F2008L01304]*.
0721999 [F2008L00970]*.
0800038 [F2008L01277]*.
0800042 [F2008L01082]*.
0800050 [F2008L01180]*.
0800150 [F2008L01179]*.
0800253 [F2008L01078]*.
0800330 [F2008L01178]*.
0800347 [F2008L01273]*.
0800433 [F2008L01181]*.
0800474 [F2008L01274]*.
0800529 [F2008L01182]*.
0800592 [F2008L01308]*.
0800660 [F2008L01309]*.
0800673 [F2008L00971]*.
0800690 [F2008L01270]*.
0800796 [F2008L01264]*.
0800851 [F2008L01263]*.
0800902 [F2008L01310]*.
0800903 [F2008L01265]*.
0800968 [F2008L01184]*.
0801037 [F2008L01269]*.
0801270 [F2008L01267]*.
0801271 [F2008L01185]*.
0802215 [F2008L01311]*.
Tariff Concession Revocation Instruments—
31/2008 [F2008L00990]*.
32/2008 [F2008L00991]*.
33/2008 [F2008L00992]*.
34/2008 [F2008L00993]*.
35/2008 [F2008L00994]*.
36/2008 [F2008L00995]*.
37/2008 [F2008L00996]*.
38/2008 [F2008L00997]*.
Customs Administration Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 63—Customs Administration Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01198]*.
Defence Act—
Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations—
2008/13—Allowances – technical.
2008/14—Removal entitlements – Naval members posted to a naval aircraft squadron – amendment.
2008/15—Short-term duty travel costs – amendment.
2008/16—Post indexes – amendment.
2008/17—Travel – amendment.
2008/18—Miscellaneous amendments.
2008/19—Deployment allowance and additional risk insurance – amendment.
2008/20—Post indexes – amendment.
Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 68—Defence Force Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01192]*.
Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act—Warlike Service — Cambodia and Somalia Declaration 2008 [F2008L00980]*.
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act—Eligible Superannuation Scheme Declaration 2008 [F2008L00837]*.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—Amendments of lists of exempt native specimens—
EPBC303DC/SFS/2008/09 [F2008L00931]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2008/10 [F2008L01135]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2008/11 [F2008L01323]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2008/12 [F2008L01096]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2008/13 [F2008L01095]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2008/14 [F2008L01165]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2008/15 [F2008L01164]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2008/18 [F2008L01321]*.
Family Law Act—
Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations—
Family Law (Superannuation) (Methods and Factors for Valuing Particular Superannuation Interests) Amendment Approval 2008 (No. 3) [F2008L01114]*.
Family Law (Superannuation) (Provision of Information — Victorian Pension Schemes) Determination 2008 [F2008L01115]*.
Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 62—Family Law Amendment Rules 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01183]*.
Federal Court of Australia Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 61—Federal Court (Corporations) Amendment Rules 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01070]*.
Federal Magistrates Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 36—Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Amendment Rules 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00916]*.
Financial Management and Accountability Act—
Determinations—
2008/03—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from the Productivity Commission to Finance) [F2008L00944]*.
2008/04—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from former DEWR to DFHCSIA) [F2008L00945]*.
2008/05—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from PM&C to Finance) [F2008L01017]*.
2008/06—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from Treasury to Finance) [F2008L01018]*.
2008/07—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from AGD to PM&C) [F2008L01019]*.
2008/08—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from FaHCSIA to DEEWR) [F2008L01139]*.
2008/09—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from DITRDLG to Health) [F2008L01140]*.
2008/10—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from DFAT to DCC) [F2008L01142]*.
2008/11—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from DITRDLG to AGD) [F2008L01195]*.
2008/12—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from FaHCSIA to PM&C) [F2008L01196]*.
2008/13—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from former DITR to DIISR) [F2008L01268]*.
2008/14—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from former DITR to DRET) [F2008L01272]*.
2008/15—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from the former DITR to BOM) [F2008L01275]*.
2008/16—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from former DEST to DRET) [F2008L01278]*.
2008/17—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from former DCITA to Health) [F2008L01282]*.
2008/18—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from former DCITA to DBCDE) [F2008L01283]*.
Financial Management and Accountability Net Appropriation Agreement (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) Variation 2008 [F2008L01317]*.
Financial Management and Accountability Net Appropriation Agreement (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) Variation 2008 [F2008L01316]*.
Fisheries Management Act—
Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery Management Plan 2002—Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery Total Allowable Catch Determination 2008 [F2008L00964]*.
Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan 2003—
2008 SESSF D2—Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (Non-quota Species) Total Allowable Catch (2008 Fishing Year) Determination [F2008L00949]*.
2008 SESSF D3—Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Overcatch and Undercatch (2008 Fishing Year) Determination [F2008L00950]*.
2008 SESSF TAC D1—Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (Quota Species) Total Allowable Catch (2008 Fishing Year) Determination [F2008L00947]*.
Gene Technology Act—Gene Technology (Equine Influenza Vaccine) Emergency Dealing Extension Determination 2008 [F2008L00835]*.
Health Insurance Act—
Declaration of Quality Assurance Activity—QAA No. 1/2008 [F2008L01022]*.
Determinations HIB—
01/2008 [F2008L00932]*.
02/2008 [F2008L00933]*.
03/2008 [F2008L00934]*.
04/2008 [F2008L00935]*.
05/2008 [F2008L00936]*.
06/2008 [F2008L00937]*.
Health Insurance (Dental Services) Amendment and Repeal Determination 2008 [F2008L00965]*.
Select Legislative Instruments 2008 Nos—
32—Health Insurance (Pathology Services Table) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00490]*.
52—Health Insurance (Diagnostic Imaging Services Table) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00712]*.
53—Health Insurance (General Medical Services Table) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00637]*.
Higher Education Support Act—
Higher Education Provider Approval (No. 3 of 2008)—Harvest West Bible College Inc [F2008L01126]*.
Other Grants Guidelines 2006—Amendment No. 9 [F2008L01011]*.
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 35—Income Tax Assessment Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00923]*.
International Transfer of Prisoners Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 24—International Transfer of Prisoners (Transfer of Sentenced Persons Convention) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00848]*.
Interstate Road Transport Act—Determination of Routes for B-doubles Not Operating at Higher Mass Limits under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme (FIRS) 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01144]*.
Lands Acquisition Act—Statements describing property acquired by agreement for specified public purposes under sections—
40.
125.
Legislative Instruments Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 66—Legislative Instruments Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01257]*.
Medical Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 71—Medical Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Regulations 2008 [F2008L00986]*.
Medicare Australia Act—Medicare Australia (Function of Chief Executive Officer — Teen Dental Plan) Direction 2008 [F2008L01300]*.
Migration Act—
Instruments IMMI—
08/007—Maximum number of Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) Visas that may be granted in the 2007/2008 financial year [F2008L00687]*.
08/008—Maximum number of Contributory Aged Parent (Residence) (Class DG) Visas that may be granted in the 2007/2008 financial year [F2008L00688]*.
08/009—Maximum number of Contributory Aged Parent (Temporary) (Class UU) Visas that may be granted in the 2007/2008 financial year [F2008L00689]*.
08/010—Maximun number of Contributory Parent (Temporary) (Class UT) Visas that may be granted in the 2007/2008 financial year [F2008L00690]*.
Migration Agents Regulations—MARA Notices—
MN13-08b of 2008—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Private Study of Audio, Video or Written Material) [F2008L00978]*.
MN13-08c of 2008—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Attendance at a Seminar, Workshop, Conference or Lecture) [F2008L00977]*.
MN13-08f of 2008—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Miscellaneous Activities) [F2008L00975]*.
MN17-08a of 2008—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Program of Education) [F2008L01158]*.
MN17-08c of 2008—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Attendance at a Seminar, Workshop, Conference or Lecture) [F2008L01157]*.
Migration Regulations—Instruments IMMI—
08/004—Skilled occupations, relevant assessing authorities and points for general skilled migration [F2008L01127]*.
08/011—Professional Year Programs [F2008L01012]*.
08/016—Class of Persons [F2008L01058]*.
08/022—Travel agents for PRC citizens applying for tourist visas [F2008L01155]*.
08/023—Payment of visa application charges and fees in foreign currencies [F2008L01124]*.
Migration (United Nations Security Council Resolutions) Regulations—Instrument IMMI 08/012—Specification of United Nations Security Council Resolutions [F2008L01146]*.
Select Legislative Instruments 2008 Nos—
33—Migration Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00942]*.
56—Migration Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L01025]*.
Motor Vehicle Standards Act—Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 21/00 – Instrument Panel) 2006 Amendment 1 [F2008L01056]*.
Murray-Darling Basin Act—Murray-Darling Basin Agreement—Schedule G (Effect of the Snowy Scheme).
National Health Act—
Arrangements No. PB 38 of 2008—Botulinum Toxin Program [F2008L00966]*.
Instruments Nos PB—
35 of 2008—Amendment determination – prescription of pharmaceutical benefits by authorised optometrists [F2008L00700]*.
40 of 2008—Amendment – price determinations and special patient contributions [F2008L00958]*.
41 of 2008—Amendment declaration and determination – drugs and medicinal preparations [F2008L01027]*.
42 of 2008—Amendment determination – pharmaceutical benefits [F2008L01028]*.
43 of 2008—Amendment determination – responsible persons [F2008L01030]*.
44 of 2008—Amendment – price determinations and special patient contributions [F2008L01032]*.
45 of 2008—Amendment determination – conditions [F2008L01035]*.
46 of 2008—Amendment Special Arrangements – Highly Specialised Drugs Program [F2008L01036]*.
47 of 2008—Determination – drugs on F1 and drugs in Part A of F2 [F2008L01039]*.
57 of 2008—Determination – drugs on F1 [F2008L01167]*.
Rules No. PB 49 of 2008 [F2008L00985]*.
Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 54—National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00583]*.
National Health Security Act—
National Health Security (National Notifiable Disease List) Instrument 2008 [F2008L00800]*.
National Health Security (Responsible Bodies) Determination 2008 [F2008L00804]*.
Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 55—National Health Security Regulations 2008 [F2008L00556]*.
National Transport Commission Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 34—National Transport Commission (Model Rail Safety (Amendment No. 1) Bill) Regulations 2008 [F2008L00938]*.
Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act—
Northern Territory National Emergency Response (Other Areas) Declaration 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01053]*.
Northern Territory National Emergency Response (Other Areas) Declaration 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L01162]*.
Northern Territory National Emergency Response (Other Areas) Declaration 2008 (No. 3) [F2008L01193]*.
Privacy Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 60—Privacy (Private Sector) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01050]*.
Private Health Insurance Act—
Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Amendment Rules 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01112]*.
Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00939]*.
Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Amendment Rules 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01315]*.
Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Rules 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00940]*.
Private Health Insurance (Health Benefits Fund Administration) Amendment Rules 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01319]*.
Product Stewardship (Oil) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 28—Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00920]*.
Public Lending Right Act—Public Lending Right Scheme 1997 (Modification No. 1 of 2008) [F2008L01136]*.
Public Service Act—
Public Service Commissioner’s Amendment Directions 2008 (No. 1).
Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 72—Public Service Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01099]*.
Radiocommunications Act—Radiocommunications Foreign Space Objects) Amendment Determination 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01081]*.
Royal Commissions Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 40—Royal Commissions Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01052]*.
Schools Assistance (Learning Together — Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 37—Schools Assistance (Learning Together — Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00963]*.
Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Levy Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 27—Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Levy Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00880]*.
Social Security Act—
Social Security (Deeming Threshold Rates) (DEEWR) Determination 2008 [F2008L00904]*.
Social Security (Deeming Threshold Rates) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008 [F2008L00847]*.
Social Security Exempt Lump Sum (Redress WA) (DEEWR) Determination 2008 [F2008L01137]*.
Social Security Exempt Lump Sum (Redress WA) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008 [F2008L01143]*.
Social Security Exempt Lump Sum (Tasmanian Government Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Children) (DEEWR) Determination 2008 [F2008L01329]*.
Social Security Exempt Lump Sum (Tasmanian Government Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Children) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008 [F2008L01202]*.
Social Security (Special Disability Trust) (DEEWR) Guidelines 2008 [F2008L01173]*.
Social Security (Special Disability Trust) (FaHCSIA) Guidelines 2008 [F2008L01093]*.
Social Security (Administration) Act—
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory area — Mapurru) Determination 2008 [F2008L00974]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory area — Pirlangimpi and Putjamirra) Determination 2008 [F2008L01069]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas — Various No. 4)) Determination 2008 [F2008L00948]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas — Various (No. 5)) Determination 2008 [F2008L00951]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas — Various (No. 6)) Determination 2008 [F2008L00973]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas — Various (No. 7)) Determination 2008 [F2008L01013]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas — Various (No. 8)) Determination 2008 [F2008L01014]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas — Various (No. 9)) Determination 2008 [F2008L01066]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas — Various (No. 10)) Determination 2008 [F2008L01128]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas — Various (No. 11)) Determination 2008 [F2008L01129]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas — Various (No. 12)) Determination 2008 [F2008L01174]*.
Social Security (Administration) Declared relevant Northern Territory areas — Various (No. 13)) Determination 2008 [F2008L01175]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas — Various (No. 14)) Determination 2008 [F2008L01176]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas — Various (No. 15)) Determination 2008 [F2008L01326]*.
Social Security (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (DEEWR) Determination 2008 [F2008L01261]*.
Student Assistance Act—Student Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) Determination 2008 [F2008L01262]*.
Superannuation Act 2005
Superannuation (PSSAP) Approved Authority Exclusion Amendment Declaration 2008 [F2008L01088]*.
Superannuation (PSSAP) Membership Eligibility (Inclusion) Amendment Declaration 2008 [F2008L01087]*.
Third Amending Deed to the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme Trust Deed [F2008L01089]*.
Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation Report 04/08 [14 dispensations].
Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act—Determinations under paragraphs—
15(1)(b) No. 1 of 2008 [F2008L01060]*.
15(1)(d) No. 1 of 2008 [F2008L00967]*.
Television Licence Fees Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 67—Television Licence Fees Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01138]*.
Therapeutic Goods Act—
Order—Definition of British Pharmacopoeia, dated 9 April 2008 [F2008L01091]*.
Poisons Standard Amendment No. 1 of 2008 [F2008L01259]*.
Therapeutic Goods (Emergency) Exemption 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L01194]*.
Trade Practices Act—
Direction No. 31, dated 7 April 2008 [F2008L01086]*.
Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 359—Trade Practices Amendment Regulations 2007 (No. 6) [F2007L04134]—Explanatory Statement [in substitution for explanatory statement tabled with instrument on 12 February 2008].
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 59—Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01055]*.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act—
Statements of Principles concerning—
Analgesic Nephropathy No. 29 of 2008 [F2008L01116]*.
Analgesic Nephropathy No. 30 of 2008 [F2008L01117]*.
Benign Neoplasm of the Eye and Adnexa No. 33 of 2008 [F2008L01120]*.
Benign Neoplasm of the Eye and Adnexa No. 34 of 2008 [F2008L01121]*.
Smallpox No. 31 of 2008 [F2008L01118]*.
Smallpox No. 32 of 2008 [F2008L01119]*.
Soft Tissue Sarcoma No. 35 of 2008 [F2008L01122]*.
Soft Tissue Sarcoma No. 36 of 2008 [F2008L01123]*.
Veterans’ Entitlements Income (Exempt Lump Sum – Redress WA) Determination No. R10 of 2008 [F2008L01160]*.
Veterans’ Entitlements Income (Exempt Lump Sum – Tasmanian Government Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Children) Determination No. R11 of 2008 [F2008L01191]*.
Veterans’ Entitlements (Special Disability Trust) Guidelines 2008 [F2008L01110]*.
Workplace Relations Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2008 Nos—
38—Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00960]*.
39—Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L00961]*.
Governor-General’s Proclamation—Commencement of Provisions of an Act
Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness Act) 2008—Schedules 1 to 7—28 March 2008 [F2008L00959]*.
Explanatory statement tabled with legislative instrument.
The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended:
Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 July to 31 December 2007—Statement of compliance—Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID).