house of representatives official hansard - citeseerx

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

P A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S

House of Representatives

Official Hansard No. 1, 2006

Wednesday, 8 February 2006

FORTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION—FIFTH PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

INTERNET The Votes and Proceedings for the House of Representatives are available at

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/votes

Proof and Official Hansards for the House of Representatives, the Senate and committee hearings are available at

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard

For searching purposes use http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au

SITTING DAYS—2006

Month Date February 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 28 March 1, 2, 27, 28, 29, 30 May 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31 June 1, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22 August 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 September 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 October 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 30, 31 November 1, 2, 27, 28, 29, 30 December 4, 5, 6, 7

RADIO BROADCASTS

Broadcasts of proceedings of the Parliament can be heard on the following Parliamentary and News Net-work radio stations, in the areas identified.

CANBERRA 103.9FM

SYDNEY 630 AM NEWCASTLE 1458 AM

GOSFORD 98.1 FM BRISBANE 936 AM

GOLD COAST 95.7 FM MELBOURNE 1026 AM

ADELAIDE 972 AM PERTH 585 AM

HOBART 747 AM NORTHERN TASMANIA 92.5 FM

DARWIN 102.5 FM

i

FORTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION—FIFTH PERIOD

Governor-General His Excellency Major-General Michael Jeffery, Companion in the Order of Australia, Com-

mander of the Royal Victorian Order, Military Cross

House of Representatives Officeholders Speaker—The Hon. David Peter Maxwell Hawker MP

Deputy Speaker—The Hon. Ian Raymond Causley MP

Second Deputy Speaker—Mr Henry Alfred Jenkins MP

Members of the Speaker’s Panel—The Hon. Dick Godfrey Harry Adams, Mr Phillip Anthony Barresi, the Hon. Bronwyn Kathleen Bishop, Mr Michael John Hatton, Mr Peter John Lind-say, Mr Robert Francis McMullan, Mr Harry Vernon Quick, the Hon. Bruce Craig Scott, the

Hon. Alexander Michael Somlyay, Mr Kim William Wilkie

Leader of the House—The Hon. Anthony John Abbott MP

Deputy Leader of the House—The Hon. Peter John McGauran MP

Manager of Opposition Business—Ms Julia Eileen Gillard MP

Deputy Manager of Opposition Business—Mr Anthony Norman Albanese MP

Party Leaders and Whips Liberal Party of Australia

Leader—The Hon. John Winston Howard MP

Deputy Leader—The Hon. Peter Howard Costello MP

Chief Government Whip—Mr Kerry Joseph Bartlett MP

Government Whips—Mrs Joanna Gash MP and Mr Fergus Stewart McArthur MP

The Nationals

Leader—The Hon. Mark Anthony James Vaile MP

Deputy Leader—The Hon. Warren Errol Truss MP

Chief Whip—Mr John Alexander Forrest MP

Whip—Mr Paul Christopher Neville MP

Australian Labor Party

Leader—The Hon. Kim Christian Beazley MP

Deputy Leader—Ms Jennifer Louise Macklin MP

Chief Opposition Whip—The Hon. Leo Roger Spurway Price MP

Opposition Whips—Mr Michael David Danby MP and Ms Jill Griffiths Hall MP

Printed by authority of the House of Representatives

ii

Members of the House of Representatives

Member Division Party Abbott, Hon. Anthony John Warringah, NSW LP Adams, Hon. Dick Godfrey Harry Lyons, TAS ALP Albanese, Anthony Norman Grayndler, NSW ALP Anderson, Hon. John Duncan Gwydir, NSW Nats Andren, Peter James Calare, NSW Ind Andrews, Hon. Kevin James Menzies, VIC LP Bailey, Hon. Frances Esther McEwen, VIC LP Baird, Hon. Bruce George Cook, NSW LP Baker, Mark Horden Braddon, TAS LP Baldwin, Hon. Robert Charles Paterson, NSW LP Barresi, Phillip Anthony Deakin, VIC LP Bartlett, Kerry Joseph Macquarie, NSW LP Beazley, Hon. Kim Christian Brand, WA ALP Bevis, Hon. Archibald Ronald Brisbane, QLD ALP Billson, Hon. Bruce Fredrick Dunkley, VIC LP Bird, Sharon Cunningham, NSW ALP Bishop, Hon. Bronwyn Kathleen Mackellar, NSW LP Bishop, Hon. Julie Isabel Curtin, WA LP Bowen, Christopher Eyles Prospect, NSW ALP Broadbent, Russell Evan McMillan, VIC LP Brough, Hon. Malcolm Thomas Longman, QLD LP Burke, Anna Elizabeth Chisholm, VIC ALP Burke, Anthony Stephen Watson, NSW ALP Byrne, Anthony Michael Holt, VIC ALP Cadman, Hon. Alan Glyndwr Mitchell, NSW LP Causley, Hon. Ian Raymond Page, NSW Nats Ciobo, Steven Michele Moncrieff, Qld LP Cobb, Hon. John Kenneth Parkes, NSW Nats Corcoran, Ann Kathleen Isaacs, VIC ALP Costello, Hon. Peter Howard Higgins, Vic LP Crean, Hon. Simon Findlay Hotham, Vic ALP Danby, Michael Melbourne Ports, Vic ALP Downer, Hon. Alexander John Gosse Mayo, SA LP Draper, Patricia Makin, SA LP Dutton, Hon. Peter Craig Dickson, Qld LP Edwards, Hon. Graham John Cowan, WA ALP Elliot, Maria Justine Richmond, NSW ALP Ellis, Annette Louise Canberra, ACT ALP Ellis, Katherine Margaret Adelaide, SA ALP Elson, Kay Selma Forde, QLD LP Emerson, Craig Anthony Rankin, Qld ALP Entsch, Hon. Warren George Leichhardt, NSW LP Farmer, Hon. Patrick Francis Macarthur, NSW LP Fawcett, David Julian Wakefield, SA LP Ferguson, Laurence Donald Thomas Reid, NSW ALP Ferguson, Martin John, AM Batman, Vic ALP Ferguson, Michael Darrel Bass, TAS LP

iii


Member Division Party Fitzgibbon, Joel Andrew Hunter, NSW ALP Forrest, John Alexander Mallee, VIC Nats Gambaro, Hon. Teresa Petrie, QLD LP Garrett, Peter Robert, AM Kingsford Smith, NSW ALP Gash, Joanna Gilmore, NSW LP Georganas, Steven Hindmarsh, SA ALP George, Jennie Throsby, NSW ALP Georgiou, Petro Kooyong, Vic LP Gibbons, Stephen William Bendigo, Vic ALP Gillard, Julia Eileen Lalor, Vic ALP Grierson, Sharon Joy Newcastle, NSW ALP Griffin, Alan Peter Bruce, Vic ALP Haase, Barry Wayne Kalgoorlie, WA LP Hall, Jill Griffiths Shortland, NSW ALP Hardgrave, Hon. Gary Douglas Moreton, Qld LP Hartsuyker, Luke Cowper, NSW Nats Hatton, Michael John Blaxland, NSW ALP Hawker, Hon. David Peter Maxwell Wannon, Vic LP Hayes, Christopher Patrick Werriwa, NSW ALP Henry, Stuart Hasluck, WA LP Hoare, Kelly Joy Charlton, NSW ALP Hockey, Hon. Joseph Benedict North Sydney, NSW LP Howard, Hon. John Winston Bennelong, NSW LP Hull, Kay Elizabeth Riverina, NSW Nats Hunt, Hon. Gregory Andrew Flinders, Vic LP Irwin, Julia Claire Fowler, NSW ALP Jenkins, Harry Alfred Scullin, Vic ALP Jensen, Dennis Geoffrey Tangney, WA LP Johnson, Michael Andrew Ryan, Qld LP Jull, Hon. David Francis Fadden, Qld LP Katter, Hon. Robert Carl Kennedy, Qld Ind Keenan, Michael Fayat Stirling, WA LP Kelly, Hon. De-Anne Margaret Dawson, Qld Nats Kelly, Hon. Jacqueline Marie Lindsay, NSW LP Kerr, Hon. Duncan James Colquhoun, SC Denison, Tas ALP King, Catherine Fiona Ballarat, Vic ALP Laming, Andrew Charles Bowman, Qld LP Lawrence, Hon. Carmen Mary Fremantle, WA ALP Ley, Hon. Sussan Penelope Farrer, NSW LP Lindsay, Peter John Herbert, Qld LP Livermore, Kirsten Fiona Capricornia, Qld ALP Lloyd, Hon. James Eric Robertson, NSW LP Macfarlane, Hon. Ian Elgin Groom, Qld LP Macklin, Jennifer Louise Jagajaga, Vic ALP Markus, Louise Elizabeth Greenway, NSW LP May, Margaret Ann McPherson, Qld LP McArthur, Fergus Stewart Corangamite, Vic LP McClelland, Robert Bruce Barton, NSW ALP

iv


Member Division Party McGauran, Hon. Peter John Gippsland, Vic Nats McMullan, Robert Francis Fraser, ACT ALP Melham, Daryl Banks, NSW ALP Moylan, Hon. Judith Eleanor Pearce, WA LP Murphy, John Paul Lowe, NSW ALP Nairn, Hon. Gary Roy Eden-Monaro, NSW LP Nelson, Hon. Brendan John Bradfield, NSW LP Neville, Paul Christopher Hinkler, Qld Nats O’Connor, Brendan Patrick John Gorton, Vic ALP O’Connor, Gavan Michael Corio, Vic ALP Owens, Julie Ann Parramatta, NSW ALP Panopoulos, Sophie Indi, Vic LP Pearce, Hon. Christopher John Aston, Vic LP Plibersek, Tanya Joan Sydney, NSW ALP Price, Hon. Leo Roger Spurway Chifley, NSW ALP Prosser, Hon. Geoffrey Daniel Forrest, WA LP Pyne, Hon. Christopher Maurice Sturt, SA LP Quick, Harry Vernon Franklin, Tas ALP Randall, Don James Canning, WA LP Richardson, Kym Kingston, SA LP Ripoll, Bernard Fernando Oxley, Qld ALP Robb, Hon. Andrew John Goldstein, Vic LP Roxon, Nicola Louise Gellibrand, Vic ALP Rudd, Kevin Michael Griffith, Qld ALP Ruddock, Hon. Philip Maxwell Berowra, NSW LP Sawford, Rodney Weston Port Adelaide, SA ALP Schultz, Albert John Hume, NSW LP Scott, Hon. Bruce Craig Maranoa, Qld Nats Secker, Patrick Damien Barker, SA LP Sercombe, Robert Charles Grant Maribyrnong, Vic ALP Slipper, Hon. Peter Neil Fisher, Qld LP Smith, Anthony David Hawthorn Casey, Vic LP Smith, Stephen Francis Perth, WA ALP Snowdon, Hon. Warren Edward Lingiari, NT ALP Somlyay, Hon. Alexander Michael Fairfax, Qld LP Southcott, Andrew John Boothby, SA LP Stone, Hon. Sharman Nancy Murray, Vic LP Swan, Wayne Maxwell Lilley, Qld ALP Tanner, Lindsay James Melbourne, Vic ALP Thompson, Cameron Paul Blair, QLD LP Thomson, Kelvin John Wills, Vic ALP Ticehurst, Kenneth Vincent Dobell, NSW LP Tollner, David William Solomon, NT CLP Truss, Hon. Warren Errol Wide Bay, QLD Nats Tuckey, Hon. Charles Wilson O’Connor, WA LP Turnbull, Hon. Malcolm Bligh Wentworth, NSW LP Vaile, Hon. Mark Anthony James Lyne, NSW Nats Vale, Hon. Danna Sue Hughes, NSW LP

v


Member Division Party Vamvakinou, Maria Calwell, VIC ALP Vasta, Ross Xavier Bonner, QLD LP Wakelin, Barry Hugh Grey, SA LP Washer, Malcolm James Moore, WA LP Wilkie, Kim William Swan, WA ALP Windsor, Antony Harold Curties New England, NSW Ind Wood, Jason Peter La Trobe, VIC LP

PARTY ABBREVIATIONS ALP—Australian Labor Party; LP—Liberal Party of Australia; Nats—The Nationals;

Ind—Independent; CLP—Country Liberal Party; AG—Australian Greens

Heads of Parliamentary Departments Clerk of the Senate—H Evans

Clerk of the House of Representatives—I C Harris Secretary, Department of Parliamentary Services—H R Penfold QC

vi

HOWARD MINISTRY Prime Minister The Hon. John Winston Howard MP Minister for Trade and Deputy Prime Minister The Hon. Mark Anthony James Vaile MP Treasurer The Hon. Peter Howard Costello MP Minister for Transport and Regional Services The Hon. Warren Errol Truss MP Minister for Defence The Hon. Dr Brendan John Nelson MP Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon. Alexander John Gosse Downer MP Minister for Health and Ageing and Leader of the

House The Hon. Anthony John Abbott MP

Attorney-General The Hon. Philip Maxwell Ruddock MP Minister for Finance and Administration,

Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council

Senator the Hon. Nicholas Hugh Minchin

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Deputy Leader of the House

The Hon. Peter John McGauran MP

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Senator the Hon. Amanda Eloise Vanstone Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues

The Hon. Julie Isabel Bishop MP

Minister for Family, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs

The Hon. Malcolm Thomas Brough MP

Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources The Hon. Ian Elgin Macfarlane MP Minister for Employment and Workplace

Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service

The Hon. Kevin James Andrews MP

Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate

Senator the Hon. Helen Lloyd Coonan

Minister for the Environment and Heritage Senator the Hon. Ian Gordon Campbell

(The above ministers constitute the cabinet)

vii

HOWARD MINISTRY—continued

Minister for Justice and Customs and Manager of Government Business in the Senate

Senator the Hon. Christopher Martin Ellison

Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz Minister for the Arts and Sport Senator the Hon. Charles Roderick Kemp Minister for Human Services The Hon. Joseph Benedict Hockey MP Minister for Community Affairs The Hon. John Kenneth Cobb MP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer The Hon. Peter Craig Dutton MP Special Minister of State The Hon. Gary Roy Nairn MP Minister for Vocational and Technical Education

and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister The Hon. Gary Douglas Hardgrave MP

Minister for Ageing Senator the Hon. Santo Santoro Minister for Small Business and Tourism The Hon. Frances Esther Bailey MP Minister for Local Government, Territories and

Roads The Hon. James Eric Lloyd MP

Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence

The Hon. Bruce Frederick Billson MP

Minister for Workforce Participation The Hon. Dr Sharman Nancy Stone MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for

Finance and Administration Senator the Hon. Richard Mansell Colbeck

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources

The Hon. Robert Charles Baldwin MP

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing

The Hon. Christopher Maurice Pyne MP

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence

Senator the Hon. John Alexander Lindsay (Sandy) Macdonald

Parliamentary Secretary (Trade) The Hon. De-Anne Margaret Kelly MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for

Immigration and Multicultural Affairs The Hon. Andrew John Robb MP

Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister The Hon. Malcolm Bligh Turnbull MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer The Hon. Christopher John Pearce MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the

Environment and Heritage The Hon. Gregory Andrew Hunt MP

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

The Hon. Sussan Penelope Ley MP

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training

The Hon. Patrick Francis Farmer MP

Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs) The Hon. Teresa Gambaro MP

viii

SHADOW MINISTRY Leader of the Opposition The Hon. Kim Christian Beazley MP Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow

Minister for Education, Training, Science and Research

Jennifer Louise Macklin MP

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Shadow Minister for Family and Community Services

Senator Christopher Vaughan Evans

Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Shadow Minister for Communications and Information Technology

Senator Stephen Michael Conroy

Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House

Julia Eileen Gillard MP

Shadow Treasurer Wayne Maxwell Swan MP Shadow Attorney-General Nicola Louise Roxon MP Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and

Industrial Relations Stephen Francis Smith MP

Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Shadow Minister for International Security

Kevin Michael Rudd MP

Shadow Minister for Defence Robert Bruce McClelland MP Shadow Minister for Regional Development The Hon. Simon Findlay Crean MP Shadow Minister for Primary Industries,

Resources, Forestry and Tourism Martin John Ferguson MP

Shadow Minister for Environment and Heritage, Shadow Minister for Water and Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House

Anthony Norman Albanese MP

Shadow Minister for Housing, Shadow Minister for Urban Development and Shadow Minister for Local Government and Territories

Senator Kim John Carr

Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Shadow Minister for Human Services

Kelvin John Thomson MP

Shadow Minister for Finance Lindsay James Tanner MP Shadow Minister for Superannuation and

Intergenerational Finance and Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services

Senator the Hon. Nicholas John Sherry

Shadow Minister for Child Care, Shadow Minister for Youth and Shadow Minister for Women

Tanya Joan Plibersek MP

Shadow Minister for Employment and Workforce Participation and Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility

Senator Penelope Ying Yen Wong

(The above are shadow cabinet ministers)

ix

SHADOW MINISTRY—continued

Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs and Shadow Minister for Population Health and Health Regulation

Laurie Donald Thomas Ferguson MP

Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries Gavan Michael O’Connor MP Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Shadow Minister for

Revenue and Shadow Minister for Small Business and Competition

Joel Andrew Fitzgibbon MP

Shadow Minister for Transport Senator Kerry Williams Kelso O’Brien Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation Senator Kate Alexandra Lundy Shadow Minister for Homeland Security and

Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security

The Hon. Archibald Ronald Bevis MP

Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Shadow Special Minister of State

Alan Peter Griffin MP

Shadow Minister for Defence Industry, Procurement and Personnel

Senator Thomas Mark Bishop

Shadow Minister for Immigration Anthony Stephen Burke MP Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and

Carers Senator Jan Elizabeth McLucas

Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs and Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate

Senator Joseph William Ludwig

Shadow Minister for Overseas Aid and Pacific Island Affairs

Robert Charles Grant Sercombe MP

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts

Peter Robert Garrett MP

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition

John Paul Murphy MP

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence and Veterans’ Affairs

The Hon. Graham John Edwards MP

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education Kirsten Fiona Livermore MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment

and Heritage Jennie George MP

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations

Bernard Fernando Ripoll MP

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration Ann Kathleen Corcoran MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury Catherine Fiona King MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and

Water Senator Ursula Mary Stephens

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs

The Hon. Warren Edward Snowdon MP

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 8 FEBRUARY CHAMBER Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006—

First Reading ........................................................................................................................ 1 Second Reading.................................................................................................................... 1

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006— First Reading ........................................................................................................................ 3 Second Reading.................................................................................................................... 3

Future Fund Bill 2005— Second Reading.................................................................................................................... 4 Third Reading..................................................................................................................... 36

Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005, Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005, and Aged Care Amendment (2005 Measures No. 1) Bill 2005—

Second Reading.................................................................................................................. 37 Questions Without Notice—

Oil for Food Program ......................................................................................................... 76 Council of Australian Governments ................................................................................... 76

Distinguished Visitors.............................................................................................................. 77 Questions Without Notice—

Oil for Food Program ......................................................................................................... 77 Oil for Food Program ......................................................................................................... 78 Oil for Food Program ......................................................................................................... 79 Economy............................................................................................................................. 79 Oil for Food Program ......................................................................................................... 80

Distinguished Visitors.............................................................................................................. 80 Questions Without Notice—

Export Subsidies................................................................................................................. 80 Oil for Food Program ......................................................................................................... 81 Operation Wickenby........................................................................................................... 82 Oil for Food Program ......................................................................................................... 82 Wages ................................................................................................................................. 83 Oil for Food Program ......................................................................................................... 84 Oil for Food Program ......................................................................................................... 84 Oil for Food Program ......................................................................................................... 86 East Timor .......................................................................................................................... 87 Oil for Food Program ......................................................................................................... 88 Health: Tasmania ................................................................................................................ 88 Health: Queensland ............................................................................................................ 89

Member for Fremantle and Member for Scullin: 20th anniversary in parliament ................... 90 Questions to the Speaker—

Question on Notice ............................................................................................................. 90 Documents ............................................................................................................................... 90 Matters of Public Importance—

Oil for Food Program ......................................................................................................... 91 Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005—

First Reading .................................................................................................................... 105 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005—

Report from Main Committee .......................................................................................... 105 Third Reading................................................................................................................... 106

CONTENTS—continued

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2005—

Report from Main Committee .......................................................................................... 106 Third Reading................................................................................................................... 106

Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2005— Referred to Main Committee............................................................................................ 106

Business— Rearrangement.................................................................................................................. 106

Committees— Public Works Committee—Reference.............................................................................. 106

Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005, Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005, and Aged Care Amendment (2005 Measures No. 1) Bill 2005—

Second Reading................................................................................................................ 107 Third Reading................................................................................................................... 112

Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005— Second Reading................................................................................................................ 112 Third Reading................................................................................................................... 112

Aged Care Amendment (2005 Measures No. 1) Bill 2005— Second Reading................................................................................................................ 112 Third Reading................................................................................................................... 112

Trade Practices Amendment (National Access Regime) Bill 2005— Second Reading................................................................................................................ 112

Committees— Selection Committee—Report.......................................................................................... 117


Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers— Oil for Food Program ....................................................................................................... 131


Adjournment— Werriwa Electorate ........................................................................................................... 148 War Graves ....................................................................................................................... 149 Bushfires........................................................................................................................... 150 Religious Cartoons ........................................................................................................... 151 Westralia Airports Corporation......................................................................................... 152 Howard Government ........................................................................................................ 154

Notices ................................................................................................................................... 155 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers—

Regional Partnerships....................................................................................................... 159 MAIN COMMITTEE Statements By Members—

Mr Terry Raper .................................................................................................................161 Australian Transplant Cricket Team................................................................................. 162 Adelaide Electorate: General Practitioners....................................................................... 162 Gilmore Electorate: Charity Fundraising ......................................................................... 163 Ballarat Electorate: Prisoner of War Memorial ................................................................ 164 Fisher Electorate: Australia Day Awards.......................................................................... 165 Occupational Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 166


Cowper Electorate: Pacific Highway ............................................................................... 166 Lunar New Year................................................................................................................ 167 Queensland Health ........................................................................................................... 168

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005, and Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2005—

Second Reading................................................................................................................ 169 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2005—

Second Reading................................................................................................................ 183 Committees—

Transport and Regional Services Committee—Reports: Government Responses ........... 183 QUESTIONS IN WRITING

Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—(Question No. 113) .............................. 189 Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—(Question No. 236) .............................. 189 Recruitment Agencies—(Question No. 1120) .................................................................. 190 Foreign Affairs: Grants—(Question No. 1473 supplementary)........................................ 192 Overseas Travel—(Question No. 1599) ........................................................................... 192 Veterans’ Affairs: Staffing—(Question No. 1625)............................................................ 193 Veterans’ Affairs: Staffing—(Question No. 1642)............................................................ 194 Advertising Agencies—(Question No. 1793)................................................................... 194 Medical Board of Inquiry—(Question No. 1877) ............................................................ 195 Religious Organisations: Funding—(Question No. 1898) ............................................... 198 Borneo—(Question No. 1922) ......................................................................................... 198 Adelaide Airport—(Question No. 1928) .......................................................................... 199 F3 Freeway-New England Highway Link—(Question No. 2034)................................... 200 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs—(Question Nos 2169 and 2189) .................... 200 Minister for Veterans’ Affairs—(Question No. 2187) ...................................................... 201 Commonwealth Departments: Programs and Grants—(Question Nos 2283 to 2301) ..... 201 Commemorative Mission to Papua New Guinea—(Question No. 2339)......................... 202 Family Tax Benefit—(Question No. 2402) ...................................................................... 203 Child Care—(Question No. 2404).................................................................................... 204 Veterans’ Affairs: Benefits—(Question No. 2409) ........................................................... 224 Pensions and Allowances—(Question No. 2410)............................................................. 225 Refugees—(Question No. 2420) ...................................................................................... 225 Asylum Seekers—(Question No. 2422) ........................................................................... 226 Defence Medal—(Question No. 2423)............................................................................. 226 Minister for Health and Ageing: Travel Advice—(Question No. 2424)........................... 227 Domestic and Overseas Air Travel—(Question No. 2430) .............................................. 227 Domestic and Overseas Air Travel—(Question No. 2435) .............................................. 228 Domestic and Overseas Air Travel—(Question No. 2437) .............................................. 229 Domestic and Overseas Air Travel—(Question No. 2439) .............................................. 230 Domestic and Overseas Air Travel—(Question No. 2440) .............................................. 232 Domestic and Overseas Air Travel—(Question No. 2443) .............................................. 233 Domestic and Overseas Air Travel—(Question No. 2444) .............................................. 233 Domestic and Overseas Air Travel—(Question No. 2445) .............................................. 235 Child Care—(Question No. 2458).................................................................................... 236 Hoxton Park Airport—(Question No. 2459) .................................................................... 237 Profiteering—(Question No. 2462) .................................................................................. 237


Child Care—(Question No. 2464).................................................................................... 237 World Summit on the Information Society—(Question No. 2465).................................. 238 Government Advertising—(Question Nos 2470 to 2488) ................................................ 239 Naval Communications Station—(Question No. 2514) ................................................... 240 Writing Services—(Question No. 2536) .......................................................................... 241 Eleven Group Consulting—(Question No. 2538) ............................................................ 241 Granther Group—(Question No. 2539)............................................................................ 242 Alcohol—(Question No. 2540) ........................................................................................ 242 Ozzy Tyre and Tube Pty Ltd—(Question No. 2541) ........................................................ 243 Employment and Unemployment—(Question No. 2542) ................................................ 244 Livingstone Services (Aust) Pty Ltd—(Question No. 2546)............................................ 245 SX Trailers Pty—(Question No. 2550)............................................................................. 246 News Clipping Service—(Question No. 2552) ................................................................ 246 Child Care—(Question No. 2558).................................................................................... 247 Ipswich Motorway—(Question No. 2559)....................................................................... 248 Media Ownership—(Question No. 2560) ........................................................................ 249 Respite Care—(Question No. 2561)................................................................................. 249 Analysis Consulting—(Question No. 2562)..................................................................... 251 Consultancy Services—(Question No. 2564)................................................................... 251 Small Business: Workplace Agreements—(Question No. 2580) ..................................... 251 Pakistan—(Question No. 2583)........................................................................................ 252 Crisis Payments—(Question No. 2584) ........................................................................... 253 Communitites and Children Program—(Question No. 2585) .......................................... 255 Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs: Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry—(Question No. 2586)............................................................... 259 Industry, Tourism and Resources: Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry—(Question No. 2589)........................................................................................ 260 Employment and Workplace Relations: Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry—(Question No. 2590)........................................................................................ 260 Communications, Information Technology and the Arts: Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry—(Question No. 2591)............................................................... 261 Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry—(Question No. 2593)........................................................................................ 261 Media Ownership—(Question No. 2596) ........................................................................ 262 Abortion—(Question No. 2597)....................................................................................... 262 Consumer Medicine Information Scheme—(Question No. 2599) ................................... 262

Wednesday, 8 February 2006 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1

CHAMBER

Wednesday, 8 February 2006 —————

The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 9.00 am and read prayers.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 2005-2006

Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expendi-ture and recommending appropriation an-nounced.

First Reading Bill presented by Mr Nairn, and read a

first time.

Second Reading Mr NAIRN (Eden-Monaro—Special

Minister of State) (9.02 am)—I move: That this bill be now read a second time.

It is a pleasure to introduce Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006.

There are two additional estimates bills this year: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Ap-propriation Bill (No. 4). I shall introduce the latter bill shortly.

The additional estimates bills follow on from the appropriation bills that were intro-duced into the House on the occasion of the 2005-06 budget. They seek appropriation authority from parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the consolidated revenue fund, in order to meet requirements that have arisen since the last budget.

The total appropriation being sought through the additional estimates bills this year is almost $2.63 billion, which is par-tially offset by expected savings in appro-priations of around $603.9 million. Taking savings into account, the expected net in-crease in expenditure arising from additional estimates bills is approximately $2 billion, or about 3.5 per cent of total annual appropria-tions. These savings are described in the document accompanying the bills, the

‘Statement of savings expected in annual appropriations’, which I will table shortly.

The total appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) this year is around $1.26 billion. This proposed appropriation arises from changes in the estimates of pro-gram expenditure, due to variations in the timing of the payments and forecast in-creases in costs, reclassifications and policy decisions taken by the government since the last budget, most of which have been de-scribed in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook document published in December last year.

The major items of expenditure in the bill include:

• a net increase of $167.1 million to the Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio, the major components of which are:

• $110.7 million to fund the Work-place Relations Reform Package; and

• $52.4 million in additional funding to meet the increased demand for the highly disadvantaged stream of Job Network services; and

• $124 million to the Department of Agri-culture, Fisheries and Forestry to pro-vide:

• $104 million in business exit assis-tance as part of the fishing structural adjustment package to support the sustainability of Australian govern-ment managed fisheries.

I note here the importance of this particular package for many parts of Australia, but par-ticularly for my electorate, where fishing is a major industry. The fishermen of my elector-ate, particularly those out of Eden and Ber-magui, have certainly been looking for this sort of assistance to restructure the industry and ensure that they have a sustainable in-

2 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 8 February 2006

CHAMBER

dustry for the future. There have really been too many fishermen chasing too few fish. Nobody is making any money, and certainly this package will make a huge difference to them, certainly to those who want to exit the industry with some assistance so that they can do other things, and therefore leave an industry restructured and able to continue into the future.

Also within the Department of Agricul-ture, Fisheries and Forestry area there is this additional funding:

• $20 million support for the hard-wood timber industry as part of the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement.

Further major items of expenditure in the bill include:

• an increase of $155.8 million to the De-partment of Defence. The Minister for Defence, sitting at the table here, will be pleased with that additional appropria-tion, which includes:

• $40.9 million to provide a Special Forces Task Group to Afghanistan;

• $16 million to fund the deployment of helicopters and support elements in Afghanistan;

• $25.1 million in indexation adjust-ments; and

• a net increase of $73.8 million, con-sisting substantially of a reclassifica-tion of appropriation to revise De-fence’s depreciation and inventory related estimates;

• an additional $29.2 million to the Attor-ney-General’s Department, which in-cludes:

• $18.1 million for security costs as-sociated with the APEC Leaders Week 2007; and

• $10.5 million for enhancement of the national urban search and rescue capability;

• a total of $54.6 million to the Australian Federal Police for airport policing meas-ures, in particular:

• $27.2 million for phase 1 of com-munity policing at airports;

• $18.2 million to provide a first re-sponse counter-terrorism capability at relevant airports; and

• $9.2 million to establish joint airport investigation teams with the Austra-lian Customs Service, who will also receive an additional $1 million for this initiative;

• an additional $16.5 million to increase the apprehension, detention and prosecu-tion of illegal foreign fishers operating in Australia’s northern waters. As part of this measure the Australian Customs Service will receive $13.7 million;

• $28.5 million to the Department of the Environment and Heritage as additional supplementation for the Great Barrier Reef structural adjustment package;

• a net increase of $41.2 million to the Department of Immigration and Multi-cultural Affairs, including:

• $16.2 million to implement the gov-ernment’s response to the Palmer and Comrie reports;

• $9.3 million to implement more flexible and timely immigration de-tention arrangements arising from amendments to the migration legis-lation; and

• $8.3 million to introduce a visa re-quirement for all maritime crew ar-riving in Australia;

• $22.5 million to improve aviation secu-rity. Of this amount, $11.9 million has


CHAMBER

been provided to the Department of Transport and Regional Services to im-prove security of international passenger aircraft through increased inspection of air cargo, while $10.6 million has been allocated to the Australian Customs Ser-vice to increase air-side patrols at air-ports;

• a total of $22.1 million has been pro-vided to the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Federal Police to conduct investigations and prosecutions arising from Operation Wickenby.

• a net increase of $42 million to the De-partment of Foreign Affairs, including:

• a $10 million contribution to the American Red Cross as part of Aus-tralia’s response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in the United States; and

• supplementation of $19.8 million for increased passport volumes.

The remaining amount in Appropriation Bill (No. 3)—around $577.8 million—relates to estimates variations and other measures.

I table the ‘Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations’, and I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) ad-journed.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 2005-2006

Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expendi-ture and recommending appropriation an-nounced.

First Reading Bill presented by Mr Nairn, and read a

first time.

Second Reading Mr NAIRN (Eden-Monaro—Special

Minister of State) (9.10 am)—I move: That this bill be now read a second time.

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) provides addi-tional funding to agencies for:

• expenses in relation to grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitu-tion and for payments to the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Ter-ritory; and

• non-operating purposes such as equity injections and loans.

The total additional appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-06 is almost $1.37 billion.

The principal factors contributing to the additional requirement since the 2005-06 budget include $744.4 million in additional payments to the states and territories, such as:

• $346.3 million in GST compensation payments;

• an additional $304.3 million to support primary producers in regions that have been declared eligible for exceptional circumstances assistance—which in-cludes parts of my electorate, which con-tinues to be eligible as it is still recover-ing from the devastating drought;

• $18 million under the Tasmanian Com-munity Forest Agreement to fund addi-tional plantation establishment and pro-ductivity improvements in existing plan-tations and native forests;

• $16.3 million for mental health under the Australian health care agreements; and

• an additional contribution of up to $10 million to Victoria to enhance and ex-tend the scope of the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games opening cere-mony.


CHAMBER

Bill 4 also proposes $333.8 million in addi-tional appropriation for non-operating ex-penses, including:

• $131 million to the Department of Health and Ageing to purchase and store antivirals, vaccines, intravenous antibiot-ics and protective equipment for the na-tional medical stockpile, in preparation for a potential pandemic influenza;

• $27.9 million will be allocated to the Department of Defence to fund a Special Forces Task Group to Afghanistan, and a further $27 million will be provided to deploy helicopters and support elements in Afghanistan. These increases have been fully offset by savings arising in the department’s non-operating budget;

• a total of $34.3 million to the Australian Federal Police to fund the Joint Airport Intelligence Group and to implement phase 1 of community policing at air-ports;

• $40.9 million to the Department of Em-ployment and Workplace Relations to implement the workplace relations re-form package; and

• $11.4 million to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to fund addi-tional temporary accommodation;

Finally, $290.5 million has been re-appropriated to the Department of Transport and Regional Services as a new administered expense for the Roads to Recovery program to facilitate the direct payment of these funds to local councils. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) ad-journed.

FUTURE FUND BILL 2005 Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 February, on mo-tion by Mr Costello:

That this bill be now read a second time.

upon which Mr Tanner moved by way of amendment:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the view that:

(1) the Future Fund should only invest on a pru-dent commercial basis and manage funds in a manner consistent with:

(a) best-practice portfolio management;

(b) achieving desired returns without undue risk to the Fund as whole;

(c) enhancing Australia’s reputation as a re-sponsible and ethical investor; and

(d) building productive capacity in the Aus-tralian community; and that

(2) the income stream from the Fund should be used for productive national economic pur-poses rather than being set aside solely to offset the cost of public sector superannua-tion as the Government intends”.

Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith) (9.15 am)—I rise to speak on the second reading of the Future Fund Bill 2005 and the amend-ment moved by the member for Melbourne. As members would know, the idea of the Future Fund seemed to emerge out of thin air. Whether it was a thought bubble within the bureaucracy or a thought bubble within the Treasurer’s office or a thought bubble of the Treasurer’s, we still do not know. But it was an idea that came seemingly out of no-where and, when it arrived, very little detail was attached to it. Politics, it is said, is a con-test of ideas. As a consequence we have an idea that is now before us as proposed legis-lation. Our duty as opposition members is to consider the idea embodied in this proposed legislation.

It is worth while to go back in history and review the circumstances and the statements that were made at the time the Treasurer brought the Future Fund to us. On 10 Sep-


CHAMBER

tember 2004 the Future Fund policy was an-nounced by the Treasurer. He claimed that its mandate was ‘to increase national savings, offset unfunded super liabilities and maxi-mise the government’s net worth’. Particular emphasis was given at the time to the notion that the offsetting of unfunded super liabili-ties for public servants was a primary reason for the creation of a Future Fund. The Treas-urer additionally called this ‘the most dra-matic response to the Intergenerational re-port’—the Intergenerational report that he commissioned on ageing—‘that the govern-ment had produced.’ It is hard to see how a proposal to deal with a shortfall in superan-nuation liabilities within the Public Service was a response to the Intergenerational re-port, which in effect dealt with the problems we will face as the baby boomer generation reaches retirement age. Nevertheless, that was the Treasurer’s rhetoric at the time.

In 2004 the government contemplated the full privatisation of Telstra. It needed a means or a method of dealing with both the financial governance and political issues that attached to the issue of the remaining privati-sation of Telstra. Interestingly enough at the time, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry responded to the Treasurer’s proposal but mainly by way of criticism. The chamber identified that the proposal would have a limited effect on national savings and that the dollars that were intended to go into the fund were not available for current worthwhile reforms. As all of us in this House who receive emails on a regular basis from the ACCI know, that would include worthwhile reforms such as tax reform. The chamber also pointed out that the issue of the superannuation liabilities of public servants was not critical. It has been pretty much solved by the switch to an accumulation scheme. It could have been met in the future by government borrowing. The government could have simply topped up, over time, ex-

isting public sector superannuation funds which have a satisfactory rate of return. Po-litically, perhaps, this would have been diffi-cult seeing as union representatives make up at least half the boards on the two public sec-tor super funds.

The chamber went on to point out that the dollars could be diverted to uneconomic in-vestments and so on. Clearly, some of the issues that were addressed by the ACCI the opposition have taken up. Other views were expressed in the debate at the time by the Treasury and its officials, names well known in Canberra—Mr Evans and Mr Henry. Mr Evans asked: why is it good policy to hand over tax, worth billions of dollars, to fund managers who will simply take high com-missions on funds? Should we not be looking at tax reform? Should we not be funding re-search and development? Should we not be looking at measures which boost productiv-ity? Mr Henry asked: how much will be in-vested overseas? And then there is the ques-tion of what national interests and ethical considerations will apply. This goes to the heart of one of the questions we are raising about the Future Fund. How will the Future Fund apply such considerations?

The Future Fund has a size component into the future which means that there is an inexorable logic that its investment decisions will be subject to the greatest scrutiny and the greatest pressure, both within the market and the political environment. Indeed, it is estimated that in the vicinity of $80 billion to $90 billion could be available within four to five years. This depends on the future of the remaining privatisation of Telstra, but the fund will be a huge player—notwithstanding the fact that under the existing legislation there are measures in place; in part, at least—to ensure that the fund is able to dis-charge its responsibilities in a way which is consistent with best market performance.


CHAMBER

A number of issues that I, and I am sure other speakers, will raise today show that the government really has not thought this through as well as it should. Other commen-tators said that the government was simply hiding the budget surplus, that the fund was about keeping the budget surplus away from spurious cabinet spending submissions and from the National Party, notorious pork-barrellers since Federation. In regard to the first observation all we can say is that it is up to the cabinet ministers, when they go into the cabinet, to put good views for their sub-missions, which will rise and fall on their merits—in part, at least. On the second ob-servation we can say plenty. It has been said before in this House, particularly given the recent defection from The Nationals to the Liberal Party of a leading National Party member, that we are witnessing the increas-ing political presence of Independents in what were formally National seats.

The Nationals are becoming a desperate and strained political party, and in desperate and strained circumstances desperate politi-cal measures are sought. The ghost of McE-wen is gazing down on this House as he watches The Nationals rushing about trying to claim a new mandate for themselves. But what mandate can they claim if people are not voting for them and if their own mem-bers are deserting them? The only one that they can claim is that they can deliver from the bush and they can deliver disproportion-ately to their own political influence or rep-resentation within the coalition. I will come back to this a little later on, but there is no question that what was agrarian socialism has simply become pork-barrelling. We had much evidence of this in the House last year in the ‘regional rorts’ program and Roads to Recovery. It is a travesty really that we sit here in the House and watch millions of dol-lars after millions of dollars go into roads in

regional areas which are mainly in Liberal and National Party electorates.

There are clearly consequences that attach to the government making a decision of this sort, but on the concerns that those in the National Party have about the possible use of funds I want to address the issue of the state of the natural and economic environment that they inhabit. A simple figure of $60 bil-lion has been arrived at by research done by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the National Farmers Federation as the in-vestment required from the Commonwealth, states and private bodies to repair natural landscapes. These are productive landscapes that our rural producers effectively rely on to continue to produce food to be able to export to other countries around the world—to have clean water flowing through the rivers. I do not hear The Nationals talking about the nec-essary investment that is required to actually repair the natural and productive landscapes of the bush, but I wish I did.

In the midst of all this there is a debate about infrastructure. One of the arguments we are putting strongly to the House is that at the very least consideration ought to be given for investment opportunities which would include infrastructure investments to be made out of a fund of this kind. Indeed, La-bor would establish a Building Australia Fund to do just that.

It might be worth while reviewing briefly the infrastructure debate, because it needs to happen in the context of our discussion about the Future Fund. The most important point—and it was made again by the member for Melbourne yesterday—is that investment in public infrastructure is linked directly to productivity growth and economic prosper-ity. It is that linkage which will be the key to our future capacity to grow in a sustainable fashion. We would assert here very strongly that the government has a primary and direct


CHAMBER

role in providing infrastructure and invest-ment in infrastructure—or the means for in-vestment in infrastructure, as would happen under the proposed fund. There are many reasons to do this for the public good, be-cause in some instances infrastructure in-vestment would be in the nature of a natural monopoly. Infrastructure has other attributes. I think the most important one is that it deals with the vexed issue that political parties and policymakers in the parliament have, and that is of absenting themselves from their political day-to-day considerations and con-sidering the national interest into the longer term; in other words, investing for intergen-erational equity. Very clearly that is what infrastructure investment is all about. It is long-term investment—it goes to those mat-ters within the economic framework of Aus-tralia which are used or affected by all Aus-tralians.

The point that the member for Melbourne made in an earlier speech was that we are quickly approaching the point where, if ap-propriate decisions are not taken, there will be a crisis in infrastructure. Engineers Aus-tralia, amongst others, have made similar comments. For example, Australia’s storm-water infrastructure needs to be renewed. There is a vigorous debate in New South Wales and certainly amongst my constituents about water. But we cannot have any debate at all about water unless we have the confi-dence that our water infrastructure, and par-ticularly our stormwater infrastructure, in-cluding stormwater infrastructure that is suit-able for the increasingly difficult challenges we face with water shortages in the cities, is improved. That requires a massive invest-ment right across the country, because the issue needs to be addressed in most of our capital cities. There is also upgrading re-quired for the Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane rail line, the rolling out of broadband and so on. Whilst the figures do show that the in-

volvement by the states and the federal gov-ernment in investment in infrastructure is not at the total crisis stage at this point in time, because there is stable activity across both the sectors, it is very clear that crunch time is just around the corner. This is being consid-ered by the Productivity Commission at pre-sent and we await the government’s response with real interest.

Much of the government’s touted eco-nomic success has come on the back of asset sales and also a bit of dividend stripping in the case of Telstra. Since the change in ac-counting arrangements with the introduction of the GST, it is a little more difficult for us to see what the figures of government ex-penditure as a percentage of GDP are but they are basically equivalent to the figures of the 1989-90 period—around 24 per cent or 25 per cent. The last five years for the How-ard government I think would see govern-ment expenditure as a percentage of GDP in the range of 23 to 24 per cent.

At the same time something interesting is happening in that we have had ever-increasing tax revenues and a commodity price boom. But now we face the situation of baby boomers coming out of the workforce within the next 10 to 15 years and a decline in working age Australians becoming a very real issue for the government to address. This has not been taken up in the discussions around the Future Fund. Neither has the question of the decline in manufacturing and the huge need for us to increase our perform-ance in that area. Without tourism in particu-lar, our services exports figures are very poor. The investment necessary in medical research, in innovative technologies and in culture have all diminished over time under the Howard government. Yet, again, when you look at long-term policy considerations, this has not been addressed in the discussion about the Future Fund.


CHAMBER

Government members who spoke in this debate last night made much about the al-leged sins and omissions of previous Labor governments, but I simply put it to members opposite that it is time for them to think about the future and stop harping, in their own particular way, on the long gone past. When they think about the future, they need to think and speak about the purpose of and the extent to which the decisions that they as a government make—that the Treasurer and cabinet make—are going to be put to good use and for the benefit of all Australians. A lot of energy has been expended here attack-ing the political and fiscal sins of previous governments but nothing of substance has been said to address the issues that we have raised in here about the Future Fund.

There are real challenges in train and La-bor has something to offer with respect to those challenges. In relation to the Future Fund, Labor offers a specific and simple proposition, which is that the fund income stream ought to be applied for infrastructure purposes. There are many purposes that peo-ple are well aware of in this House. I have only made brief reference to three of them—stormwater infrastructure, rail infrastructure and natural, ecological infrastructure. The second reading amendment proposes that the Future Fund invest on a prudent commercial basis and manage and administer funds con-sistent with a number of criteria. It is clear that it ought to be best practice portfolio management—there would be no argument with that; achieve desired returns without undue risk—no argument about that either; and enhance Australia’s reputation as a re-sponsible, ethical investor. That seems to me to go to the very heart of the approach and the amendment that we are putting forward in the House. If through a fund of enormous size such as this Australia is not going to be able to declare what its ethical responsibili-ties are, then we are abrogating our responsi-

bility on both sides of the House. Finally, the fund’s purpose is to build productive capac-ity in the Australian community.

There are many concerns that have been raised in the House about the governance arrangements in relation to the Future Fund and particularly in relation to the wide level of ministerial discretion. I hope that the gov-ernment will listen and take some of those concerns on board. I am also aware of the fact that there is a Senate Economics Legis-lation Committee inquiry due to report on this bill in a couple of weeks. In our own policy process, our Building Australia Fund has addressed many of the issues that are raised in consideration of what the Future Fund may or may not look like and what its actual purpose ought to be. I commend some of those deliberations, including the policy work that has been done by Labor, to mem-bers opposite and ask that they might look at them with an unprejudiced eye.

There is a vision that we need to applaud when governments or policymakers actually come up with things which will benefit all of the country in a real and profound way into the long term. To that extent, the Future Fund or, as Labor will call it, the Building Austra-lia Fund has that potential. But the pitfalls are many. Strict governance and a capacity to invest in those aspects of infrastructure which go to national importance, national resilience, dare I say, economic, ecological and social in the long run, will be critical to the determinations that are made in this House. I commend the amendment to the House.

Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (9.33 am)—I rise today also to speak on the Future Fund Bill 2005. I welcome a group of young people arriving in the gallery because it is their fu-ture we should be thinking about and not the future of a whole lot of public servants. I do not mean in any way to denigrate public ser-


CHAMBER

vants, having been one myself. I know them to be a great bunch of human beings who work very hard and deserve to retire on de-cent super. But putting aside the hard-won surpluses that these young people’s taxes are paying for to meet our future liability to pub-lic servants is a complete waste of that money; it should be going to the future of those young people in the gallery. It should be going towards education, it should be go-ing to research and development and it should be ensuring that their future is guar-anteed, not the future of a bunch of public servants who will retire and be paid out their liabilities without any difficulty. The current requirement on the budget is being easily met for current Public Service liabilities. So to create a fund that will fund Public Service liabilities seems to be very short-sighted. It seems to be a waste of a resource.

We on this side of the House have been championing for some time the ability to put aside the wins of today to grow a fund for the future. Indeed, the shadow minister at the table, the member for Hotham, moved that in an amendment in a budget-in-reply speech some time ago, at which time the Treasurer ridiculed it loudly and clearly and said it was a waste of money. Twelve or 18 months later, he proposed his own Future Fund, but it is a very narrowly defined fund and the bounda-ries around it are very narrow indeed. This is meant to be a locked box. Indeed, it will not be a locked box and those Nationals over there, who are very good at grasping money, will be able to grasp this very easily.

I ask why we need to establish a fund to secure super future liabilities when those liabilities can be easily met and they are de-clining because all defined benefit schemes have been shut off. There will no longer be a drain on the public purse for these liabilities over the next few years. We can very easily ascertain that now. You can do the actuarial calculations and say, ‘This is the amount we

need,’ and you can project how you will use the budget to bring it down. It reminds me very much of the days when Jeff Kennett came into power in Victoria shouting that it was a terrible state that we had all these un-funded superannuation liabilities. But it was only ever going to be a problem if everybody retired on the very same day and required the entire amount of their fund to be paid out. Funnily enough, that was never going to happen. But it was amazing that the press and everybody seemed to swallow it as a terrible economic disaster that was going to befall us. It is not a disaster.

We on this side of the House are the champions of super. It is the Labor Party who have ensured that everybody has access to super. Super is something that can be funded easily and it should be up to the funds to invest wisely so that they can cover liabili-ties and so that the government can easily use their surpluses to meet these liabilities. Having said that, I do not deny the need for a Future Fund. We should be pursuing it, but not to pay future super liabilities. There are far more important things to put this money towards.

The cost of a separate board is calculated at $30 million over four years. While the bill quite clearly says that this money will come from the earnings of the fund, why not put those earnings back into paying for services instead of paying for a board and paying fund managers who are providing investment advice, with investors paying fees and charges for that advice? I am sure David Murray is a very good appointment but the shareholders of the Commonwealth Bank can tell you that David Murray does not come cheap. I am sure he will be getting a fair reward for this position, and I do not deny that that should be the case. But why should we be spending money on that when those taxes could be going somewhere far more beneficial?


CHAMBER

As I said, existing funds should be far more aggressive in how they use their money. Current government super schemes have not been earning very well over the last few years. In fact, many of the funds have experienced record declines in their invest-ments. So I certainly hope that when we set up this fund it is actually going to make money, not lose money. There is no guaran-tee that you will make money by investing. It is one of those things. It is like playing the stock market—there is no guarantee that you will earn money. I hope there are checks and balances in place so that the funds from asset sales go towards increasing revenue.

All of us would have a large stack of cash if we sold our house to pay out our mort-gage, but where would we all live? At the end of the day, asset sales are fantastic things; they sell down and pay off debt. But we no longer have that asset to earn us an income. So while the Treasurer can say he has delivered this boom economy, it has all been through fire sales. There has been no long-term reform from this government. This government should remember they have been in government for 10 years. They should stop looking to the past. They are the past. They have been here for 10 years. They should be doing something about the future, and this Future Fund will not do it.

As the previous speaker, the member for Kingsford Smith, rightly pointed out, many in industry have slammed this fund. The ACCI has slammed it most comprehensively, and I quote from the Australian Financial Review:

Australia’s largest business group has slammed the federal government’s proposed Future Fund as a “tax increase” and dismissed Treasurer Peter Costello’s claim that the fund would increase Australia’s saving as “paternalistic”.

In its June Review released today, the Austra-lian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has launched business’s first comprehensive attack on

the coalition’s election promise to put aside budget surpluses to pay for the retirement of pub-lic servants, which is expected to cost $140 bil-lion by 2040.

The report dismisses Mr Costello’s claim that the fund would “increase national savings, offset unfunded superannuation liabilities and maximise the government’s net worth”.

Instead, the chamber argues that the Future Fund will effectively amount to a “tax increase or a foregone tax reduction”.

It will have a “limited effect” on national sav-ing, and the money would be better spent on other reforms, particularly to the tax system, the report says. Superannuation is less of a problem for fu-ture budgets, it says, than is the funding of phar-maceutical benefits.

In addition, the report says there is a risk that the fund will be invested in “uneconomic invest-ments”, and it says that international experience shows a limited need for such a fund.

“It is paternalistic of the government to sug-gest that individuals spend their money poorly and that they need to be forced to save”, the re-port says. “If there are taxes or regulations that restrict saving, these barriers should be removed, rather than creating another distortion [higher taxes] to increase saving.”

The ACCI says it expects the cost of pharma-ceutical benefits to increase by 2.8 per cent of gross domestic product by 2042, compared with an expected 0.3 per cent of GDP fall in the cost of public service super. The national cost of aged-care is expected to increase by 1.1 per cent of GDP and the cost of age pensions is expected to rise by 1.7 per cent of GDP by 2042.

Clearly, the largest business groups are out there saying that this Future Fund is misdi-rected. The Treasurer commissioned his own Intergenerational report back in 2001. Where is the next chapter to that report? How is the money from the Future Fund go-ing to benefit future generations? This fund will do nothing in that regard. As this article clearly points out, the issues of aged care and pharmaceutical benefits have not been ad-dressed. Where is the money going to come


CHAMBER

from to fund those into the future? This fund will do nothing to alleviate that problem.

The Treasurer’s mantra at the time was that all people nearing retirement should stay in the workforce for as long as they can: ‘Work till you drop.’ As many people realise, that is a wonderful thing as long as you have a job you can keep working in. My mother is a great example: at 68, she is still teaching. I think she is mad! But she loves going to work every day and she is lucky because she has been in an environment that will main-tain her, that will keep her on, that will hap-pily still employ her. There are a lot of peo-ple out there who are not as lucky. In my previous life at the Finance Sector Union, I saw literally hundreds of thousands of people between the ages of 45 and 50 thrown out of work—many of them by the very same David Murray who is going to be heading up this Future Fund. They would have loved to have stayed in the workforce, but there was a raft of redundancies and they were all axed. Those people found it virtually impossible to get back into the workforce because their age was an impediment. The Treasurer has done nothing to ensure future generations are se-cure. He has done nothing to ensure that when we get to 2020, with the scenario of fewer people in the workforce than out of it, there will be a tax base to ensure that basic services can be provided to all, not just in the area of aged care but in education, research and development, and infrastructure.

Labor believe that, instead of creating a fund whose purpose is dubious at best, we should be creating a fund for nation building. If there are surpluses available, they should be put towards infrastructure. This govern-ment has let infrastructure slide over the last 10 years and all it can do is blame the state governments. It points the finger at the state governments. It has created slush fund after slush fund that it says is about nation build-ing, but all it is about is holding onto indi-

vidual seats. The amount of money that went into the federal seat of McEwen at the last election was phenomenal. It was horrendous to see the amount of money that went into that seat through various dubious programs. It was incredible. And it was not even one of The Nationals’ seats, where much more money went over time.

Where is the accountability for securing our future? There is not any. It is alarming that people within the industry have been horrified—their own word is ‘flabber-gasted’—by the lack of information about how this money is to be invested, how this money is to be used. Again I want to quote from the Australian Financial Review: Money managers jostling to become the asset consultant to the first $16 billion invested in the Future Fund have been “flabbergasted” by the brevity of the government’s tender document, saying it failed to outline what the investment objectives are.

Treasury officials will meet prospective tenderers in Sydney this Friday for a “briefing session” on the one-page tender document that has worried some asset consultants with its lack of detail.

… … … The major concern among the tenderers was the government’s lack of investment objectives that they hoped to become clearer by the time the tender closes on June 2005.

… … … At only 340 words, Treasury’s tender brief on the $16 billion project represents $45 million a word ...

So one little tender document has gone out to the investment market and there are no ob-jectives as to how this money is to be in-vested. The only objective in the bill is that of national interest. But, funnily enough, the bill has not defined what the national interest is. Our experience of what the national inter-est is for the government is for them to be re-elected and the money spent in any way, shape, size or form to ensure that that out-


CHAMBER

come is achieved. It will not be spent wisely; it will not be spent well.

The government say that the fund is a locked box, that there are guarantees for how the money will be used and that, instead cre-ating a board of directors, they will create a board of guarantors. You might change the name but you will not change the outcome, because the guarantors will be allowed to solicit advice only from external sources. They will be directed by the minister on where the money can be invested.

So the guarantors will be there in name only, whereas usually people who are trus-tees on boards of superannuation funds go through rigorous election processes. Some trustees are appointed, but many go through rigorous election processes to demonstrate that they will be the best people to look after the money of individuals. The guarantors will be handpicked, and there are no guide-lines. The one glaring admission in this bill about these people is that they will not even have to pass a fit and proper test. These indi-viduals will be in charge of the vast bulk of Australian taxpayers’ dollars and windfalls from asset sales, yet they do not even have to pass a fit and proper test. It is a sham, it is a disgrace and it is a glaring admission in this bill.

The Labor Party believe that such a fund should be established but that it should be used in a much more strategic way. It should be used for nation building. It should be used for putting back infrastructure in our port system. Where is the discussion about our ports that are failing us at the moment? Where is the discussion about roads? Where is the discussion about rail? Where is the discussion about water quality, about air quality and about the long-term viability of our environment through the creation of electricity? How are we going to do that?

There is nothing in this bill about ensuring the future of our nation.

The government have called it a future fund, but it is a limited fund. It has many flaws. If Labor win the next election—and I sincerely hope that we do, and I believe that we will—we will get hold of this fund and make it appropriate for the nation so that it can deliver to all and not to a few hand-picked individuals who might misdirect where the money will be spent. It is on a very limited basis that this fund is to finance a super liability that can be easily met out of the current Treasury coffers.

We on this side of the House will be sup-porting the bill and the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne. I hope that our future is protected and not just white-washed as the government has done in this bill.

Mr McMULLAN (Fraser) (9.48 am)—Like the member for Chisholm, I support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne to the Future Fund Bill 2005. I also support the idea of a Future Fund. In fact, I supported the idea when the Treasurer did not. With the member for Hotham, I was advocating what we were calling the ‘intergenerational fund’ when the Treasurer was mocking the idea. I remember him saying: ‘Fancy that! They want to cut taxes, have a surplus and an intergenerational fund. What a silly idea.’ Things which we were then advocating and which he was ridi-culing are things he has now done. Unfortu-nately, he has done it rather poorly, but we all remember the hyperbole.

One of the problems with the judgment that is made about the current Treasurer is that people never look back at what he said in the past. He is quite capable of saying within weeks entirely contradictory things with equal gravity, enthusiasm and certainty when both positions cannot be held simulta-


CHAMBER

neously. He ridiculed the idea of a Future Fund when we proposed it. Now he has come up with a Clayton’s version. If you compare it with what was being advocated earlier in Australia by the member for Hotham, me and others, and in an excellent paper by the Chifley Research Foundation, or compare it with the very substantial initia-tive taken by Michael Cullen, the Deputy Prime Minister and finance minister in New Zealand, this is a very pathetic effort. This is typical of Peter Costello as Treasurer: big talk but with no reform at all.

It reminds me of a story—which I am sure has been embellished over time—when I was living in Western Australia back in the six-ties. A play, which some will remember, called Equus was being performed. There was a male nude scene in Equus and the overzealous Western Australian police charged the young male actor who was in the full frontal male nude scene with indecent exposure. The young actress in the show was called as a witness and was asked her reac-tion. She said, ‘I thought it was a very big fuss about a very small thing.’ I rather think that describes much of the rhetoric about this legislation. It is probably not as interesting as Equus but it is a rather large fuss about a very small thing, because there is no fiscal policy reform, no effective financial invest-ment reform and no investment infrastruc-ture—none of those things that my col-leagues have spoken about.

What we are talking about here is simply a very slight and inevitable revision of the Commonwealth’s asset management. If you are selling a massive number of assets, you start with low debt. Australia has always had low debt. Put aside the hyperbole: Australia, at every stage, including when this govern-ment came to office, has had very low public sector debt by international standards. We were never outside what, for example, were the Maastricht guidelines for European Un-

ion countries, even at the peak of our debt. If you are selling assets, you start with low debt. You are taking in record amounts of revenue because you are the highest taxing government in history. Therefore, you can spend profligately and still deliver a surplus. You must run up deposits at the bank or pay off debt.

The member for Hotham and I came to the conclusion—when the Treasurer was equivocal at best—that there was a need to keep a bond market in this country. I believe it is an important institution that needs to be retained. Eventually the Treasurer came to that view, too. Initially, he did not seem to have the slightest understanding of what we were talking about, but eventually Treasury educated him. If you are going to keep a bond market, you need to have some bonds out there—you cannot use the surpluses and the proceeds of asset sales for soaking up bonds—then you wind up with deposits. You have two choices: you have deposits at the Reserve Bank, simply earning a rate, or you set up a fund to invest it more effectively. Research by Ric Simes and Nick Gruen show that cautious risk-weighted manage-ment should deliver you a two per cent better return on an investment fund than on deposit at the Reserve Bank. That is all we are doing. All the rest is hyperbole.

During the debate on this bill last evening, I heard the member for Perth say that Sena-tor Minchin, the Minister for Finance and Administration, said that the target for this fund is to match the rate that would be re-ceived on deposit at the Reserve Bank. I be-lieve the member for Perth—he is an honest man—but it cannot be true. That is so stupid. It is unbelievable that someone like Senator Minchin would say that. It is just so crass and stupid. We must have a target rate for this fund that is at least two per cent above that rate, or why are we not leaving it at the RBA on deposit?


CHAMBER

This argument that we are using the money to fund Commonwealth superannua-tion obligations is a farce. Other than as an accounting truism that an asset offsets a li-ability on your balance sheet—and that would be equally true if the money was at the Reserve Bank or held in any other form of asset—there is absolutely no need for all this grandiloquent advocacy and great struc-ture to meet Commonwealth superannuation liabilities when they have been met safely, securely and easily out of Commonwealth recurrent expenditures since Federation and when they are likely to decline as a percent-age of GDP, not increase.

It is just an accounting truism turned into a rhetorical flourish with no substance. A properly structured intergenerational fund, or a future fund like that in New Zealand, would bring about some reform of our fiscal policy. That is necessary, because I fear that we are about to repeat one of the two great economic management mistakes of the last 30 years. Everybody is obsessed with avoid-ing one of them, which is the fear of high interest rates. We are so focused on that that we are losing sight of the fact that, through sloth and profligacy, we are about to repeat the mistake that John Howard made as Treasurer in the late seventies and early eighties, which was to fritter away the re-sources boom. This resources boom will not go on forever. The enormous revenue surge that is paid to this government will not go on forever. We are incurring recurrent liabilities, some of which have been outlined by the member for Melbourne—and we just heard the member for Chisholm—which will esca-late over time because they are poorly tar-geted. They will particularly escalate because they are most likely to flow to people on high incomes and slightly older people. Therefore, with the ageing population, the Commonwealth outlay structure will get worse, not better.

There is no possibility that the Common-wealth will have trouble meeting their super-annuation liabilities. What the Treasurer and the minister for finance should be focusing on are those other, untargeted or poorly tar-geted expenditures. I call for the government to have an intergenerational analysis of their proposed outlay measures when they are in-troduced, and those over recent years, some of which I suggest will blow out. We need some rigour here. The superannuation tax cut argument that Senator Minchin raised had some capacity to deliver some of that rigour.

Mr Crean—That was our idea.

Mr McMULLAN—Exactly. It was a very good idea. It should be done. We have been advocating it for years and took such a pro-posal to the last election. Unfortunately, the Treasurer overruled it. I only hope that the Prime Minister overrules the Treasurer. But the Prime Minister’s track record in this area is appalling. He was the architect last time when we frittered away the proceeds of a resources boom, and I think he is likely to do it again.

I do not want to speak at length on this matter. I simply want to say that I support a Future Fund. It is a pity there is no genuine fiscal reform in this proposal and no en-hanced fiscal discipline. Outlays are still ex-ploding. The risk to our fiscal future is still substantial. I support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Mel-bourne. I hope we can use this Future Fund, once it is established, as a basis for better policy in the future.

Mr CREAN (Hotham) (9.59 am)—I rise with pleasure to follow the member for Fra-ser, with whom I did a lot of work in the last term on advocating the notion behind this bill, to support the Future Fund Bill 2005 but to point to its deficiencies—hence the need for the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne and spoken on


CHAMBER

today by the member for Chisholm and the member for Kingsford Smith. The reason that Labor supports the Future Fund is that it was Labor’s initiative. But the form of the fund proposed in this bill does not go far enough.

There are two basic concerns with this bill. The first relates to the governance of the Future Fund. It does not have independence from government and it will be subject to direction from and possible abuse by the government. We have seen that abuse in the ‘regional rorts’ program, and I will come to that in a minute. The second is that the aims and investment policy associated with this fund are too narrow. Essentially it seeks to apply the proceeds of the fund only to the unfunded superannuation liability of public servants. Dealing with it in normal budgetary terms, this is an issue which itself has not been a problem to date but, significantly, it is now a diminishing problem for the future because of the move to close the defined benefit schemes associated with the public sector and to introduce accumulation ac-counts for all future public servants.

But the real question that has to be asked here is this: if we are to set up a Future Fund—in other words, to take the proceeds of the nation’s prosperity and put them aside to be invested in productive investments that make better returns than simply putting them in the bank—if that concept is right and we support and advocate it, why should the pro-ceeds only go to public servants in Canberra? Why shouldn’t the notion be used to advance the interests of all of the nation? Why shouldn’t the proceeds be used to advance the nation-building agenda that this country so desperately needs, which has been so de-ficient in the last 10 years of this govern-ment’s tenure?

That is the reason we move the second reading amendment, not to oppose the con-

cept but to strengthen it. If you are going to adopt Labor’s policy, adopt it in full. Do not just go about it in a piecemeal way: have the courage of your convictions, admit it is a good idea, but do it properly—not this half-baked, piecemeal approach that will only benefit one section of the community. And, most importantly, it is their government as employer that gets the benefit from this—why not the whole of the nation?

I do welcome the fact that the Treasurer and the government are finally doing some-thing about the intergenerational challenges facing this nation. The House will recall that the Treasurer issued the so-called Intergen-erational report back in 2002. He thought his job was done—he had commissioned the report; he had received it—and he did it all with great fanfare but, as always, he did not have a clue about what the policy implica-tions were and what sort of public policy he should be putting in place. It is useful also to remind the House that, 17 years ago, a Labor government introduced the most significant intergenerational policy of our generation: compulsory superannuation. We did it in co-operation with the workforce in the country, an agreement whereby workers in this nation agreed to forgo present income—cuts to wages, if you like, or not as big an increase as they otherwise would have been seek-ing—to secure future income. It was a sensi-ble trade-off. It was underpinned by govern-ment legislation guaranteeing compulsory superannuation. That is the scheme that we have today. It is lauded around the world as being one of the great initiatives of a gov-ernment addressing an intergenerational challenge.

Sure, there are still issues to be dealt with in it: the member for Fraser has talked about the taxation issue, the contribution tax, and Labor went to the last election proposing an initiative. Why, if we are talking about tax cuts and the ability to deliver tax cuts be-


CHAMBER

cause of the surplus, should we just be look-ing at tax cuts on present income and not on superannuation income? Of course it should be looked at in both directions. Tax, after all, influences disposable income: it either in-creases your take-home pay if you get a tax cut on present income, or it increases your accumulation account if there is less being taken out of the contributions going in. This, of course, was an initiative that finance min-ister Nick Minchin took up some weeks ago—again embracing a Labor policy—but he was slapped down immediately by the Treasurer, who is incapable of thinking about comprehensive policy solutions.

So here we have the great intergenera-tional challenge being responded to in a posi-tive way when we were in government, hav-ing established superannuation, but this gov-ernment has done nothing to advance that issue in its 10-year reign. Everything that exists of compulsory superannuation today happened because of a program put in place by a Labor government. All this government did was introduce a new tax on superannua-tion, which it recently abolished, but it has not advanced the basic adequacy of superan-nuation in this country. Going into the 1996 election, Labor had in place a co-contribution policy. It had introduced it into the parliament: three per cent from the em-ployee matched by three per cent from the government. It would have taken the nine per cent to 15 per cent. The Howard opposition went to the election promising to keep that co-contribution, and effectively scrapped that promise in its first budget. That is Honest John for you, but it is also a wasted opportu-nity.

Had that policy been implemented, we would have been in a greater adequacy frame in terms of superannuation in this country today. But whose policy was it? It was La-bor’s. Just as Labor has consistently been the party of the pensioner, it is the only party for

the superannuant in this country, the only party that has taken the initiatives necessary to underpin secure retirement incomes in this country. If you want it to be advanced, you will have to elect another Labor government, because we are the only ones who have ever done anything in that regard.

The intergenerational challenges that we face today are still about superannuation and individuals, but they are much more. What we need today is a policy response that is tackled with a coherent strategy that puts aside savings today to address tomorrow’s problems. So when you have surpluses you are putting them aside to deal with problems that come up in the future. Secondly, we need to make investments today that reduce the fiscal problems of tomorrow. I think there is a fairly simple proposition involved in this concept: if you have a surplus, why would you put it in the bank if you can get a better rate of return by investing it and at the same time securing the future of the nation? As the member for Fraser has pointed out, the work that the Labor Party had commis-sioned in its previous term—work by Ric Simes and David Gruen—demonstrated that there could be a greater return for the nation by investing the proceeds wisely rather than just squirrelling it away and putting it in the bank.

Our ability to front up to these sorts of is-sues is a test of our willingness to provide for the future. As a nation, it is clear that we are not saving or investing enough. That is the great challenge to us as a nation. But, just as Labor introduced compulsory superannua-tion for workers, budgets too have got to reflect that principle. Budgets should put aside funds to deal with future pressures. If you like, it is superannuation for the nation. The policy imperative is then to invest in the drivers of economic growth—in education, in skills, in a strong competition regime, in research and development and in our infra-


CHAMBER

structure. These are the things that will drive and sustain this economy much more strongly. The reason that we are not doing them is not that we cannot afford to do them; it is that the government has different priori-ties, and they are the wrong priorities. But the nation is held back as a consequence. It is essentially wasted opportunity.

Back in 2004 when I responded to the Treasurer’s 2004 budget I said that some action was required, that the government should make provision for the future and that it should establish a fund and invest for the future. As the member for Fraser has already pointed out, when I made that announcement the Treasurer, Peter Costello, ridiculed it. He said the money was not there, dismissed it out of hand and said it could not be done. He said that this was stupid, that it was the magic pudding approach to policy. Not only how wrong has he been proven; but how in-consistent has he become? The very thing that he ridiculed he now embraces as his own and says: ‘It’s the great solution. It’s the great way forward.’

I know that people understand that both sides of politics keep having a go at each other, but I think it is important that when good ideas occur it does not matter where they come from—they should be acknowl-edged. There should be a preparedness to work together to try and implement it in the best possible way. Not only did the Treasurer not even acknowledge the inconsistency and the backflip in his position; he did not have the good sense to try and work with us to get bipartisan support to achieve the best possi-ble outcome in relation to this fund. He was actually even more cynical than that. He an-nounced his commitment to the fund during the election campaign on the day that it had been agreed there would be an embargo on new policy announcements. It happened just after the Jakarta bombings. The Treasurer dropped his initiative on the Future Fund

when the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister had agreed there should be no policy announcements. So not only has he been hypocritical; he exploits all of the wrong opportunities to make the point.

The Treasurer said in his second reading speech that the bill would ‘put in place ar-rangements for future generations to allow them to deal with the massive changes that the ageing of the population will bring’. There is no doubt that the ageing of the population will bring massive changes to our health and education systems, to our work-force and to the very structure of our society. People are living longer because we have better health systems. People are retiring earlier because they have more disposable income and they are developing a financial capacity to retire because of the superannua-tion scheme we put in place. This is going to require us to meet big challenges in not just the economic infrastructure that takes us forward but the social infrastructure—the affordability of it, the availability of decent health and education to look after us indi-vidually but also to collectively advance us as a nation. We should be investing now and we should be planning now for these changes, yet all this bill does is to make pro-vision to fund the unfunded superannuation liability of Commonwealth public servants. It is a deficient response of a Treasurer who has proven himself on the policy front to be deficient on policy initiatives, to be visionary and to develop a strategy forward for this nation.

I have a great passion for unleashing the potential of our regions. I have responsibility for this shadow portfolio and firmly believe that the Commonwealth government must play an active role in regional development. Our government of the day says there is no constitutional role for regional economic development. I disagree most strongly. All governments have a responsibility to work


CHAMBER

with regions to give them better access to the range of programs at federal, state and local government levels and to tap into the leader-ship, the direction and the strategic approach that leaders in the community have devel-oped.

When I was Minister for Employment, Education and Training I established a struc-ture of area consultative committees around the country. They still exist and they exist because people of goodwill and vision are prepared to give of their time voluntarily. What they need is access to resources to make things happen in a way that responds to their regional needs—not someone in Canberra thinking they know what is best for a region but the region itself saying, ‘These are our priorities; this is what we need.’ It is what I would call location responsive gov-ernment policies: having to respond to the needs that the region identifies. We have to tap into these structures.

I and other members of the Labor caucus on our Regional Development Committee have been travelling the country and talking with these bodies to identify their priorities and looking, in turn, at the raft of govern-ment proposals and programs. It does not necessarily need more money; what it does need is for those regions to have access and know they have access to the range of pro-grams—and for their word to be taken sensi-bly, not as this government has done through its so-called Regional Partnerships program, which just became a rort that saw $5 million going to a steam train that ran out of steam and $1 million going to an ethanol plant that has not even produced one litre of ethanol. That is the government’s approach to re-gional development: pork-barrel when an election comes up rather than be strategic about it. I believe if we get this future fund concept right and widen its scope, it will be another source through which the regions can be helped to realise their potential. That

is why I want to see the policy behind this Future Fund really developed fully.

The final point I would make about the Future Fund goes to the question of govern-ance. I have talked already of the rorts and the pork-barrelling that this government has perpetrated around election time. If the pro-visions of the bill, which I outlined earlier, are to ensure that we get a better rate of re-turn by investing the money than by simply banking it, that has to be subject to inde-pendent analysis and recommendation. It has to be an arms-length recommendation so pork-barrelling cannot occur. That is the other deficiency in relation to this Future Fund: independence from government and the ability of the government to direct certain uses of the fund at the last minute. We have seen where it directs funds: to its own politi-cal survival. That sort of decision making has to be taken out of it. We cannot allow the Future Fund to become another cache for the National Party pork-barrel or to prop up Lib-eral members in marginal seats.

That is why, when we argue for the widen-ing of the scope of what the Future Fund can be used for, we also argue for strengthening the governance procedures to stop the pork-barrelling. This has the potential to be a great thing to help us build the nation. I want to make sure that it is available not just for the infrastructure and skills that we have talked about but also to unleash the potential of our regions, because if the regions are helped to grow it does not just benefit them; it benefits the nation as a whole. Here is an opportunity which could get bipartisan support. It is a pity the government has embraced just the name that Labor proposed and not the con-cept behind it. I urge the government to adopt our amendment.

Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (10.19 am)—Before I discuss the main points around this very important bill, the Future Fund Bill


CHAMBER

2005, I would like to touch on some of the technical aspects of it. What is clear is that the Future Fund is anything but what its name suggests. This Future Fund is not about securing the nation’s future; it is more about securing the Treasurer’s future and the gov-ernment’s future. In principle, though, Labor does support without reservation the concept and principle of a future fund but to build the nation rather than the aspirations of a few individuals within government.

Rather than answering questions, this bill leaves many questions unanswered. What is clear is that the open-ended mandate setting and the board appointment processes leave the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Administration ample opportunity to favour their own people and get approval for their pet projects. Ministers will set and change the investment mandate and direct the board as they choose. This is not an arms-length arrangement; it opens up ave-nues for political interference and rorting—and, as many speakers on this debate have said, including the member for Hotham, we have seen it time and time again, not just at election time but at any time that the gov-ernment decides.

If you are looking for models where this can be done properly without rorts or inter-ference, you do not have to look much fur-ther than New Zealand. The New Zealand model is much tighter and provides for much better governance. In New Zealand, the board of the future fund must invest on a prudent commercial basis. For example, the New Zealand finance minister may give di-rections to the guardians regarding the gov-ernment’s expectations as to the fund’s per-formance but must not give any direction that is inconsistent with the duty to invest the fund on a prudent commercial basis. Later I will discuss why I raise these issues. The performance of the board in New Zealand is also subject to five-yearly reviews. An im-

portant point about this relates to Telstra: it is obvious that the government intends to dump the proceeds of Telstra into the Future Fund. The midyear review has set an unrealistic share price of $4.13 and assumes that all sale proceeds—that is, $26.6 billion—would be booked in 2006-07.

Anybody examining this would find it ex-tremely hard to believe. The government needs to set out the process for transferring Telstra proceeds to the fund, if that is its in-tention—when it is going to do it, how it is going to do it and how many shares will be affected. This is another level of government interference not only in the way Telstra oper-ates but also in the way a Future Fund would operate. In particular, the bill reveals that the government is anxious to control the transfer of financial assets. In respect of ministerial directions on the transfer of financial assets, the explanatory memorandum to the bill states: Such directions allow the Government to appro-priately manage any interaction between such transfers and policy priorities.

The fund will not be able to meet its objec-tive of paying Public Service superannuation for some time. If the principal course of this fund were to do that, it would not be able to achieve that for some time—until the fund equals the superannuation liability. With cur-rent settings, even when fund earnings pass superannuation payouts in 2007-08, the budget will get no relief from the Future Fund at that point. Superannuation payments will still have to be met from the budget over the forward estimates—that is, $2.4 billion in 2005-06, rising to $2.6 billion in 2008-09. As we heard from the member for Melbourne on this very issue, it just does not make sense. Why would the government set up a fund to pay for a future liability? As the member for Melbourne explained, it is equivalent to a household investing a massive capital sum in a bank account and using the interest to pay


CHAMBER

their rates on a yearly basis. Why would it have all that equity sitting in a fund doing nothing and only use the interest for recur-ring payments such as council rates? It just does not make sense. This fund is poorly designed and too narrowly focused.

Labor believes investment returns would be better applied to critical infrastructure. The point is that if the government were se-rious about a Future Fund they would start to direct it to the nation’s future and not their own futures. Labor’s Building Australia Fund and Infrastructure Australia Fund can provide for such investment and enhance the fund’s viability in the process. While I today give my support to the second reading amendment moved by the member for Mel-bourne, I also give in-principle support to the bill and the government’s intention to at least create a savings fund for future generations of Australians. After all, what we are talking about is a Labor Party policy that was pro-posed some years back. But, as several speakers before me have indicated, we have many reservations about the process on which the government has embarked, the way the fund will be structured and, in par-ticular, the way it will be administered in this vitally important public policy area. And it is these reservations that I want to draw peo-ple’s attention to in the time available to me.

Labor supports the broad concept of a Fu-ture Fund, but we question the need to create a Future Fund to cover the increasing gov-ernment liability that is accruing in respect of public sector superannuation. It will continue to increase gradually over the next 20 to 30 years and then start to decline. And that is the important part. If you look at the liability and how it is structured, you could make a comparison to a mortgage. When you have a mortgage you run-up a huge debt, but in re-turn you have a massive asset which can carry you well into the future. I think ordi-nary people can understand that having a

mortgage is a good thing, not a bad thing, because it gives you a home. In a sense, the liability we are talking about is similar to that. There is no need for the government to set up a fund to deal exclusively with this liability over the next 20 years.

There are much more pressing needs which the government needs to address. In this regard, the government’s motives sur-rounding the Future Fund are very question-able indeed. We have been told that the Fu-ture Fund is a locked box. We heard that from the Treasurer himself. But I think we all know that the locked box has two sets of keys, one of which will be held by the Na-tional Party—although, given current events, maybe the Liberal Party will try to get those keys back. However, the locked-box theory is ridiculous; it is ludicrous. Why would any government want to lock up tens of billions of dollars in a fund and not properly set about using those funds to build Australia’s future?

We have a crisis in our serious shortage of skills and training. We have a crisis in our infrastructure—our roads and port facilities. We have heard a litany of charges against this government, on most of which they are very culpable, on infrastructure. We do need a Future Fund, but we do not need a locked box. We need a Future Fund that is open for investment, open to growing the economy and open to ensuring that future generations of Australians enjoy the same opportunities that this generation has enjoyed through the investments of past generations and through the foresight, the vision and the investments of past Labor governments which saw the need for massive reforms of the financial sector, the banking industry and taxation—the sorts of reforms that are desperately needed today. This is where the govern-ment’s energies and a Future Fund should be directed.


CHAMBER

There is a discretion within this legislation that would allow the Treasurer and the Min-ister for Finance and Administration to issue directives for investment on matters of na-tional interest and national importance. Of course, the question everybody would ask is: how do you define ‘national interest’ and ‘national importance’, and who specifically decides that? Simply stated, this is not a locked box. In much harsher language, it is a slush fund—and it will be raided unequivo-cally and unashamedly by the National Party, who will wear it as a badge of honour. They will walk into this place and tell you they will do it. They will go to their electorates and tell everybody that there is nothing wrong with this because it is going to be money coming directly back to their elector-ates. This is a slush fund for a handful of elites while ordinary Australians will miss out. Ordinary Australians need a Future Fund for infrastructure and training and to make sure that we invest in the future. This is about National Party interests. It is not about nation building. It should be about nation building; that should be the focus of gov-ernment. There is a lot of concern about how tensions within the coalition at the moment might spill over into the structure of a Future Fund and the way it will be used. I have grave reservations about that.

I have said many times in this place that Australia needs to invest in the future of our country, not just in our physical assets but in our people. We need to invest in people, and Labor knows that all too well. In fact we are the only political party in this country that is prepared to highlight the problems that pres-ently exist and to outline our intentions to address them in both the short and the long term. Labor believes in investing in the na-tional interest, not in the political interest. Labor will invest in priorities set by the ex-perts and not by party machine men, not by a

few elites on the front benches of govern-ment.

Labor knows that infrastructure is at the core of this debate. It is a national asset, a national priority, and it must be treated not as a cost but as an investment that will provide returns to this country in spades. Labor be-lieves that dividends from a Future Fund should be invested in infrastructure first and that superannuation liabilities for Common-wealth bureaucrats can be funded in many other ways, and it will do so regardless of this proposed fund. Labor believes that, to grow our economy, this nation must invest in Australia. We must not do that by cutting wages. We will never win the global race with bottom of the barrel wages. We are in-novators. Australia has always had to com-pete on a global platform. Australia invented free and fair trade before they became buzz words, because we have always had to com-pete and we have always had to punch well above our weight. We will continue to do that but not on lower wages. We will con-tinue to do that with our skills, training, in-novation and expertise. That is where our strengths lie.

If we do not have a strategy to invest in skills and infrastructure, then we do not have a strategy at all. We do not have a strategy for the economy and we do not have a strat-egy for the national interest. In short, Labor will invest in Australia and will do so in a number of ways: through greater skills and education for our workforce and through greater investment and attention given to our crumbling, creaking infrastructure across the nation. We will provide real national leader-ship on the issues when the country needs it most.

I want to touch quickly on skills. A Beazley Labor government will introduce a skills account, which will remove TAFE fees for apprentices in traditional trades. This is


CHAMBER

the right investment. This is the way to go. Let us make it easier for young people to train themselves; let us give them the oppor-tunities. Right now our policy is to make an initial contribution of $800 per year for up to four years to an apprentice’s skills account. This would get rid of the up-front TAFE fees for up to 60,000 traditional apprentices who commence their training each year. Labor’s new system of skills accounts will invest in young people and will help them complete their traditional apprenticeships. Under La-bor’s plan, an additional 13,000 qualified tradespeople would enter our workforce every year. That is doing something positive today, right now, about the skills crisis. It is not just coming up with an alternative, pseudo, mirror structure called the Australian technical colleges, which is just a different name for another TAFE system and a dou-bling up of the bureaucracy, from which you will not turn out your first graduate until 2011. That is the wrong way to go.

Labor is determined to build Australia into the future and to build a better future for all our kids. Labor is the only political force in Australia developing new policies to tackle the massive skills shortage in this country. Over 10 long years the Howard government has neglected the training of skilled tradesworkers, and, as a result, the economy and the community are starting to suffer. You do not need to look too far to see the impact this is having. Businesses and industry that are growing at incredible rates cannot get the skilled labour they need. They cannot get the workers, because we simply do not have them. While the government may gloat about low unemployment rates and about how strong the economy is, the reality is that this has happened despite this government. It is the global trends and the economic levers and patterns around the globe that affect what happens in Australia. The old cliche

that if the US sneezes Australia catches a cold has never been more true.

Our economy is reliant on our trading partners, on the United States, Japan and China, and we compete with those countries in our ability to provide resources, expertise and skills. These are our strengths. I am very concerned that, once we go down the path that not only the proposed Future Fund will take us down but this government is taking us down—that of a low-skilled, low-wage country—we will have to compete on wages, which is a competition we can never win. It is a race we can never win because we will never be able to do what those other coun-tries do. We will never be able to survive on the wages that people in China survive on. So we need to focus on our strengths and on where we can best invest.

There is no doubt in my mind that a Fu-ture Fund is essential. It is essential for the prosperity of this country and for our young people. It is essential that we do it and that we get it right the first time. Forget about what this government says when it talks about locked boxes. All you have to do is turn your mind to the AusLink proposals and the funding for AusLink, which has huge discretionary funds available for the minister to personally intervene in so-called national interest infrastructure. But when we examine where that national interest infrastructure is, why does it invariably happen to be in Na-tional Party or Liberal Party seats, or in very marginal Labor seats where maybe the gov-ernment is starting to focus its attentions?

Mr Ciobo—Have a look at the landmass and the areas we cover.

Mr RIPOLL—The member at the table says, ‘Have a look at the landmass and the areas we cover.’ I would say to the member, ‘Have a look at where the national interest needs are. Forget about landmass.’ That is an argument of the 1940s. Move into the 21st


CHAMBER

century and have a look at where the needs are, at the priorities for the nation, not at pri-orities based on who has the most land: the ‘my block’s bigger than your block’ theory. It has nothing to do with how big the block is. It is about where the needs are. It is about state and federal government relations and investment in the future. The member is shaking his head; I think he is agreeing with me because that is right: we should not look at the size of the block of land. We should look at where the most important parts of infrastructure are.

Mr Ciobo interjecting—

Mr RIPOLL—I think Tumbi Creek was an interesting one, if the member really wants to know.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr RIPOLL—No, it was under another rorts account. While I do appreciate some of the views and interjections of others, I draw back to some of the important points about why we need a Future Fund. As I said, it is to take out the rorting. It is to start putting pri-orities in place. Let us have an ‘infrastructure Australia’ type body, a peak body that reports back to COAG, which does these things properly and sets an agenda for this nation—not an agenda for the National Party, not an agenda for the Liberal Party, not an agenda for the Labor Party but an agenda for the nation. There are projects screaming out for this government to fund and they need to be prioritised. But they do not get a look-in be-cause they are just not on the biggest block in town. That is a concern to everybody.

Labor’s initial contribution to the skills account would cost in the vicinity of $170 million per year when fully operational. Eve-ryone, from the Reserve Bank to the OECD, is shouting warnings about our shortage of skilled workers. If the government has not heard the noise and has not heard the calls

for this, then it is truly blind and deaf to the issues happening within the community.

Home owners are also feeling the impact as the cost of building and renovating the family home increases. While there was a slowdown in the housing market, we can see it picking up again. I read yesterday that one of the Liberal backbenchers, in trying to get himself on the front page of a paper, decided he would call for a doubling of the First Home Owners Scheme. That sounds great on the surface but it further distorts the housing market and puts more pressure on people trying to enter the market. Rather than being an advantage and a bonus, it actually distorts the market. Housing prices go up on the back of these things. Rather than properly target-ing how to best help people into housing, this government uses these crude, blunt instru-ments. Do you know why they are crude, blunt instruments and why the government prefers to use them? Because they look good. It is like giving everybody a $600 cheque before an election—stuff what it adds up to, what it costs and what it actually delivers; it looks good and feels good to give people a big cash payout just before an election. It will feel good for the government—stuff the economy; stuff that it is going to make public housing and housing generally more difficult to get into. It will just sound good if some-body on the Liberal side advocates more money going into the pockets of first home owners. Yes, let us do something for first home owners. Let us have a Future Fund for them. Let us look at ways to get people into their own homes. But let us not do it by fuel-ling price rises and growth in the housing market to the point where people can no longer afford them at all, no matter how much first home owners grant is available.

So there are real flaws and chinks in the government’s thinking, in the processes and in the way they apply themselves not only to housing and skills but also, particularly in


CHAMBER

relation to this bill, to a Future Fund. The reality is we do need a Future Fund, but the reality is we need the right Future Fund, one that invests in Australia, one that will invest in the priorities of this nation’s needs and one that will deliver for a long time into the future for future generations, not a Future Fund that is all about the Treasurer and his making himself look good to his backbench to garner the particular votes that he is seek-ing. Let us get it right. Let us do it right. Let us invest in Australia’s infrastructure. Let us get some of the pork-barrelling out of fund-ing. Let us not have a discretionary fund for ministers which is just another slush fund of the most obvious kind where the minister directs things to a steam rail that never actu-ally takes place. Let us get it right. It is for Australia’s future. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McMul-lan)—Before I call the member for Charlton, can I say to the member for Oxley I am not sure whether a couple of the ways he ex-pressed himself towards the end of that speech were exactly in accordance with standard parliamentary practice. He might want to reflect on that for the future. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Mr Ripoll—I will, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Ms HOARE (Charlton) (10.39 am)—Labor will be supporting the Future Fund Bill 2005 in this parliament. However, there are areas where we believe the Future Fund can be further strengthened and protected, particularly from political interference. I will be exploring shortly the issues that other speakers from this side have outlined. The Future Fund is established from the govern-ment’s 2004 election commitment. The gov-ernment has said it is to meet unfunded Commonwealth superannuation liabilities. The government will be providing seed capi-tal of $18 billion. Currently, public sector

superannuation is said by the government to be unfunded, and last year the Common-wealth’s public sector superannuation bill was about $90 billion. The Treasurer has stated that the liabilities are forecast to in-crease to around $140 billion by 2020. What the Future Fund is supposed to do is reduce the impact on future governments’ budgets of the superannuation liabilities.

The Future Fund of course needs to grow. The government has said it will add to it the proceeds of any future assets sales. Under these arrangements, all fund earnings are to be reinvested. The fund will be governed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians. This board will be appointed by the government but can also be dismissed by the ministers responsible. Labor has a concern that the board may not be totally immune from po-litical interference. Indeed, we would prefer to see an amendment to this bill which would tighten up the governance of the fund. For example, the New Zealand model, one of the overseas models on which the Future Fund is based, includes a specific mandate that binds the board to invest the fund on a prudent commercial basis. The New Zealand Minis-ter of Finance can direct New Zealand’s su-perannuation fund’s guardians to realise the government’s expectations as to the fund’s performance but cannot under the legislation give any direction that is not consistent with the duty to invest the fund on a prudent commercial basis.

The members of the Future Fund board will decide how the fund is to be invested. It is outlined in Bills Digest that the fund:

• will invest only in financial assets, in-cluding overseas financial assets. How-ever, the Treasurer has not committed the Fund to invest a specific portion of its resources in Australia, or overseas. The Treasurer has said, however, that Australian investments would probably


CHAMBER

comprise the bulk of the Fund’s invest-ment holdings

• will not directly invest in property, in-frastructure or other projects. But it will be able to invest in pooled funds that in-vest in these asset classes

• will not take control of listed companies or unlisted companies with more than 50 members

• will invest in a wide portfolio of finan-cial investments

• will exercise its voting rights in relation to companies in which it holds shares, and

• will not borrow, except for short-term borrowing associated with the settle-ment of transactions or any circum-stances listed in regulations.

It is also possible that the proceeds from the sale of Telstra could be transferred to the fund. It is also possible that government-held unsold shares of Telstra could be transferred to the fund. As the Treasurer said in Decem-ber: We expect either Telstra will be sold or if the full sale of Telstra does not go ahead it may well be that the Future Fund will hold Telstra shares and in those circumstances the earnings from those shares will be allocated to the Fund rather than the budget ...

It is not feasible for the government to sell its Telstra shares in the foreseeable future. I heard on the radio this morning that the shares are valued at just over $4, at $4.03, and still dropping. If this remains the case until 2020, we may well see Commonwealth retirees being paid out their superannuation in worthless Telstra shares. Labor has moved an amendment to the motion for this second reading, stating:


“Whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House is of the view that:

1. the Future Fund should only invest on a pru-dent commercial basis and manage funds in a manner consistent with:

(a) best-practice portfolio management;

(b) achieving desired returns without undue risk to the Fund as a whole;

(c) enhancing Australia’s reputation as a re-sponsible and ethical investor; and

(d) building productive capacity in the Aus-tralian community; and that

2. the income stream from the Fund should be used for productive national economic pur-poses rather than being set aside solely to offset the cost of public sector superannua-tion as the Government intends.”

Indeed, the Treasurer said in his second read-ing speech:

Notably New Zealand, Ireland, France and Canada all have similar strategies in place and in none of those national funds are the returns on investment allowed to be siphoned off to fund pet projects of the government of the day. This will also be the case of the Future Fund.

In light of this statement, the Treasurer and the government should be agreeing to La-bor’s amendment relating to stronger gov-ernance arrangements.

While Labor is supporting the Future Fund, we have committed to converting the Future Fund to a Building Australia Fund and to delivering infrastructure through In-frastructure Australia. Labor in government would direct the board to consider a full range of investment opportunities suitable to the return and risk objectives of the fund. We believe that this would include investments that would enhance the productive capacity of the Australian economy and could include direct infrastructure assets.

Labor has a long and proud history of commitment to building the infrastructure required for Australia’s long-term economic and social needs. Labor’s nation-building projects have included the massive Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric Scheme, com-


CHAMBER

menced by Prime Minister Ben Chifley in 1949. Ben Chifley also established the Commonwealth Housing Commission to work with state governments so that, while the states undertook urban planning, the Commonwealth funded new housing and infrastructure for returned servicemen. This had followed on from John Curtin setting up the Commonwealth reconstruction and train-ing scheme in 1944, which gave more than 300,000 Australian servicemen and service-women careers in areas like medicine, engi-neering, dentistry, science, agriculture and veterinary science. Gough Whitlam built on the Curtin-Chifley legacy by providing Commonwealth leadership in addressing infrastructure gaps faced by growing families in the sprawling suburbs, like inadequate sewerage and hospital facilities. Later, Prime Minister Paul Keating saw to the completion of the standardisation of rail track gauges in 1995.

Labor’s Building Australia Fund would be guided by Infrastructure Australia, which will be set up under a Beazley Labor gov-ernment. Infrastructure Australia will have the responsibility to develop a strategic blue-print for our infrastructure needs in facilitat-ing its implementation with the states, terri-tories, local government and the private sec-tor. Infrastructure Australia will be an inde-pendent statutory body that will report to the Commonwealth minister for infrastructure. It will present regular reports to COAG as part of our plan to have infrastructure a standing item on the COAG agenda.

Infrastructure Australia will receive input from the three tiers of government, the pri-vate sector and the general public to identify infrastructure projects of national impor-tance. A Labor government’s Infrastructure Australia will be a coordinated and objective approach to the long-term planning of na-tionally significant infrastructure. Kim Beazley has said that our Labor government

would conduct a national infrastructure au-dit; establish a national infrastructure priority list; establish a political free zone; create Infrastructure Australia—a Commonwealth body to drive rebuilding; design the right funding structure for investment; and put in place the right competition policy frame-work.

However, to do this there are many things that we need to consider. We need to con-sider the scope for governments to invest directly in public infrastructure, the scope and conditions for private sector involvement in the provision of public infrastructure, in-cluding through appropriate public-private partnerships, and the most equitable, cost-effective and fair methods of finance. We need to consider ways to maximise effective public ownership, management and mainte-nance of public infrastructure. We need to improve accountability and transparency of infrastructure financing. We need to look at the most effective method of reducing finan-cial risk to government and minimising the levels of fees and charges. We need to con-sider ways of ensuring that financing is com-patible with skills development and quality employment, and whether risk transfer ar-rangements are appropriate. We also need to consider the potential role of the private su-perannuation industry in financing public infrastructure.

In conclusion, while we have stated that we will support this bill, we encourage the government to support our amendment. We remain committed to maintaining the exist-ing assets of the government’s Future Fund in Labor’s Building Australia Fund. We will add to the Building Australia Fund through future asset sales, and Labor in government will apply part or all of our Building Austra-lia Fund income to productive investments, including infrastructure through Infrastruc-ture Australia. This is the way that the fund


CHAMBER

should be used to enhance the productive capacity of our economy.

Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10.50 am)—I have been looking at some interesting figures on profits before income tax. I think income tax in the case of the Future Fund versus a government Telstra should be included in the profits. My reason for saying that is that we in the mining industry have found that, even though the price for metal has doubled and the price for coal has more than doubled, we do not see very much increased tax revenue. This would indicate very effective price transfer mechanisms are operating within all of these companies. The profit margins in the mining companies should have gone up manyfold, because if your cost structure stays the same and the price of your product doubles that does not double your net profit—it quintuples it or even increases it tenfold. With all due respect to the honourable spokesman, I do not think there has been a tenfold increase in the income tax paid by the mining companies.

I do not criticise those people; I criticise the government that allows them to get away with blue murder. If Telstra is put on the market, I do not care what assurances we get from this House—those assurances are not worth a tinker’s damn. A large proportion of the companies that have been privatised are effectively in foreign hands. When I say that, they may be owned by a superannuation company where the majority of shareholding in that company is now held overseas. One of the reasons is that the massive increase—a 100 per cent increase—in income from hard-rock mining and coal has not been reflected in the current account deficit. It has wors-ened dramatically in that time. That is simply because all of that extra money has been taken and moved overseas. Our seven major mining companies were all Australian owned some eight years ago; now they are all for-eign owned.

I want to speak of the late, great John McEwen. We hear people in the media con-tinuously making fools of themselves by say-ing that the National Party is an effective force or that it is a force at all—in fact, that it actually exists in any way. My first speech in the joint party room referred to John McE-wen. Someone yelled out at me, ‘Oh no! McEwen! Back in the dungeons!’ I said, ‘Yes, it would be terrible to go back to that period, wouldn’t it? Two per cent unem-ployment and a current account surplus.’ I reeled off the figures and a number of people roared with laughter because they realised that what I was saying about these sorts of policies was true.

John McEwen took the profits—and the moneys in certain cases—from the govern-ment and put them into the Commonwealth Development Bank and such institutions. He set up the AIDC to buy back the farm, which basically meant the mining companies. He succeeded in doing it very successfully. For example, Mount Isa Mines had been foreign owned until after McEwen had put in place what he wanted to. Indeed, at that time the much-maligned RFX Connor—I thought he was a numbskull at the time but, on reading the history books and finding out in detail what he had done, I realised that it was the media which had portrayed him that way; he most certainly was not a numbskull and ap-peared to me anyway to be a great and patri-otic Australian—was fairly effective but be-came bull-headed in the end.

What we are saying here in the Future Fund Bill 2005 is that this money can be used for the purpose of owning Australia’s assets—our mining companies. Ten years ago, all of the seven major companies were Australian owned. This government and the preceding government have presided over all of those giant owners of our resources falling into the hands of foreigners. The only people who can be blamed and who must bear the


CHAMBER

brunt of that are those people who served in government under Mr Hawke and Mr Keating and those people who have served in the current government—and I am ashamed to say I was one of them.

It is proposed that this money would be routed into a fund through an investment agency. If there is one thing in this country that is not needed, it is another investment company. One of the more successful Ger-man governments in the days before the Sec-ond World War went to the people on the basis of no predatory capital and no specula-tive capital. I would to heaven that some governments in Australia would say this, but they have done just the opposite: they have moved Australia’s very small savings funds into investment funds that have done nothing but speculate and predate.

Let us talk about predatory behaviour for a moment. The fair trading inquiry con-ducted by this House—many called it the Bruce Baird inquiry—delineated how Wool-worths and Coles, two giant retailers, moved from 51 per cent in 1991 or 1992 up to 68 per cent of the market in about 1998. Ac-cording to their own figures, they are now on 82 per cent of the market. That is predation. They have taken the nation’s riches and used them to make themselves richer and more powerful. They are so powerful in the econ-omy that they secured the deregulation of the dairy industry, which took 30 per cent of farmers’ incomes. That is a figure that any-one in this House can verify. They then put the price of milk for consumers up by nearly 40 per cent. This delivered to the retailers of Australia over $1 billion a year in extra profit. That is predation. This money is going to be used to fuel that engine of predation.

My chief of staff pointed out to me that the graph from the latest economic publica-tion put out by the Parliamentary Library, which is a graph on house affordability,

shows house affordability to have decreased sharply. Is this something for the government to be proud of? They have given $7,000 as a gift to everybody but affordability has gone down. I am no friend of Mr Turnbull’s, but Mr Turnbull and another gentleman, an Ox-ford don who is an Australian, did a report on housing in Australia. They said that in-stead of the government encouraging de-mand—which puts the price up through speculation and inflationary pressure in the housing sector—they should increase supply. That is something that we were in the proc-ess of doing in Queensland. We were build-ing high-speed highways. This is the centre of what I am saying will happen if that $18 billion is used in an investment agency for predation and speculation, which have driven the price of housing out of the reach of al-most everybody in this country so that they can no longer afford a house. Just pick up the library’s publication if you question me on that, Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan!

When the government fell in Queensland in 1990 we were in the process of creating four major high-speed spoke roads allowing a speed of 120 kilometres per hour right into the centre of the city, along with two ring roads. We were doing that so people could live 60 kilometres from town and arrive within 20 minutes at their place of work. It was very satisfying to me to realise that at least Mr Turnbull and this Oxford don have said the same thing in their report. I might add that they did not say it as well as we said it and that their programs were not as good as the programs we were offering.

People could live on two or three acres in a very civilised way. They could recycle their water, which was part of the program. You can recycle water if you are on two acres. It is very difficult to do that if you are in a city; health problems and other sorts of problems arise from grey water usage. So we could deliver land at negligible cost. Mr Turnbull


CHAMBER

and the other gentleman’s report also said that council and government inefficiencies had not only created a huge cost for land but also created a logjam which people could not get through. The provision of infrastructure would bring the price of houses down so that more Australians could buy those houses more cheaply, taking the heat out of the speculative boom. But this approach is doing the very opposite. This will look after the big end of town. The big end of town will have more of our money to play around with, to play their Monopoly games with each other.

This has reached its zenith many times in the last three or four decades when we have moved away from McEwenism in the econ-omy and the sort of approach used not only by Joh Bjelke-Peterson but by Henry Bolte in Victoria, by Thomas Playford, by Charles Court—enormously successful govern-ments—and in my own state of Queensland, of course, the legendary governments of the Labor Party before the war, which were probably the grandest and greatest govern-ments in Australian history. But that was where all of these enormously successful governments saw the public money going. This government is expert in just the oppo-site field—of putting the money into the field where it will manifest itself in fuelling speculation throughout the entire economy.

There was a wonderful article in the Bul-letin magazine by Maxine McKew. The heading read that the Australian economy is in an artificial boom fuelled by property speculation financed by overseas borrow-ings. I suppose there will not be so much overseas borrowing, but the rest of it will stay in place, and it is a true statement. That bubble will burst. For people that do not know anything about economic history, there was a wonderful statement published re-cently in the Australian. It said that the American economy and share prices are buoyant but that they have hit a permanently

high plateau now and will remain on that plateau indefinitely into the future. Things are good. That was in October 1929. After the crash, share prices went to one-tenth of what they were when Professor Irving Fisher, a leading American economist, made that statement. We have a lot of economists and we have the Treasurer telling us the same things now, but there is not an intelli-gent commentator in the country who does not realise that we are floating on a specula-tive boom which will be fuelled by another $18,000 million if the government gets its way.

I represent an area called the Gulf of Car-pentaria, known as the Gulf Country. The Gulf Country, the mid-west and the central west of Queensland—if you like, all of out-back Queensland—is a huge black soil plain, the richest soil on earth. Except for three or four farmers, a plough has never been put into any part of that magical landscape. I think most people in this place are aware that half of Australia’s agricultural production comes from the Murray-Darling Basin. It comes off a tiny 22 million megalitres of water. We have 126 million megalitres of water flowing over Queensland’s inland plain. It is so flat that you can easily bring the water back to irrigate the whole of that plain. That is just the plain; there is more land available. It is a thousand kilometres long and 600 kilometres wide. On the ex-perience of the Murray-Darling Basin, you can feed a population of 70, 80 or possibly 100 million people. It can grow you ethanol to fuel your motor cars.

We could fill up our motor cars at a price of 70c. The price at the bowser in Brazil for ethanol, as I speak, is between 68c and 72c a litre. They are filling up their cars right now for 70c a litre. I have not got time to go into why, but the Australian government gets more money out of an untaxed ethanol indus-try than it does out of a taxed petrol industry.


CHAMBER

By the way, this country is running out of fuel, but our supplies are quite safe: they come from Indonesia and the Middle East. You can get the figures from ABARE or Geoscience Australia, the old BMR, and you will see that over the next four or five years we will drop down to about 30 per cent self-sufficiency—we have to date been on about 95 per cent self-sufficiency. This will be one of the most oil-poor countries on earth, and there is not one single program being under-taken by the federal government to address this looming crisis in Australia. In fact, we are paying $1.20 at the bowsers now, which is almost twice what Brazil is paying, and all we get from people on the government side of the House is a thousand reasons why they cannot mandate ethanol. Don’t they look criminally stupid now!

Last week President Bush said that 75 per cent of America’s fuel will come from etha-nol. He also mentioned electricity, but I will not go into the reasons why electric powered motor cars have very limited usage. Seventy-five per cent ethanol is what the President of the United States said. How stupid do these people look! We hear the National Party say-ing that they are in favour of ethanol. I am in favour of motherhood too. What they do not realise is that such comments just anger the people. They are the government. The reason Mr Beattie is collapsing and has at this stage no hope whatsoever of winning the next election in Queensland is that he keeps say-ing, ‘I’m going to fix this up.’ We are not interested in him saying, ‘I’ll fix this up.’ All we know is that we have a law that allows us turn our taps on for two hours a day to water our lawns. We have no water. We know that our power is flicking on and off. They cannot deliver electricity, they cannot deliver water and they cannot deliver doctors in hospitals.

With a tiny bit of that money—a thousand million dollars—and some legislative effort by the state and federal governments we can

deliver to you just in the Gulf alone an etha-nol supply. But I am sure that the member for New England is going to tell us rightly about how ethanol can be produced in his areas. Whether it is produced in his areas or our areas, it is now absolutely naive to talk about 10 per cent ethanol—we are now talk-ing about 50 or 60 per cent ethanol. The Americans are talking about 75 per cent, and they have a limited resource. They cannot go into the Gulf Country and open up half a million or a million hectares of land to irriga-tion. They have irrigated everything they can irrigate in the United States.

For those in this place who are of a Greens bent, what are we doing with that huge plain in inland Queensland? All of western Queensland is in a huge black soil plain. I will tell you what we are doing with it. We are growing the prickly acacia tree—a weed. The prickly acacia tree has taken over six million hectares of that plain. It has de-stroyed all native flora and all native fauna, and of course it has also destroyed any chance we had of making a quid out of that land from cattle or sheep. Those trees stand as a monument of shame and disgrace not to the people of this nation but to the way this nation has been governed.

We could build a hundred patrol boats. We are a tiny little country. We are Europeans. We live in an area where people call them-selves Asians and they are very reluctant to accept us as Asians. Let us face it: we look different. In the last war we believed that the British would come and save us if we got into trouble, if we got attacked by the Japa-nese. Their contribution was 12 fighter planes. To put that in perspective, the British were producing 2,000 combat planes a month and they gave us 12 when the Japa-nese were at Kokoda.

We can build a hundred patrol boats with guided missile capacity, with interception


CHAMBER

capacity, with helicopters with radar, and we can defend our country, we can defend our island. We can also by so doing deliver to Australia a manufacturing industry, and to hell with free trade agreements—the Ameri-cans treat them like dirt. Those boats should be built in this country and create for Austra-lia secondary and tertiary industry, which we also desperately need. That is what that money could and should be doing. We do not want to sell Telstra. The most important thing is that it stays in government and Aus-tralian hands. (Time expired)

Mr WINDSOR (New England) (11.10 am)—It is great to see the member for Ken-nedy back in the parliament in full health and firing on all chambers. I am delighted to speak to the Future Fund Bill 2005. I am pleased to see the member for Goldstein at the table. The member for Kennedy made a number of comments in relation to agricul-ture, alternative energies, the use of land and water resources et cetera. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the member for Goldstein, should be able to make some positive contribution on those topics drawing on some of his former lives. I congratulate him on his appointment as a parliamentary secretary and wish him well.

There are a number of comments I would like to make on this legislation, particularly on the word ‘future’. The member for Ken-nedy talked about some alternative uses for the money from the Future Fund to guarantee the future of this nation. A lot of the debate has been predicated on some of the issues that have been raised, not the least of which being the ageing population, raised by the Treasurer, Peter Costello. They are very real issues that policy areas should look at. I con-gratulate the two previous ministers for age-ing, Julie Bishop and Kevin Andrews, for the work that they have done, particularly in recognising some of the regional problems

with ageing and health care through the mul-tipurpose service models and other models. I hope the new minister embraces some of the logic they were adopting in relation to our current ageing people. Obviously the debate of the future is how we are going to fund a lot of those things.

It strikes me that the Future Fund may be one of those things that was dreamt up in a bit of a rush when there was a policy vac-uum. It is a bit like the alternative TAFE ar-rangements that have been put in place. It sounded like a good idea at the time and now we are developing the infrastructure and the reasons for having it. I hope that is not the case. If you look at the logic of the Future Fund, the object of the legislation, as I un-derstand it, is to strengthen the Common-wealth’s position in the provision of Public Service superannuation in the future. That sounds well meaning and, in most cases, seems quite prudent; but, if you look behind that, what is it going to cost us? There are estimates of it costing $90 billion over a long period of time. On an annualised basis it is going to cost us something like $4 billion, which is a relatively minor proportion of the overall budget—about two per cent.

The explanatory memorandum contains a lot on the potential to lift this fund above $18 billion. If the sale of Telstra goes through, there is talk about transferring a portion or all of the funds from that sale into the Future Fund. When you look at those two things together, the information that I have been able to glean—and it is no secret to anybody else—is that the annual earnings from Telstra are in the vicinity of $4 billion. The reason behind creating the Future Fund is that our annual pay-out is in the vicinity of $4 billion. I guess the member for Goldstein or some-one else will inform me later on that there is an escalating platform there and that it could get out to about $7 billion on an annualised basis. We can all argue about the figures. But


CHAMBER

it seems to me that we are really debating a reason to park the funds of Telstra. That is what this debate is about. It is dressed up as the Future Fund. I do not condemn the gov-ernment for wanting to put away money for the future. A lot of what they are talking about is how we develop infrastructure into the future. I would like to spend some time talking about how some of this money should be spent, as the member for Kennedy did.

When you predicate it on the sale of an asset, telecommunications, that is the most important piece of infrastructure in this cen-tury, particularly in a country of this geo-graphic size, with the need for regional and rural people to be able to access that tele-communications and with the positive impli-cations that that can have in the education of these people, the delivery of health services to them and the delivery of parity in their being able to compete with our city cousins and internationally, it becomes very impor-tant that we do not sell Telstra.

I believe that a political path could be adopted, even at this stage, to reverse the legislation for Telstra’s sale. Many people in the National Party, particularly Senator Nash, have been saying in recent weeks—since the defection of dear Julian—that they are going to reconsider how they vote on coalition is-sues. It is obvious to me that here is a classic example. If these people are saying that they are representative of regional and rural Aus-tralia, that they are their voice, that they rep-resent seven million people and that they are required because one party will not do it—you need the National Party—here is a clas-sic opportunity for that party to stand up for these people. All the surveys done on this issue indicated that over 90 per cent of coun-try people and over 70 per cent of city people were against the sale of Telstra.

If this party has any reason for being, it should introduce and/or support legislation in the Senate to reverse the sale of this piece of infrastructure. If the argument is that we need the money for unfunded liability et cet-era, just look at the earnings of this business. Even if you want to forget about the future contribution of this infrastructure to the na-tion by way of the parity factors that I talked about earlier, you cannot deny that it gives people the one thing that negates distance as a disadvantage when they are living in coun-try Australia.

If this government or any other govern-ment believes that a fully privatised opera-tion such as Telstra is going to care about people who are not in the profit band of their business, they are kidding themselves. The government says, ‘We’ve put in place certain guarantees.’ The President of the National Farmers Federation and the next National Party candidate for the seat of Gwydir, Peter Corish, said very strongly that the National Farmers Federation had been given—and the member for Goldstein, who is seated at the table, should have access to some of this ma-terial because he would have some very close links with the NFF, given his past with it—an assurance in legislation that on the sale of Telstra there would be parity of ac-cess and price with telephone and broadband services for country people.

No-one in this parliament—from the Prime Minister down, including the minister responsible for this legislation in the Sen-ate—can give that assurance. Maybe the minister who is replying to this legislation can. Show us where it is in the legislation. Where is the legislative guarantee that future services such as telephone broadband and other services to country people will be guaranteed in a fully privatised telecommu-nications operation? It is not there. Twice in this parliament I have asked the Prime Min-ister and other ministers about this. They are


CHAMBER

ducking and weaving on giving that assur-ance. I will be pleased to hear that assurance today, because whoever is replying to the bill will have time to do so.

The other issue that comes up about the Future Fund is that it seems that the market will not accept the product of the full sale of Telstra in one hit; it may not even accept it at all. The government’s view has been to cre-ate this future fund and have somewhere to park it so that it would look as though they had not rejected their own policy drive for the last decade. The government would ar-gue—I would argue it anyway—that under the current arrangements they and the tax-payer have some leverage through the politi-cal process and because of the way in which the board of Telstra is put together. Theoreti-cally that exists as long as the government retain over 15 per cent of the company, but in practice having it parked in a future fund and valued as such will remove part of the political leverage that Australian people would have with various issues that might arise in telecommunications. There is no need to sell Telstra for its proceeds to be-come part of this fund. There is no need to create a future fund as a parking bay for a piece of infrastructure that the government are just head over heels in wanting to sell.

There are a number of other issues. I want to follow on a comment that the member for Kennedy made about our future and how we fund our future energy needs. The other day the ‘President of Australia’, George Bush, made some very pertinent comments about the energy needs of the United States, those other states. The comments he made—

Mr Katter—You mean that the bush rules Australia?

Mr WINDSOR—That is a pertinent comment from the member for Kennedy. It means that the bush will rule Australia. Po-litically, it could have a much greater say

than it is having under the current auspices of the party that purports to represent seven million Australians. We will not go there at the moment.

President Bush made the comment the other day, from memory, suggesting that, by 2025, the American people would have to wean themselves off their overreliance on imported oil, particularly from the Middle East but not only from the Middle East, and that they would be driving towards 75 per cent self-sufficiency, looking at other energy sources. Ethanol, biodiesel et cetera were some of those energy sources that were men-tioned.

The Americans have woken up to our fu-ture. The Brazilians have woken up to our future. They are using other sources to de-velop fuel—the sugar industry. There is no need to wipe out the sugar industry and those communities. The same industry, the same efficient farmers, could be used to generate ethanol and other forms of fuel. Our farming community could be revolutionised rather than dumped as it has been in recent years by all forms of government. I am not just blam-ing this government. There has been an as-sumption out there that over time the farming community in Australia will disintegrate and we will get our food from somewhere else. We may get our food from somewhere else, but we may not get our energy.

This government has to recognise that the current policy is not sufficient to guarantee those energy needs in the future. It is almost errant in its legislative arrangements when it says that 0.83 of one per cent of our petrol and diesel needs is to be provided over a 10-year period, from 2001 through to 2010. That is the renewable energy target that this gov-ernment has put in place. It is less than one per cent of our fuel needs.

The Americans are looking—over a longer period of time, I admit—at 75 per


CHAMBER

cent over the next 19 or 20 years. Where are we? The Brazilians are increasing their etha-nol production at the rate of one Australian sugar industry a year. We are looking at ways and means of subsidising our sugar farms out of existence, and there will be consequences and social implications on those communi-ties. There are enormous opportunities for our future, and Australia should examine what it can do for itself, rather than have this overreliance on these endless free trade ne-gotiations.

You only have to look at what is happen-ing with the Australian Wheat Board. Look at the tragedy of what is occurring there. I am a supporter of the single desk, and I will support Mark Vaile on the maintenance of the single desk arrangements for the export of grain. We should look at the tragedy of what is happening there and ask ourselves: does this need to happen? Australia produces surplus grain. That is a fact. Because our economy is based on 20 per cent of our agri-cultural production being used at home and 80 per cent offshore, we have to find alterna-tive ways of disposing of that grain. That is a fact. We have to deal on a corrupt world market. That has always been a fact. The Wheat Board has been dealing on a corrupt world market. It is complicated to the extent that it has also been dealing on that market when our government has been signatory to a United Nations sanctions arrangement. That is a fact, so there is a certain complication there. But the underlying problem is that the Wheat Board has had to deal in a market-place which is in fact corrupt—and the Americans are as corrupt as anybody else in that marketplace—and everybody knows those facts.

How do you get around that? Obviously, you keep being corrupt and deal in a corrupt market and try to get the best deal, albeit the most corrupt, within the market so you can sell the product for the Australian farmer. Or

do you look at alternatives for that use—alternative markets, if they are not available because you are not corrupt enough to access them? That is a problem. What else could you do? I wonder whether you could look at alternative uses for that grain. What could you do with that grain? What are other coun-tries doing with that grain, instead of export-ing it on the food market? Some of them are converting it into energy.

On average, we export about 16 million tonnes of wheat a year. That is a significant problem and it needs significant marketing. Ten per cent ethanol in our fuel—in theory, at least, because it would not all come from wheat—would take half of that. Fifty per cent of our exports of grain that we have to sell on this corrupt market and then buy on another corrupt market—both of which are controlled offshore—could be used to pro-duce energy for 10 per cent usage in our fu-els. Then you get into the biodiesel argu-ments, issues et cetera and a whole range of other energy arrangements, including wind and water. If we went to 20 per cent, there would be no need to take this grain offshore. There would be no need to ruin the sugar industry.

These are government policy decisions that can be made at home about our future, about how we are going to fund the lifestyles of all Australians, particularly regional Aus-tralians. We seem so preoccupied with hav-ing to produce something, take it out into the world market, take what they give us and then say ‘thank you’. Australia should be looking further than that, in my view. Coun-try Australia can lead the charge on those issues. We have some very pathetic people who argue in the Senate, as they do, that 0.83 of one per cent as a renewable energy target over 10 years is acceptable and in their words ‘will generate an industry’. They are dreaming. I think that the castle is one of the great Australian dreams. If they believe that


CHAMBER

0.83 of one per cent is a renewable energy target that they should be proud of, they are absolutely dreaming.

One other issue is taxation. It is very im-portant to our future. Sustainability of water resources is very important to our future. What is happening with the Namoi ground water issue at the moment? The member for Goldstein will be well aware of this. To their credit, the Commonwealth government, the state government and the water users of that ground water area that has been overallo-cated are moving to a sustainable arrange-ment. An adjustment fund was put in place. It was funded three ways: Commonwealth, $50 million; the state, $50 million; and the industry, $50 million. It is a very worthy pro-ject with laudable future objectives of sus-tainability and compensating those who are impacted by the change in the short term.

The Commonwealth government and the Prime Minister have written to me recently and have said that the Commonwealth will be taxing the state contribution, the Com-monwealth contribution and any contribution made by the growers that can be assessed in relation to that issue. It will be assessed as income. Compensation to bring an environ-mental oversight from the past into a sustain-able future is going to be taxed. I think that is a disgraceful thing that this government has done. (Time expired)

Mr PEARCE (Aston—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (11.30 am)—It is my pleasure to sum up the debate on the Fu-ture Fund Bill 2005. It may be worth while reminding the House, given some of the sub-ject areas that we have just heard about, that this bill is actually about the Future Fund. I think it is standing order No. 76 that goes to relevance of debate in the chamber, and that is focusing on the bill before the chamber.

The government’s Future Fund policy is a fundamental part of the government’s sound

economic and budget management. We have been able to take a decision to create an asset fund which will alleviate part of the burden on future generations. This has come about because we have done the hard yards getting the budget into surplus and paying down the massive debt that we inherited from Labor. It is easy to be complacent about this achieve-ment, but it is worth bearing in mind that the reduction in public debt has freed up over $5 billion per year in interest payments, which we have been able to redirect to higher prior-ity areas such as health, national security and education.

In much the same vein, the creation of a Future Fund is a further strengthening of the government’s balance sheet. By building an asset and allowing it to grow over time, we will be able to better meet the challenges of an ageing population without putting the budget into deficit. There is no lessening of budget flexibility, since contributions to the fund will be made from realised surpluses. All the Australian states, as well as a number of other national governments, have taken steps to fund their unfunded superannuation liabilities. It is therefore quite interesting to hear opposition members claim that we should not be worried about funding our li-ability. Having reduced debt, it is entirely logical to focus our attention on the largest liability on the government’s balance sheet.

The proposed amendment from the mem-ber for Melbourne seeks to take the proposed governance arrangements for the Future Fund but have the earnings of the fund used to fund infrastructure. This proposal ignores the fact that the governance arrangements for the Future Fund have been particularly de-signed with the purpose of the Future Fund in mind. The bill creates an independent board who will be fully responsible for in-vesting the fund to maximise long-term fi-nancial returns. It will do this without inter-vention from government about its invest-


CHAMBER

ment decisions. By contrast, under the pro-posed amendment, the board will be hit up for money on an ad hoc basis to fund as yet unnamed projects. How could it be expected to run a sensible investment strategy under such a scenario? Who would want to be on such a board? The proposed amendment at-tempts to have a bob each way with ill-conceived governance arrangements and will still leave us with an unfunded superannua-tion liability of $140 billion in 2020.

The bill contains sound governance ar-rangements which have been modelled on those in other pieces of legislation, such as the Corporations Law. The Future Fund Board of Guardians will be statutorily re-sponsible for one thing only: to maximise long-term returns consistent with interna-tional best practice for institutional invest-ment. They will be guided by an investment mandate from the responsible ministers, which addresses the key issues of risk and return. Beyond this high-level guidance, which is a hallmark of any investment ar-rangement, there is no intervention by the government.

The board will be fully accountable for the investment arrangements and the per-formance of the fund. The accountability arrangements for the board will be of the highest order. They will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and be open to in-quiry by the Australian National Audit Office and there are provisions in the bill which go further. For instance, under section 24 of the bill, the board will be required to formulate a range of policies which they will have to make public. They will provide up-front as-surance about how the board will operate.

Unlike in the proposed amendment from the member for Melbourne, which would see the fund open to intervention, the Future Fund will be a locked box. The bill makes it very clear that the fund can be used only for

a particular purpose and only once an inde-pendent actuary has verified that funds can be withdrawn. The fund will be safeguarded, since the bill says that no money can be drawn from the fund until 2020 or when the liability has been fully funded. This safe-guarding means that a future government cannot get its hands on the fund without abolishing the legislation. This is the same arrangement that has been adopted in other countries, such as New Zealand and Ireland.

In conclusion, the Future Fund represents a sensible approach to dealing with future fiscal pressures. The proposed arrangements are soundly based and will withstand the test of time. I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate, and I com-mend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honour-able member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General rec-ommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading Mr PEARCE (Aston—Parliamentary

Secretary to the Treasurer) (11.37 am)—by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.


CHAMBER

AGED CARE (BOND SECURITY) BILL 2005

Cognate bills:

AGED CARE (BOND SECURITY) LEVY BILL 2005

AGED CARE AMENDMENT (2005 MEASURES No. 1) BILL 2005

Second Reading Debate resumed from 8 December 2005,

on motion by Ms Julie Bishop: That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Reid) (11.38 am)—The essential purpose of the Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005 and cognate bills is to strengthen the prudential require-ments and enhance the protections available to residents in aged care facilities who have paid accommodation bonds. These bonds are paid upon entry by non-concessional resi-dents of low-care facilities, previously called hostels, and also by residents in high-care facilities, formerly called nursing homes, which have ‘extra service’ status, as well as by some residents in multipurpose service facilities. When residents exit an aged care facility, they or their family may be eligible for a refund of part of the accommodation bond paid previously. Under current ar-rangements, if a residential care facility pro-vider becomes bankrupt or insolvent, resi-dents are not guaranteed that they will get their relevant accommodation bond amount refunded. These bills are designed to ensure that residents will, in all cases, be refunded the amount of accommodation bond that they are owed.

This was recommended by Professor War-ren Hogan in his 2004 Review of pricing ar-rangements in residential aged care. In mak-ing the recommendation that prudential ar-rangements be established to ensure the pro-tection of residents’ bonds, Professor Hogan noted that bonds do not qualify as preferen-

tial debts under the Corporations Act 2001. Currently, approximately $4.3 billion is held by residential aged care providers as bonds, with an average bond of $127,600. Sadly, this has been the only response the govern-ment has made to the Hogan report. We are still waiting for the government’s response to the long-term proposals that Hogan recom-mended. It has taken the government longer to respond to that report than it allowed Ho-gan himself to undertake the entire inquiry.

The Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005 establishes a scheme to guarantee the repay-ment of aged care residents’ bond balances if the approved provider of a residential aged care service or a flexible care service be-comes insolvent—a default event—and is unable to meet their financial obligation to repay residents’ bond balances. The Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005 will enable the Commonwealth to impose a levy on approved providers of aged care if it needs to recover its costs, including adminis-trative costs, after repaying accommodation bonds to aged care residents whose approved providers become insolvent and default. A levy can be imposed on approved providers of aged care once a cost recoupment deter-mination is made by the minister. Such a determination is made when the Common-wealth has not recouped money it has paid out in compensation to aged care residents entitled to bond refunds from a defaulting approved provider or when the Common-wealth wants to recover associated adminis-trative costs. The bill does not actually im-pose a levy. Instead, the rate of any levy will be determined by regulation. The rate cannot exceed the cost recoupment determination amount in any particular case. While any levy imposed may apply different rates to different classes of approved provider, it cannot discriminate between providers on the basis of their location in a particular state or part of a state.


CHAMBER

The Aged Care Amendment (2005 Meas-ures No. 1) Bill 2005 contains a number of measures and includes the aims of ensuring that residents of flexible care services are afforded the same protections as residents in residential aged care services, putting in place a set of prudential standards, ensuring that interest is repaid to the estate of a resi-dent for the period between the death of the resident and the repayment of the bond, changing the time frame for repayment of a bond to the estate of a deceased resident and, finally, reducing the time frame in which a bond must be refunded in the event of a resi-dent leaving a facility or if the resident dies. This bill will enable the strengthening of existing prudential requirements related to accommodation bonds, especially in relation to liquidity, record keeping and disclosure. These new prudential requirements will be developed over time and will be subject to review.

While Labor will support these bills, we are concerned at the way in which the How-ard government has chosen to manage—or mismanage—aged care. This is evidenced in the comments made by Professor Hogan that Australia’s aged care system is stuck in a Stalinist time warp. I can say from my own experience that Professor Hogan is not one for extreme language, yet he has publicly stated that the government’s system for ad-ministering nursing homes has its basis in Moscow’s planning offices of the 1920s. Professor Hogan has called for ‘a compre-hensive revision of aged care legislation’. The Minister for Ageing must acknowledge Professor Hogan’s and the sector’s concerns and get on with the job of ensuring the sec-tor’s future. The aged care industry and the community have been saying for years that the government’s quick fix policies are put-ting enormous financial pressure on the aged care system, yet the former minister has re-fused time and time again to acknowledge

the problems in administration and accom-modation.

The Howard government is failing to de-liver the aged care services needed for our ageing population, with a shortage of over 9,000 aged care beds across the country. There are thousands of frail elderly who can-not find a nursing home bed because of the Howard government’s failure to ensure promised aged care beds are actually built. After 10 long years, the Howard government has not faced up to the aged care bed crisis in Australia. Every week we hear from families desperate to access an aged care bed for their loved one and the waiting lists, especially for high care, are getting longer and longer. When the Howard government came into office there was a target of 90 residential aged care beds for every 1,000 people aged 70 years and over. As at June 2005, there was a shortage of 9,275 aged care beds against this target—a target the government set. In-stead of fixing the problem and meeting this target last year, the Howard government qui-etly lowered the target to 88 residential aged care beds for every 1,000 people. It lowered the target—I do not think that is a new solu-tion to the problem. Even against its own reduced target, there is still a shortage of 5,500 aged care beds across the nation.

The Productivity Commission reported that, in 2005, 30 per cent of people requiring nursing home care had to wait more than three months to get a bed, which was up from 15 per cent in 2000—in other words, the problem had doubled. The national short-age of 9,275 aged care beds understates the severe shortages in some regions. The Pro-ductivity Commission’s recently released report Australia’s health workforce high-lights the significant shortage of nurses and care workers in aged care. The report noted: There have been longstanding concerns about the size, skill mix and availability of aged care work-ers—particularly in regard to nursing staff. A


CHAMBER

number of recent reports have reinforced these concerns. For example, the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into Nursing identified aged care as the area of nursing in greatest crisis, with the acute shortage of nurses having led to increased use of unregulated workers, to the det-riment of quality of care.

The recently released unanimous report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Quality and equity in aged care also noted that delivery of quality care was under threat from the retreat of both regis-tered nurses and enrolled nurses from the aged care sector. The Productivity Commis-sion report comes on top of myriad other reports that highlight the workforce crisis in aged care, and the Minister for Ageing has yet to engage with the sector to come up with serious solutions.

The government must provide the com-munity with confidence that their loved ones are being cared for by sufficient and appro-priately qualified care staff who are happy to work in the aged care sector. In the 2002-03 budget, the Howard government increased residential aged care subsidies by $211 mil-lion over four years to assist employers of aged care workers to provide for increases in wages and improved workplace conditions. In 2002 the wages gap between nurses work-ing in residential aged care and those work-ing in the public sector was $84.48 per week nationally—a significant difference. In the 2004-05 budget, the Minister for Ageing an-nounced an extra $877.8 million over four years through a conditional adjustment pay-ment to improve the financial position of aged care providers and allow them to pay more competitive wages to staff. The wages gap in 2005 was $191.83 a week. The prob-lem is that there was no mechanism to ensure that this funding of nearly $900 million was actually passed on in wages so that we can recruit and retain nurses and care workers in an area that is struggling to keep them. Most

of this money has gone not to nursing staff but to the providers themselves.

If this government were really serious about the provision of quality care for older Australians, it would make a commitment to increase the number of undergraduate nurs-ing places. There are plenty of people want-ing to undertake nursing but patently insuffi-cient places for them. Figures from the Aus-tralian Vice-Chancellors Committee showed that 2,716 eligible nursing applicants missed out on an undergraduate nursing place last year. That represents 20 per cent of those interested in getting into the sector.

With the release of yet another workforce report highlighting the significant shortages in aged care, it is now time for this govern-ment to take immediate action so that older people in Australia receive the care they de-serve. And when we speak of immediate ac-tion we are not saying that the government’s current method of importing skilled staff and undermining the nursing education systems and the availability of nurses in Third World countries is a solution—that is precisely not the solution.

In 10 years the Howard government has failed the grade in aged care. There is a ma-jor lack of infrastructure and long-term workforce planning, and the government’s lack of investment in future needs and, most critically, its inability to collaborate with state and territory governments have led to this crisis. Every day sees thousands of frail elderly in acute hospital beds because there are no places for them in residential care. The states and territories bear the cost, peo-ple who need hospital treatments must wait and the elderly themselves do not get the type of care and environment they need and deserve. This is an issue Labor has consis-tently raised. It was one of the key drivers of Medicare Gold, which offered a real solution to the problem.


CHAMBER

This issue of what is called ‘bed block’ is so central to the problems confronting our hospital system that it was addressed head-on in the Podger review. We understand that Andrew Podger’s solution was very similar to Medicare Gold, which presumably ex-plains why his report has been condemned to the backblocks. However, as a consequence, the issue of bed block and the need for the Howard government to meet its responsibili-ties and provide more aged care beds to get the frail elderly out of hospital can no longer be ignored by the Prime Minister, the Minis-ter for Health and Ageing and the Minister for Ageing—or even the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Administration. So it will be on the table to be addressed at the COAG meeting next week. We await the outcome of COAG’s deliberations, as do anxious families of those elderly patients around the country who have been unable to find suitable accommodation.

Labor will support sensible proposals which are fair and which seek to relieve the pressure on the aged care system through access, quality, affordability and sustainabil-ity. As such we will support this legislation. However, we believe that legislation of this impact should be properly examined and scrutinised, and so we will move in the Sen-ate to have these bills referred to committee for consideration.

Dr EMERSON (Rankin) (11.50 am)—The Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005 and cognate bills aim to secure accommoda-tion deposits by surrounding them with some accountability and prudential requirements. The way it works is that, in the unfortunate event that a nursing home was to become insolvent, the Commonwealth would step in and ensure that the accommodation deposits were refunded to the families of the resi-dents. That is a welcome move because it does provide greater security for those de-posits, and it is a reflection of the report pre-

pared by Professor Warren Hogan, Review of pricing arrangements in aged care.

Professor Hogan dealt with the issue in a broader context, however. That context is his support for accommodation deposits for high-care residential accommodation. I, too, support accommodation deposits for high-care residential care, subject to a number of qualifications that I will spell out. There have been very long and acrimonious debates about this matter in the past. I think we need to move on and look again at the question of accommodation deposits for high-care resi-dential care because, as is so often the case, under the current arrangements it is the poor who are disadvantaged by the absence of such arrangements.

However, to put the entire debate into con-text it is worth looking at the Intergenera-tional report prepared by Treasury in 2002 and also the Productivity Commission’s ma-jor report on the economic implications of the ageing of the population. Both of those reports show that we have a very substantial problem on our hands in terms of the eco-nomic impact of the ageing of the population of this country. It is projected that by the mid-2040s Australia will have an extra four million people over the age of 65, yet just a few hundred thousand extra young people. So the profile of our population will defi-nitely be greying. That presents major chal-lenges for Australia, which need to be ad-dressed now, before we get to an absolute crisis. I assert that we are already in crisis on aged care accommodation.

To give perspective to the dimension of the problem in aged care, in these reports it is projected that government spending on aged care as a share of gross domestic prod-uct will more than double in the coming 40 years. Furthermore, it is projected that the number of older Australians in high-care residential aged care alone will increase from


CHAMBER

fewer than 100,000 in 2003 to 337,000 in 40 years time. That gives us an idea of the size of the challenge. But the government is not preparing us for the challenge. It is finding the whole area of aged care too hard—almost too hot to handle. As a consequence, we are confronted with the reality, as laid out by the shadow minister, Julia Gillard, of cost-shifting from the Commonwealth to the states. Instead of taking its responsibilities for aged care seriously and accommodating older people who need high-care accommo-dation in such facilities, the Commonwealth is leaving people who should be in aged care facilities in hospitals, which takes up very scarce acute-care beds in our hospitals. That might be all right for the Commonwealth, because it shifts much of the cost onto the states. But it is not any good at all for older Australians themselves, it is not good for the system and it reflects the fact that we do not have in place in this country a comprehen-sive and fair aged care system which antici-pates the very real problem of the ageing of the population.

What is happening is that queues are forming. Again, the shadow minister pointed to the size of the queues. This problem has doubled in just the last few years. Whenever we have a situation of queues, whether in aged care, health care or just about any other walk of life, if you examine who is in the queues you find that, most often, it is not the wealthy. Poor people occupy queues, be-cause wealthy people have the capacity to buy their way out of a queue or jump to the front of the queue. Labor in particular should be very concerned about queueing. Of course, the coalition should be concerned too, but, because it is often the poor who are in queues, we find that the coalition is less concerned about that. We should be con-cerned about the formation of ever-lengthening queues and take remedial meas-ures.

I would like to provide a bit of back-ground about the current arrangements. My professor of old—I will not call him an old professor—Warren Hogan at the University of Sydney alludes to a heavily centrally-planned aged care system. It is ironic that another eminent economist, Professor Max Corden of the ANU, described our university regulatory system as ‘Moscow on the Molonglo’. So we have two eminent profes-sors describing government systems for aged care and education as ‘central planning at its worst’. And I have to agree. That might seem a little odd coming from a Labor member of parliament, but it is true. This government feels that it has to centrally control the provi-sion of aged care and our university system. The government does not let the market play a role in creating the fairer and more afford-able system that could prevail if it were to let go of the controls at least a little.

Under the current very complex system, there are two types of charges in residential aged care facilities: accommodation pay-ments and daily care fees. Accommodation payments are designed to help provide a stream of capital for operators to build and maintain aged care facilities, while the daily care fees are a contribution to the running costs of these facilities. Accommodation payments can take the form of deposits—formerly known as bonds—for low-care places but, as a result of government legisla-tion, they are banned for high-care places. In high-care facilities, where accommodation payments are banned, accommodation charges can apply, but they are limited to a maximum charge of just $16.25 a day. So it does not take too much thinking to work out that there is a shortage of funding for the accommodation part of high-care residential aged care. The running costs are covered by daily care fees. Whilst there are limits on those fees, the limits are higher, and there-fore there is less of a problem with the run-


CHAMBER

ning of the facilities but a big problem with the construction and maintenance of high-care residential aged care facilities. There are exceptions to these rules in two circum-stances: firstly, up to 15 per cent of high-care residential places can be what are called ‘ex-tra service places’, for which accommoda-tion payments are allowed; and, secondly, when someone enters a low-care facility and pays an accommodation deposit—where they are allowed by law to do so—and then moves to high-care residential aged care, they can carry the accommodation deposit with them.

I think people who are listening to this contribution will begin to understand the absurdity of the situation. There cannot be any philosophical basis for banning accom-modation deposits in high-care facilities when they are allowed in low-care residen-tial aged care and in extra service places. I would be interested in hearing the govern-ment explain what the philosophical basis for this prohibition is, because there cannot be such a philosophical basis.

The accommodation deposits being pro-vided for low-care residential facilities are being used to cross-subsidise the construc-tion and maintenance of high-care facilities. People who enter low-care residential aged care are effectively subsidising those in high-care accommodation, including people on low incomes in low-care residential facilities cross-subsidising people on high incomes in high-care facilities. So we have the ludicrous situation where, under the current arrange-ments for residential aged care, the poor are subsidising the wealthy.

Around 65 per cent of residents in resi-dential aged care have high-care needs, yet the Commonwealth has been approving al-most twice as many low-care beds as high-care places. So it is beginning to become clear that there is something stuck, and that

is a result of this central-planning approach of the Commonwealth. The needs are in high-care residential care, yet the govern-ment has been approving twice as many low-care places. The reason for that is the prohi-bition on accommodation deposits in high-care residential aged care.

There was a big debate about this between 1996 and 1998. The argument used in that debate against accommodation deposits for high-care places was that moving into a high-care residential facility from a low-care facility is traumatic enough without being required to sell your home. That was in the days when low-care facilities were really hostels, and they did not have much of an aged care component to them. They were really like secured premises with not a lot of aged care services provided. Now, several years later, much more commonplace is the situation where low-care and high-care ser-vices and facilities are provided on the same site. That is why it is permissible for people who enter a low-care facility to be able to carry their accommodation deposit into a high-care facility. So it is not as if there is this huge traumatic disruption as they move from one facility to another, because com-monly now the facilities are on the same site. They may move from one building to an-other, or they may move even move from one room to another. So the arguments that were carried back in that period have been overtaken by a change in the way that aged care accommodation is provided in this country.

There are already protections in place in relation to the argument about the added trauma of selling the family home in moving from low-care to high-care accommodation. For example, accommodation deposits can-not be levied where the resident has a spouse, relative or other carer living in the resident’s former home. Also, there is an as-set limit such that people who are very poor


CHAMBER

cannot be forced to pay accommodation de-posits. These restrictions are designed to en-sure that a prospective resident in an aged care facility is not forced to sell a home where it is occupied by a spouse, relative or friend who has been providing care in recent years.

So we have this situation where the Commonwealth of Australia is saying, ‘We are applying by law a limit to the quality of aged care that high-income earners can buy.’ Imagine the furore if the Commonwealth government passed legislation banning the provision of five-star hotel accommodation in Australia on the basis that it is unfair to allow people who have the income, who have the wealth, to buy five-star hotel ac-commodation in Australia. People would regard that as absolutely absurd. Yet that is exactly the situation that applies in residen-tial aged care, where the Commonwealth bans the use of accommodation deposits.

Baby boomers are beginning to retire. Many of those baby boomers are very wealthy and many of those baby boomers are willing and able to pay for high-quality aged care accommodation but are prohibited by law from doing so. Is this truly 21st century Australia?

As I pointed out, the people who really lose from this limitation on the quality of aged care accommodation that can be pur-chased by high-income earners are not the high-income earners but the low-income earners: either they are in low-care accom-modation and are cross-subsidising high-income earners in high-care accommodation or there are not enough high-care accommo-dation places because this limitation means that the industry is unable to build sufficient capacity to accommodate residents in high-care accommodation. The ones who miss out are not the wealthy. The ones who miss out

are the poor. So we need to look afresh at accommodation deposits.

I do not assert that allowing accommoda-tion deposits in high-care residential aged care will fix all the problems in the aged care sector. I do not assert that, but it is absurd that those restrictions are in place. They should be eased, but subject to a number of caveats. One of those caveats is of course that people should not be forced to sell their homes where they have a relative or some-one who has been caring for them for some time living in that home.

A very important caveat is that the pro-ceeds of this extra funding coming from wealthy people going into high-care residen-tial aged care should be used to cross-subsidise the poor, to help those poor people who are sitting in the queues trying to get decent quality aged care to get off the queues and into high-care residential aged care. That seems to me to be a fairly obvious reform that should be contemplated. The reason we are debating this legislation is that Professor Hogan effectively recommended those changes in his report and, as an interim step or as one step along the way, he wanted to provide greater security around accommoda-tion deposits in the event of the collapse of a residential aged care facility. As I understand it, there has not been any great prevalence of such collapses, but it is a prudent measure to provide that protection. But we should then be taking the next big step and look afresh at aged care accommodation deposits for high-care residential aged care places.

When the Minister for Education, Science and Training, who is at the table, was the aged care minister, she floated some other related proposals which are worth debating. They included allocating dollars to the per-son rather than to the facility. I have one qualification about that: I would prefer to see that occur such that people who are in high


CHAMBER

need or on low incomes have more dollars attached to them than very wealthy people, so I think consideration could be given to that. The minister further suggested that, in doing this, people who could be in receipt of that funding could include those associated with personal care by a spouse, relative or friend. That does raise some questions about the quality of care, but that does not mean that the issue could not be debated and con-sidered. But there is, in my view, a flaw in the argument. That is that, as a result of the proposals that the minister put up, it is likely that people will stay in their homes longer—that is fine; that is one of the objectives—but then they would move into high-care ac-commodation. Unless we solve the problem of the costs of high-care accommodation, ultimately that will exacerbate the situation, not improve it—and I see the minister is, in her own inimitable way, acknowledging this point. The minister’s solution is worth debat-ing. It is worth considering but it must be considered within the broader context of the adequacy of funding of high-care residential aged care. If people are willing and able to pay more, why would a government that purports to be in support of self-reliance pre-vent them from doing so? The Labor Party should consider these proposals because, as I said, it is the poor who lose out, we have a responsibility to the poor and we have a re-sponsibility to all Australians. This debate should continue in earnest.

Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (12.10 pm)—I welcome the Aged Care (Bond Secu-rity) Bill 2005 and cognate bills for provid-ing a commonsense and effective solution to the issue of accommodation bond security that will bring increased peace of mind to many residents of aged care facilities and their families. It is important to note that there have been no reported cases of a bond balance not being refunded as a result of an insolvency or a bankruptcy. However, it is

right that we should not rely on this state of affairs to continue and should instead pro-vide further safeguards. In such an event, one can imagine the anxiety of those residents and their relatives faced with the prospect of finding a new home. One would not want it to be compounded by doubts about the safety of the accommodation bond, which might be crucial to their financial arrangements. In-deed, it would be a grave injustice if such bonds were to be subsumed in the assets of an insolvent company. This potential injus-tice would be compounded by the growth in the value of bonds, the average value having increased from some $26,000 in 1996-97 to $127,000 in 2004-05. The total value of bonds held in 2004-05 was some $4.3 bil-lion.

Electorates like my electorate of Cowper are becoming increasingly the destination of retirees, many of whom will eventually need the benefit of some form of aged care. I shall come shortly to the very welcome measures that have been taken to help many of these retirees to live in a secure and caring envi-ronment or to stay in their homes with ap-propriate help. However, the fact remains that demand is growing and the government needs to do what it can to encourage provid-ers to invest to meet the needs of that de-mand. The measures in these bills go some way towards achieving that end.

It is entirely right, as the Hogan review pointed out, that the government has an obli-gation to ensure that the funds invested in accommodation bonds are not exposed to risk. Hogan went on to recommend that a levy be raised from care providers to estab-lish a guarantee fund held by the govern-ment. While this approach clearly provides the security required, it has the disadvantage of tying up funds that could be used to help meet that growing demand. That is why I welcome the commonsense approach pro-posed in these bills. The fact that the gov-


CHAMBER

ernment will act as a guarantor of the bond balances in the first instance and will reim-burse residents affected by a bankruptcy should provide residents with much-needed peace of mind. They need not fear that pay-ments will be delayed while negotiations take place in connection with the bankruptcy. The fact that a levy will only be imposed when required will avoid the necessity of tying up providers’ capital, capital which could be put to better use in providing more facilities.

When money is held on behalf of others, particularly those members of our commu-nity who may be frail, it is essential that those holding the bonds should manage the funds safely, effectively and openly. I there-fore welcome the strengthening of existing prudential measures which set standards with regard to liquidity, record keeping and dis-closure. The Aged Care Amendment (2005 Measures No. 1) Bill 2005 will require more information about the way that these funds are being managed—hence more security—and lessen the risk of a provider becoming insolvent or bankrupt.

These measures affect a sizeable propor-tion of my constituents. In Cowper the per-centage of people aged over 65 is double the New South Wales average. Such a statistic reflects the increasing number of people who are relocating from major metropolitan cities and from other regional areas, seeking a coastal lifestyle and retirement—a lifestyle in the most beautiful area of Australia. Of course, the sea change phenomenon is not something that has just happened over night. For years Australians have been migrating to coastal areas to enjoy their retirement. How-ever, in regions such as my own electorate on the New South Wales North Coast the real difference over the past 10 to 15 years has been the volume of people who have been moving to the coast from the cities and west-ern country areas.

This demographic migration has naturally lead to an increase in the demand for aged care services, as I noted earlier. This is where the coalition government sets itself apart from the members on the other side of the chamber. In 1996, when the coalition was elected to government, the recurrent aged care spending in my electorate was just $13.5 million per annum. When this gov-ernment came to office, local aged care fa-cilities were struggling to find beds to meet the demand for their services. There were no community aged care packages which pro-vided elderly people with the choice of re-maining in their own homes rather than go-ing into a formal aged care facility. Similarly, there were no extended aged care at home places. Under 13 years of Labor, aged care was put on the backburner and many Austra-lians struggled to access appropriate care in their retirement years.

This is an important point because the leg-islation which is before the House today is an extension of the coalition government’s commitment to providing peace of mind for older Australians. If you ask most older Aus-tralians what makes them comfortable, they will tell you that access to health care and their personal security are of paramount im-portance. These two factors are vital to retir-ees enjoying their senior years.

I will now turn to some of the achieve-ments in aged care in my electorate as a re-sult of the coalition government working closely together with the aged care sector. Since I was elected as local member in 2001, the Cowper electorate has enjoyed a very close association with two excellent aged care ministers: Minister Andrews and Minis-ter Julie Bishop, who is at the table today. My constituents welcomed both ministers to the electorate during their tenure. The aged care providers appreciated the time made available by those ministers to meet with them and discuss their concerns.


CHAMBER

The additional investment which the coa-lition has made in aged care is evident right across the region. For example, in Yamba we have seen the Caroona Hostel aged care fa-cility expanded to cope with the increase in allocation of beds. A $1 million extension is currently under construction and plans are already under way for a further $5 million expansion after a further allocation of beds this year. In Maclean, the Mareeba Nursing Home is also planning extensions and the Clarence Valley Council is providing an un-precedented number of aged care services in the homes of local residents, funded by the federal government.

This expansion has been mirrored along the Coffs Coast where extensions have been completed at the Woolgoolga and District Retirement Village, at Bellingen’s Bellorana and at the Coffs Harbour Nursing Centre. We have also seen new facilities opened by the Churches of Christ at Coffs Haven, by the masons at the Coffs Harbour Masonic Vil-lage, plus the expansion of aged care ser-vices in the home, where Mid North Coast Community Care Options are doing a fine job.

In the Nambucca area the good news con-tinues. On 22 December I was able to an-nounce that, as a result of the allocation of 60 low-care places, the Uniting Church would construct a $6.5 million aged care facility in Nambucca Heads. This facility will provide some 70 new jobs in the Nam-bucca shire. Just under a month later the fin-ishing touches were put on the Riverside Gardens Aged Care Centre, also in Nam-bucca Heads. This $5 million facility, which was the vision of Nambucca Valley Care, is in addition to the existing Riverside Gardens Retirement Village and hostel, which is one of the biggest employers in the town. I would like to recognise the commitment of Jan Fos-ter, her staff and volunteers at Nambucca Valley Care who are very focused on provid-

ing the very best possible aged care services in the Nambucca shire.

A quick snapshot of the Cowper electorate highlights what aged care achievements are being delivered in areas of need in my elec-torate. However, I would like to note that the coalition recognises that there is a need for work to continue. As we know from the Int-ergenerational report, it is estimated that by 2042 the number of Australians aged over 65 will double. Many of these people aged over 65 are moving to coastal areas. I therefore welcome the coalition government’s com-mitment to continue the roll out of aged care beds. We have increased the target number of aged care places per thousand over the age of 70 from 100 to 108 by the end of 2008, and we are on track to meet that target. Since 1996 more than 68,600 new places have been allocated. Over the next three years the coalition has committed to allocate a further 26,600 new aged care places. This is in addi-tion to the measures announced in the last budget providing some $321 million for suf-ferers of dementia and their carers and the tax-free payments of $1,000 and $600 for those receiving the carer payment and the carer allowance respectively.

There remain some areas in my own elec-torate where I believe more beds should be targeted. Without doubt the most important and most urgent area of need is in South West Rocks. South West Rocks has experi-enced huge growth over the last five to 10 years and many of the new residents moving to South West Rocks are retirees. Although the town’s aged care needs are accessed through neighbouring towns such as Kempsey, the demand for aged care services, both in the home and in aged care facilities, is obvious for the people of South West Rocks.

There is a new multimillion dollar facility planned for nearby Frederickton which bor-


CHAMBER

ders my electorate and is in the electorate of the Deputy Prime Minister and member for Lyne, Mark Vaile. Whilst the Frederickton facility will service residents in both elector-ates, I believe it should not be used as a justi-fication for withholding an allocation of aged care beds for a stand-alone facility at South West Rocks. South West Rocks is at least 30 minutes drive from the nearest existing aged care facility and approximately 20 minutes drive from Frederickton, which places a great strain on spouses when they wish to visit their partners who are residents in for-mal care. With little public transport avail-able, many elderly residents are finding it difficult to visit their partners each day. With many of the partners having restricted driv-ers licences, it makes it a very difficult fam-ily situation when being unable to regularly visit your partner of many years in care some 20 or 30 minutes away. The latest round of aged care places increased the number of beds available in the Kempsey shire, but I believe within the shire it is essential that there is a greater focus on South West Rocks. I have welcomed the cooperation and sup-port of the South West Rocks community, and I will continue to work with them to ad-dress the aged care needs within the town.

The coalition government is absolutely committed to providing quality aged care for senior Australians. It has been working very hard to address the 13 years of neglect which occurred under Labor. The Commonwealth is currently investing more than $50 million in aged care places in my electorate every year in recurrent funding. That is $50 million these days as opposed to $13.5 million just 10 years ago. The sector is now not only a deliverer of services but also a major driver of the economies in many smaller towns, further highlighting why this legislation is so important to the residents who live in rural and regional Australia and particularly along

the North Coast of New South Wales. I commend the bills to the House.

Mr MELHAM (Banks) (12.22 pm)—The Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005, the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005 and the Aged Care Amendment (2005 Meas-ures No. 1) Bill are designed to protect ac-commodation bonds held by residential aged care providers in the case of a provider be-coming insolvent. The bonds are paid on entry to low-care facilities by non-concessional residents and by some ‘extra service’ residents in high-care facilities. When residents exit an aged care facility they, or their families, may be eligible for a refund of part of the accommodation bond paid. Currently, this refund cannot be guar-anteed should a residential care facility pro-vider become bankrupt or insolvent. These bills will ensure that residents will be re-funded any of the accommodation bond they are owed.

The bills provide that the government will repay any outstanding accommodation bond balances in the case of an aged care provider defaulting. The levy bill will then allow the Commonwealth to impose a levy on aged care providers to the extent that it is neces-sary for the Commonwealth to recoup the amounts it has not been able to obtain from defaulting providers. Labor will support this legislation, as far as it goes.

However, these bills go only a small way towards addressing the critical issues con-fronting Australia’s ageing population. The government is only now coming to the table in dealing with these matters. The Hogan Review of Pricing Arrangements in Residen-tial Aged Care was concluded in 2004. The Senate Community Affairs References Committee tabled their report Quality and equity in aged care on 23 June 2005. I note that that report was unanimous. Both these documents contained numerous recommen-


CHAMBER

dations for action this government could take in reforming the aged care system in this country. Yet all we see is this paltry attempt to deal with what is rapidly becoming a na-tional crisis. The government cannot claim to be underinformed of the issues facing this sector, yet has chosen to do little about it.

The Hogan review identified a series of demand drivers. Perhaps the most critical were the demographic changes due to the increased health expectancy of older people and changes in older people’s living ar-rangements, along with their access to in-formal care. The review states on page 22:

Over the next four decades the number of older people will almost triple. Moreover, the older population will grow twice as fast as the total population during that period.

There can be no doubt that there will be an increasing demand for aged care services. That demand will have to be met. Given the Hogan review’s projections in table 3.1 on page 24, which state that over the next 40 years the total cost of supplying aged care services will more than double in real terms, it will grow by 113.1 per cent. The Hogan review provides 20 key recommendations. The Senate committee report outlines 51 recommendations. This legislation before the House today deals with only one aspect of the matters in those reports.

Consider for a moment the number of aged care beds. When this government came to office there was a target of 90 residential beds for every 1,000 people over 70 years of age. As at June 2005, there was a shortfall of 9,275 aged care beds against this target. This target has since been lowered to 88 residen-tial aged care beds for every 1,000 people aged 70 and over. Even against this target, there is still a shortage of 5,500 aged care beds. Recommendation No.1 of the Hogan review stated that the government should commit to sustaining a rate of 108 places for

every 1,000 people over 70. My colleague Senator McLucas noted in her media state-ment of 21 November 2005 that it was inter-esting to consider exactly where�the shortfall occurred. For example, there was a shortfall in south-eastern Sydney of 1,496 beds yet there was an oversupply in northern Syd-ney—and there are no surprises for guessing which electorates are in northern Sydney.

I would like to outline briefly some of the areas Warren Hogan noted in his review as requiring immediate change. I do this to pro-vide a clear statement of what the govern-ment could and should be doing in relation to aged care. I have already dealt with planning arrangements. Further recommendations were made in relation to greater flexibility in allocations; increased support for aged care assessment; aged care assessment teams’ role in reassessment of existing residents; the resident classification scale; funding sup-plements; the Aged Care Standards and Ac-creditation Agency; the aged care workforce; financial assessment on entry; the guarantee fund; viability supplement; targeted capital assistance; conditional incentive supplement; comprehensive data repository; and corpo-rate information. There are an additional five recommendations focused on medium-term reform. Only one of those recommenda-tions—the guarantee fund—is currently be-ing dealt with by this House in the form of the bills today. This is an appalling state of affairs.

I would now like to turn to the key rec-ommendations proposed by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee. This report, by the way, was tabled after the Hogan review and was unanimously sup-ported by committee members. This is a con-tinuing saga of so much to do, and so little done, so many opportunities lost. For exam-ple, in recommendation No. 1, the committee welcomed the allocation by the government of an extra 400 nursing places at universities


CHAMBER

in the 2004-05 budget. Unhappily, this is short of the 1,000 places recommended by the Hogan review. One of the key issues raised by both the review and the committee was the need for increased numbers of trained aged care workers.

The committee made seven recommenda-tions to deal with the issue of lack of appro-priately trained staff for the aged care sector. There are 11 recommendations dealing with the accreditation agency, accreditation stan-dards and complaints resolution. There are nine recommendations to improve documen-tation and technology in the aged care sector. In terms of funding for aged care residents with special needs, the committee detailed nine recommendations. One of these was recommendation 32, which read:

That the Commonwealth establish a funding supplement for residents in residential aged care who have additional needs arising from mental illness.

What I find so inexcusable is the fact that there is no such supplement now. Surely, it is evident that people with special needs re-quire additional funding. There are another 11 recommendations dealing with commu-nity care programs. The committee acknowl-edged the recent funding increases in the Home and Community Care program. It fur-ther noted, however, the need for more com-prehensive levels of care and the need to en-sure sufficient funding growth to meet new demand.

The committee directed several recom-mendations to the particular needs of some specific groups. Recommendation 39, for example, focused on people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, Abo-riginal and Torres Strait Islanders, people with dementia, financially disadvantaged people and people living in remote or iso-lated areas. Recommendation 40 recognised the special needs of homeless people or peo-

ple at risk of becoming homeless as they age. Recommendation 41 dealt with the costs of providing community care services in re-gional, rural and remote areas. Finally, rec-ommendations 48 to 51 dealt with matters of transitional care.

So there we have it, a total of 20 recom-mendations from the Hogan review and 51 recommendations from the Senate Commu-nity Affairs References Committee inquiry; yet this government appears to take only one of those matters so seriously that it has intro-duced legislation to address a matter of na-tional significance. I can speak of this sub-ject with some personal knowledge—my own constituents raise these matters with my office on a regular basis. One recent example is an elderly man with emphysema who is unable to find a place locally for his wife. He is forced to travel to Croydon, some kilome-tres away, to visit her. Pensioner couples are very concerned over the low threshold of the assets test. One woman is very concerned that her savings will not last. She is required to pay an extra $16.63 per day for her hus-band, who has dementia. With the daily care fee of $28.62, this is a total of $316.75 per week in addition to the extra costs of phar-maceuticals, ancillary health and personal items. For a pensioner couple, the assets test is $61,000. This obviously does not last long at almost $320 per week in extras.

I doubt that I am the only member of par-liament who, in the normal course of a day, has concerns raised with him or her on the matter of aged care. Yet we are dealing with three pieces of legislation which deal only with the matter of prudential requirements. I acknowledge that this is a necessary part of the reform process. The Labor Party will of course support these bills. But, to coin a phrase, this is very much the tip of the ice-berg. There is so much more to be done in this area and this government has had more than enough time and input to take action to


CHAMBER

ensure that our ageing population will be cared for in the manner most appropriate to their needs. I commend the government on the start it has made in introducing this legis-lation. I can only continue to urge that now is the time for the transformation of aged care.

Mrs HULL (Riverina) (12.33 pm)—It is with great pleasure that I rise today to sup-port the Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005, the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005 and the Aged Care Amendment (2005 Measures No. 1) Bill 2005 in the House. I am very pleased to see that the for-mer Minister for Ageing is sitting in the chamber. It is very fitting; these were her pieces of legislation—and what a fantastic Minister for Ageing she was. We think that she has done more for the benefit of our resi-dents in aged care facilities and their families than any other minister has done in a long time. I congratulate her for all that she has done, and these are true and genuine con-gratulations to the former minister for having undertaken her role as a minister for aged care in such a professional and profoundly competent way.

These bills aim to continue the govern-ment’s goals to ensure that the protection of aged care residents is paramount when it comes to accommodation bonds. Already this government has made provision for peo-ple with dementia and improved training for aged care workers, and the number of aged care places continues to increase throughout my electorate of Riverina and across the na-tion as a whole. We have put in place a whole host of measures and accreditation to ensure that, when our loved ones have to enter into an aged care facility, the treatment and the service they get is of a high standard. Aged care workers are a dedicated group of people who are entirely committed to the residents of aged care homes. This govern-ment has sought to put them in a position whereby their quality assurance and protec-

tion along with the protection of the residents is highly valued. I congratulate all of those workers in the industry who are absolutely committed and dedicated to the care of our ageing and elderly Australians who have given much to this nation over their lives.

The Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005 will guarantee the repayment of aged care residents’ bond balances in the event an ap-proved provider is unable to repay residents’ bonds. Under the Aged Care Act 1997, an accommodation bond is an initial payment that an approved provider may charge a resi-dent of aged care services for entry to low-level residential aged care or to high-level residential aged care in an extra service facil-ity. Some aged care residents in multipurpose services may also be charged accommoda-tion bonds. The balance of a bond that is paid to a provider when a resident enters a facil-ity, minus certain deductions and any in-vestment returns retained by the provider, is refunded to the resident on their exit from the facility. They may decide to exit for many different reasons.

With about 74 per cent of aged care ser-vices requiring a levy bond to be paid, the effect of the security that comes with the introduction of this bill will assist many older people and in particular their families. Often it is difficult enough for an aged per-son to adapt to the prospect of having to live in a residence and to be cared for, often far away from family members and friends. Then, perhaps, they may also face losing a huge proportion of their life savings, which they have used for accommodation bonds, by not being repaid when they need the money to move into other levels of care. It certainly will be hugely reassuring to have a guarantee of this kind that their bonds will be repaid due to this legislation currently before the House.


CHAMBER

If an aged care facility in a small commu-nity closes, it is very difficult not only for family members, who face the task of find-ing new accommodation for their aged par-ent, relative or loved one, but also for aged residents, particularly when they are quite ill or frail, who are sometimes sent elsewhere. Not being able to immediately obtain much needed finances to secure other accommoda-tion is a problem that has a great impact on aged people and their families. The majority of aged care providers are absolutely com-mitted to their residents—so much so that they may keep their doors open long after they perhaps should have taken a decision to close in the interests of financial viability. They may continually use up all of their as-sets and risk their financial viability trying to come up with a way in which to continue to provide their residents with services and a facility. This is why aged care bonds become a casualty and it is how they sometimes get caught up in these issues. Of course there are some unscrupulous operators, but in the main providers of aged care services are abso-lutely committed, along with their staff. Many aged people require care because they have fallen ill or have had an accident or because their families have had to move away for job reasons and they are not able to be relocated. But to then be told that money that is rightfully theirs has gone because a provider has become insolvent would be ab-solutely devastating news. That certainly will not occur once this bill becomes law.

Many families find it difficult enough coping with their own daily pressures, let alone trying to recoup lost accommodation bonds and finding more money for a bond at another aged care facility. With an increasing average value of bonds of $127,600 in 2004-05, up from an average value of $26,000 in 1996-97, this bill is welcomed as a valuable protection when bonds need to be recovered after a resident, for any reason, leaves an

aged care facility. Currently, if a provider becomes bankrupt or insolvent, the resident is not guaranteed the return of the balance, because they are considered an unsecured creditor under the corporations and bank-ruptcy law.

If an aged care facility in the Riverina were to become insolvent, a resident would find it very difficult to find alternative ac-commodation within the region. I think this measure is long overdue. We have a long waiting list for hostel places in my region and it is a difficulty that we have been over-coming. With the help of the former minister and the government, we have been able to overcome many of those issues. I might add that when I first became the member for Riverina the major issue confronting me at almost every constituent interview was the lack of places in hostel care and aged care. Thankfully, due to the efforts of the govern-ment in overcoming the bed shortage that was inherited from the previous government, I now find that this is no longer one of the most pressing issues in my region. I certainly thank the minister and the government for the number of beds that have been allocated to our region to assist with our ageing popu-lation.

The distance between aged care facilities is greater in rural areas and this places added stress on families already struggling to deal with the daily running of their households and then perhaps also being forced to find alternative accommodation for family mem-bers. The introduction of this bill by the gov-ernment is welcomed because, with 100 per cent of bond moneys owing having to be repaid in full, the loss of a bond is a potential burden that families and residents no longer have to face. There is a feeling of security. People will take the risk of perhaps going into smaller facilities and they will not be concerned that if something happens they might lose their bond. They do not have that


CHAMBER

risk. They have the security of knowing that they will have their bond refunded in full, aside from some agreed administrative costs, and that is part of all aged care provision.

The aged population of Australia is in-creasing. It is anticipated that by 2040 those aged over 65 will represent 25 per cent of the total population and there will be one million people over the age of 85. These bills will ensure security on accommodation bonds not only today but in future years, as the need is only going to become greater.

The Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill is part of the government’s guarantee scheme in which the Australian government will pay 100 per cent of the bond balance to residents with interest in the event of a provider be-coming insolvent or bankrupt and being un-able to meet its financial obligations. This bill will mean the government is able to re-cover the total amount to be repaid to resi-dents plus the administrative costs associated with the refund and the attempt to recover from the insolvent provider.

In 2004 there were 2,493 services and 1,309 providers in Australia, which included private incorporated bodies, community based organisations, religious organisations, state and territory government organisations, charitable organisations and local govern-ment bodies. About 57 per cent of the more than 1,300 providers received bond money, indicating the wide use of accommodation bonds.

The Aged Care Amendment (2005 Meas-ures No. 1) Bill is designed to ensure greater responsibility is taken by individual provid-ers to appropriately manage and secure resi-dents’ accommodation bonds, provide certain information to residents and prospective residents about the financial viability of the provider and better inform residents, pro-spective residents and their representatives. So we will give effect to the establishment of

new prudential regulatory arrangements to improve the management of residents’ ac-commodation bonds and entry contributions. These new regulations will apply to all ser-vices holding bonds, whether they are resi-dential care services or flexible care services.

A significant change included in this bill will be to the arrangements following the death of a resident. The current 60-day pro-vision is problematic for providers if the le-gal beneficiary has not been firmly estab-lished. Under the new provisions, a provider must refund the accommodation bond bal-ance within 14 days of being shown probate or letters of administration. This will be widely welcomed by families who have the unpleasant and unenviable task of trying to settle and determine estates as trustees and executors.

In early 2005, the government announced that lump sum accommodation bonds paid by residents in aged care facilities would be exempt from the social security and veterans’ affairs assets test. From 1 July last year, an aged care resident who pays an accommoda-tion bond wholly or partly by periodic pay-ment is able to rent out their former home without the value of the home or the rental income affecting their pension. These ex-emptions apply to bonds paid by existing and new residents in aged care, regardless of when the bond was paid. For some existing residents in aged care, these changes may result in an increase in their rate of pension or their becoming eligible to receive a pen-sion.

This legislation aims to continue this gov-ernment’s goals and commitments to ensure the protection of aged care residents when it comes to accommodation bonds. It is a wel-come change to the current regulations. I commend the legislation to the House. It will provide a very fine form of security for aged care residents, those who are considering


CHAMBER

entering into a facility, and their families when they are asked to pay a bond. The leg-islation provides greater security and greater peace of mind for all the people in that posi-tion.

Mrs IRWIN (Fowler) (12.46 pm)—The Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005 and related bills comes as a welcome assurance to many older Australians. You could say that we have been fortunate not to have seen any reported cases where bonds held on behalf of aged care residents have been lost due to an aged care facility going broke. But there has always been a risk that it could happen, with dire consequences for residents who have paid a bond. With most low-care residents being required to pay a bond, the failure of a provider could leave those residents without the means to seek alternative accommoda-tion.

As we have seen with the collapse of firms such as HIH Insurance, it is left to the government of the day to compensate those who have lost out as a result of the commer-cial failure of a firm. I would think that, had a low-care provider become insolvent before this time, the government would have come to the aid of residents who had lost their bond—but not before those residents had suffered considerable anguish at the prospect of having lost the greater part of their life savings

This legislation must come as a welcome relief to all aged care residents who have paid a bond. I think most members would be well aware of the anxiety of older people when it comes to money. When their hard-earned life savings are seen to be at risk, it can be a very worrying experience. For many residents, meeting the bond payment has meant the sale of the family home or, in other cases, other family members have made sacrifices to meet the bond payment. So it is not surprising that the security of the

bond is one of the major concerns of low-care residents.

Can I say from the start that I support the concept of bonds for people in need of a low level of care. I know that some would expect that care should be provided without the payment of a bond. But, as we are all aware, with an ageing population and an increasing demand for all levels of care, the contribu-tion to the capital cost of providing care by way of a bond is not unreasonable in cases where the resident has assets over a set amount. In many cases, the former family home is no longer occupied and, depending on the circumstances of a person and their need to enter a low-care facility, it is unlikely that the resident will be returning to the fam-ily home. So it is fair that a resident contrib-ute part of the capital cost of a low-care fa-cility by way of a bond.

What also concerns me is that some low-care facilities provide less than the required number of beds for people below the asset threshold at which they would be required to pay a bond. I know that for some new low-care facilities in my electorate of Fowler, bonds provide a significant amount of the capital cost. For not-for-profit community based organisations, access to bond money enables the completion of facilities earlier than would otherwise be the case. There is a temptation to maximise bond funds at the expense of residents not required to pay a bond.

For many families of European and Asian origin, caring for elderly relatives is a serious obligation. In some cases, families have in-sisted on caring for their relatives in the home rather than placing them in a care fa-cility. Increasingly, these families see their obligation as securing a place for their rela-tive and supporting the facility that provides their care. These arrangements represent an important cultural change, but one that is


CHAMBER

seen as being in the best interests of an age-ing relative.

In and around my electorate of Fowler are a number of low- to high-care facilities spon-sored by ethnic communities. Most notable are the Italian, Chinese, Russian and Croa-tian communities. The facilities they have built are among the best examples of low-care residences for frail, aged people in our area. In every case, the community contrib-uted generously to buy the land and construct the facility. With bonds, government subsi-dies and residents’ contributions, these com-munities have developed high-standard fa-cilities, catering to the special needs of peo-ple of their own origin, as well as a number of people from other communities.

Within the Fowler electorate we have the Cardinal Stepinac Village, a Croatian low-care facility. The manager, Matt Smolcic, and his fantastic staff have built more than an aged care home. They have built a commu-nity and should be congratulated. The resi-dents celebrate events in a distinctly Croatian way and for some it is like being back in their childhood home. But the residents are also very much part of the Australian com-munity. Each year the village raises funds for charity. In past years, the village has given tens of thousands of dollars to causes such as the Canberra bushfires and the South Asian tsunami.

Facilities run by the Australian Chinese and Descendants Mutual Association and the Australian Chinese Buddhist Society provide similar links so important for older people. Just outside the Fowler electorate, we have the new Sydney West Italian Associations Hostel. We also have the longstanding Scalabrini Village facilities at Austral and Moorebank. All of these facilities provide high standards of care and all have been sponsored by community groups. They have relied heavily on the generous support of

those communities. But I would not want to give the impression that these facilities are highly profitable. It is quite the opposite. Rising costs such as workers compensation premiums have led to thin margins. The fa-cilities need the capital funding provided through bonds to expand and offer places to others in the community.

There are also privately funded facilities, such as the Blue Hills Village in the neighbouring electorate of Werriwa. In every case, as we look to expand the number of aged care places, we can expect community based facilities, as well as private facilities, to depend on bonds to fund this expansion. As bonds are turned over, their value has increased from an average of $26,000 in 1996-97 to $127,000 in 2004-05. We now have in excess of $4.3 billion held across the industry. As I said earlier, we can think our-selves lucky that so far we have not had an insolvency which has led to residents losing their bond. The consequences of such an event, when today residents are paying as much as $250,000 or more, would be disas-trous. The Commonwealth, as the authority responsible for regulating aged care bonds, would have no alternative but to make good those losses. As we have heard, the Hogan review concluded: There is an obligation on the government to en-sure these funds are not exposed to any risk of loss.

Essentially, this legislation reduces—if not totally removes—the risk of loss in the event of an insolvency. The method chosen in this legislation is a post-payment model where the Commonwealth guarantees the bond bal-ances and has the option to levy the sector to recoup any default payments paid. The gov-ernment will also meet the cost of the first three years of operation of the new frame-work. This arrangement offers the greatest security to residents paying a bond and, at the same time, is the most economical


CHAMBER

scheme for providers holding resident ac-commodation bonds. It remains to be seen if any part of the sector represents a greater risk.

For prudent providers, some parts of the aged care sector may appear to be a greater risk. However, the history of the industry so far suggests that any defaults would be rare and that the amount of levy imposed on the whole sector would reduce the amount of the levy to a point which would be manageable by all providers. But it must be said that the risk and the amount of any potential levy has not been spelt out and this uncertainty is a cause of concern to all involved in the indus-try. At any rate, the government would still provide a fallback to guarantee the funds of those people paying bonds.

Of course, even an ironclad guarantee is worthless without strict rules applying to the repayment of bonds in all circumstances. This legislation clearly spells out the obliga-tions of providers to repay bonds within cer-tain time limits. I would expect this aspect of the legislation to be strictly enforced. People in aged care are one of the most vulnerable groups in our community. They deserve the full protection of the law when it comes to what for many is their most precious asset: their aged care bond. Aged care bonds are an important consideration in the capital plan-ning for low-level aged care ventures. What presents the greatest risk, as we have seen, is that the value of bonds rises dramatically, and they have risen dramatically in recent years. The increase from $26,000 in 1996 to $127,600 last year represents a 500 per cent increase. Clearly, the sector is becoming more reliant on bonds for capital funding. That in itself definitely represents a risk. Strong prudential standards will also be a necessary part of the administration of the sector.

My concern also is that the industry will become dependent on bonds and, as we have seen with a 500 per cent increase over the past 10 years, further increases can be ex-pected. With increased demand for aged care, for those fortunate enough to own their own home in one of the major cities, we might expect the value of bonds to continue to rise. This can only exclude more and more people from much needed care. It will defi-nitely exclude people within my electorate.

While I agree that low-care bonds are es-sential, we should be looking at the upper limits of what is demanded by the sector. Where the family home cannot be sold to meet the cost of the bond, many families will need to share the high cost of meeting any debt incurred to pay a bond. In one case I came across recently, the bond asked for in a new facility just outside my electorate in the seat of Prospect was $240,000. That is a lot of money for a family to find and often they have no choice but to pay.

The situation in the aged care sector is changing rapidly, and we will continue to face pressures in the years ahead. This legis-lation sets a firm foundation for the security of aged care bonds. We now face getting the right balance between the bond, the govern-ment subsidy and the resident’s contribution. As the sector grows, these pressures will definitely need to be monitored, and we will need to constantly review the funding for all parts of the aged care sector.

Mr HENRY (Hasluck) (1.00 pm)—I am very pleased to take this opportunity today to speak in support of the Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005, the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005 and the Aged Care Amendment (2005 Measures No. 1) Bill 2005—excellent measures to address the ageing of the population; a constructive, well set out policy direction for the government under the previous Minister for Ageing. Be-


CHAMBER

fore I turn to the substance of these bills, I would like to congratulate the former Minis-ter for Ageing, the Hon. Julie Bishop MP—a fellow West Australian—for her hard work and foresight in bringing these bills to par-liament and to congratulate her upon her promotion to cabinet.

These bills will form the legislative framework of a comprehensive new system to safeguard the accommodation bonds of residents of aged care facilities. This new system will provide peace of mind for resi-dents and their families. This peace of mind will be appreciated by many residents and families in the electorate of Hasluck. These bills are a striking example of the Howard government’s commitment to the welfare and dignity of senior Australians—a growing group, of which we will all eventually be members.

The bond security bill will allow the Commonwealth government to compensate residents when their bond cannot be repaid due to the bankruptcy or insolvency of their approved aged care service provider. The levy bill allows for the subsequent recovery of those moneys, either from the defaulting provider or by way of a levy on all bond-holding providers. Perhaps most importantly, the measures bill sets out new prudential regulatory arrangements to minimise the risk of approved aged care providers becoming bankrupt or insolvent in the first place.

The decision to strengthen the protection of accommodation bonds has not come about as a result of a breakdown of the existing system. In fact, to date there has not been a single instance of a bond not being repaid due to bankruptcy or insolvency of an aged care service provider. However, as the value of accommodation bonds has increased, the Howard government, residents and aged care service providers have identified the need to strengthen these bond safeguards. The aver-

age new bond paid has increased from $26,000 in 1996-97 to $127,600 in 2004-05. This is a substantial increase, and current figures represent a significant proportion of the life savings of residents.

In light of this, the Howard government has taken the very prudent action of strengthening the safeguards provided under the Aged Care Act 1997. While these exist-ing safeguards have proved adequate thus far, the changes we are debating today rec-ognise that residents and their families should be confident that their bond balances will be paid, even if a provider becomes bankrupt or insolvent and the provider is, therefore, unable to pay in full bond balances owed to residents. Currently residents are classified as unsecured creditors and would have little expectation of recovering their accommodation bond should their aged care service provider become bankrupt or insol-vent.

The Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill will offer far greater protection to residents in the future. In the unlikely event of an approved aged care service provider becoming bank-rupt or insolvent and, therefore, unable to repay residents’ accommodation bonds, the Commonwealth government will pay these amounts. This will ensure that residents are paid in a timely fashion and are not caught up in protracted battles for the return of their money. The resident will then assign their right to recovery to the Commonwealth, al-lowing the government to act directly against the defaulting provider to recover the money.

The levy bill allows the Commonwealth government, in circumstances where the amount of the accommodation bond is not able to be recovered from the defaulting ser-vice provider, to levy other bond-holding aged care service providers in order to re-cover the funds required. The new prudential regulatory arrangements introduced by the


CHAMBER

measures bill provide for improved man-agement of bond holdings by approved pro-viders and an increase in the level of infor-mation available to residents about the secu-rity of their bonds. Providers will initially be required to comply with three prudential standards relating to liquidity, record keeping and disclosure. Compliance with these pru-dential standards will be monitored by the Department of Health and Ageing.

While protection of the individual resident is the overriding aim of this package of bills, the new prudential regulatory arrangements also recognise the growing impact of aged care services on our economy. An estimated 74 per cent of aged care services, including multipurpose services, held accommodation bonds at some time during 2003-04. The to-tal value of bonds held in 2004-05 is esti-mated to be around $4.3 billion. This already significant sum of money will only increase, as the baby boomer generation begins to de-mand aged care services. Improved financial management and performance of this enor-mous resource is vital to the viability of our aged care industry into the future and, over time, may allow government and industry to explore alternatives to the guarantee scheme offered in the package of the bills we are debating here today.

Indeed, investment in the sector will also be encouraged as a result of the new pruden-tial regulatory arrangements. On 13 Decem-ber last year, Ms Robyn Baker, a partner in the Melbourne office of Clayton Utz and a former adviser to the government in the area of health, said: The Federal Government’s new three-pronged legislative approach would not only strengthen the prudential regime under which aged care pro-viders operated but would also give greater cer-tainty to aged care residents as well as investors in the sector.

Ms Baker went on to say:

The proposals are to be welcomed as improving the regulatory environment in a sector that will be increasingly critical to Australia’s economic and social wellbeing.

The sector is really coming of age. However to encourage ongoing investment, prudential reform as the Government has proposed is drastically needed.

The Howard government has allocated $8.5 million over three years to introduce the new prudential regulatory arrangements in the industry. After this time it is expected that the cost of administration will be met by in-dustry.

I was pleased to hear these measures have been developed with extensive input from the residential aged care sector over the past year. Once again, the Howard government has demonstrated that, by working with in-dustry and consulting with residents and other stakeholders, standards can be im-proved without prohibitive costs or incon-venience. Indeed, I have spoken to aged care providers in my electorate of Hasluck and they are happy with this legislation. They are keen to see this program of reform continue to ensure the sustainability of their industry and allow them to maintain the very high standards that the government holds them to.

This new legislation demonstrates the Howard government’s commitment to pro-vide Australians with a world-class aged care system. By 2040 one-quarter of the popula-tion will be over the age of 65, with over one million people over the age of 85. Constant reform and improvement of our aged care system is vital if we are to meet the chal-lenges posed by our ageing population. The Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005 is just one plank of a comprehensive approach by the Howard government to review and re-form the aged care sector to ensure that the industry is viable, self-reliant and responsive to consumer needs well into the future. Pro-viding high quality, affordable and accessible


CHAMBER

services which meet the individual needs and choices of older Australians is a priority for the Howard government. I am pleased to say that the Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005 and associated bills do just that. I commend these bills to the House.

Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (1.08 pm)—I also rise to speak on the Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005, the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005 and the Aged Care Amendment (2005 Measures No. 1) Bill 2005. These bills are welcome and long overdue. The industry has been asking for some action in regard to prudential security for quite some time now. Sadly, having had some residents in my area affected by the loss of their bond when a nursing home changed location, I know that certain resi-dents and their families in my neck of the woods will be very happy to see this bill in-troduced. The Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005 and the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005 aim to protect accommoda-tion bonds held by residential aged care pro-viders in the case of a provider becoming insolvent.

The Aged Care Amendment (2005 Meas-ures No. 1) Bill 2005 is designed to give residents of flexible care services the same protections as residents in residential aged care services; establish a set of prudential standards; ensure that interest is repaid to the estate of a resident for the period between the death of the resident and the repayment of the bond; change the timeframe for re-payment of a bond to the estate of a deceased resident; and reduce the timeframe in which a bond must be refunded in the event of a resident leaving a facility or if the resident dies.

Labor supports these bills, subject to leg-islative committee inquiry, because it is vital to protect aged care residents who have paid accommodation bonds. Accommodation

bonds have become increasingly necessary within the low-care sector to ensure that there is capital to build necessary accommo-dation. We do not, however, see that there is a need to increase bonds beyond the low-care area. Unfortunately, whilst these bills are welcome and do good things in the pruden-tial area, they do not do anything to reverse 10 years of Howard government incompe-tence in the area of aged care.

Whilst over that time certain things have been achieved, especially when Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop was in that role, I will look with interest at the new Minister for Ageing, Senator Santo Santoro, who has been appointed to this area. Let us hope that when he is not crusading against Australia’s beloved ABC, getting involved in factional brawls and verbally abusing the whip’s clerk in the Senate, he can find the time to do something in respect of aged care. But sadly, judging from Senator Santoro’s previous political achievements—namely, losing the once-safe seat of Clayfield and making pref-erence deals with One Nation—my expecta-tions are not very high. However, having said that, I am waiting with bated breath to hear back from the senator. I did write to him in his very first week as I have a pressing problem in the aged care area.

One of my respectable providers is having his licences taken over by his leaseholder because in his lease there was a statement that said that, if he did not sign a new lease, then the leaseholder could acquire his li-cences. The poor owner of the licences is a bit befuddled by this, thinking that it was the Commonwealth department’s decision as to who gets the licences. But now that the de-partment has licensed his landlord and made him an aged care provider, it has all become quite murky. The nursing home that is home to 30 people and the oldest resident in Aus-tralia has become quite concerned about the future of the institution and the licences. So I


CHAMBER

do hope that Senator Santoro can look into this issue. I know the member for Deakin, in whose electorate the facility is located, has also approached Senator Santoro. I hope that we can have this matter resolved, as I am sure we do not want the oldest resident in Australia, the oldest living person in Austra-lia, to suddenly find herself evicted and on the street with no place to live.

It is a shame that my expectations of Senator Santoro are not high, because the Howard government’s neglect of aged care has led to a crisis which is causing unimag-inable grief and frustration for families across Australia. There is a shortage of 9,275 aged care beds across the country. Thousands of Australia’s most frail and elderly citizens cannot find a nursing home bed. Certain re-gions are being particularly hard hit. In southern Melbourne there are 730 bed short-ages; in south-east Sydney there are 1,496 bed shortages; on the Sunshine Coast there are 585 bed shortages; in southern Adelaide there are 275 bed shortages; in south-west Perth there are 640 bed shortages and in Canberra there are 386 bed shortages. In contrast, there is a huge oversupply of over 1,000 beds in two aged care planning re-gions: northern Sydney and metropolitan east in Adelaide. Interestingly, they cover the coalition held seats of Bennelong, Berowra, Bradfield, Mackellar, North Sydney and Warringah. Again, the issue of politics seems to get involved in where aged care facilities go.

The Productivity Commission’s Report on Government Services 2006 reveals the extent of the Howard government’s incompetence and negligence in aged care. According to the report, there are now 85.2 operational residential aged care beds per 1,000 people aged over 70 years. In 1995, when Labor was in power, the ratio was 92 residential aged care beds per 1,000 people aged over 70 years. This is a massive decrease and as a

result some of Australia’s most frail and eld-erly men and women have nowhere to go. They cannot get the care they need. After 10 long years, the Howard government cannot even meet its own benchmark of 88 residen-tial aged care beds per 1,000 people aged over 70 years—which it lowered, in a typi-cally sneaky fashion, from 90 in 2004. That is right—instead of fixing the problem, the Howard government simply lowered its tar-get. What a disgrace!

To make matters worse, waiting times to get into residential aged care have increased significantly. Over 28 per cent of people wait three months or more to get into a place, compared with 15 per cent in 2002. It is not uncommon for my electorate office to get at least one or two, perhaps more, phone calls per week from individuals who have been told by the hospital that mum, nanna or their great aunt can no longer stay: ‘We think she needs to be assessed. Here’s a list of nursing homes; off you go.’ It is a very daunting task for individuals to undertake; they are at the mercy of a system which they do not under-stand and which is very hard to negotiate around.

In my area of metropolitan Melbourne, where we are fairly landlocked, it is virtually impossible to build new facilities. So, unless you are in a facility, you will not get one that is close to home; you will have to go off quite a distance, so relatives cannot meet—people whom you have been friendly with for years cannot come and visit. So it is a screaming issue within my electorate. That has been compounded, obviously, with the sale of Inala Village by the Salvation Army, which is across the road from my electorate in Deakin but which is home to over 600 residents. Whilst the building has been sold to TriCare, who I believe will be undertaking to do the best they can, there is still a great deal of concern amongst the residents and their families about whether they will have a


CHAMBER

facility into the future. Because of the Salva-tion Army’s philosophy, the fees and the bonds were very reasonable, so a lot of fami-lies are very concerned about the future of all those families and what will happen. The Salvation Army’s moving out of aged care within Victoria has left a gaping hole, espe-cially for low-income earners.

For current operators within my area who operate small family-run facilities, having to be compliant by 2008 is giving them a great deal of concern, and a lot of families are very concerned about what will happen into the future. You are not about to build an aged care facility within the boundaries of Chis-holm; you just could not afford the land costs. So it does mean hiking a fairly large distance.

I want to put on record my congratulations to the Chinese social services within my area, who are in the process of building and almost completing the first ethno-specific Chinese nursing home. Again, that will not be in my electorate; it will be in Donvale, but it will certainly service a high proportion of my Chinese community. It has been a phe-nomenal effort on their behalf. I thank the government for its support—but, again, there is never enough money and the Chinese community are on the fundraising trail. I went to a fantastic concert on Saturday and enjoyed a lot of Chinese opera to ensure that they will raise the money to get beds to fa-cilitate the opening of this nursing home. So there are a lot of good things happening, but a lot more needs to be done. A lot of this is going back onto the communities to fund-raise. I find it slightly disturbing that I am having to go to fundraisers to support aged care facilities.

Community care is worse, with over 36 per cent of assessed people waiting more than three months to receive a community aged care package during 2004-05. Again,

this is a really disturbing area. It is still only about seven per cent of people who go into residential aged care. Most of them would like to stay in their own home but, if they cannot get the support and facilities to stay there, their families are under increasing pressure to find aged care facilities for them. Respite care is almost non-existent.

Senior citizens who can find an aged care place cannot feel entirely at ease. Disturb-ingly, more than 41,000 residents of aged care facilities are at risk of fire. Why? Be-cause the Howard government refused to enforce its own nursing home fire safety standards. According to recently released figures on the government’s own website, over one-quarter of homes have failed to comply—791, or 27 per cent, of aged care facilities across Australia do not meet the home fire safety standard. Once again, the government’s financial mismanagement is to blame.

In June last year, the coalition gave more than $500 million to providers to spend on necessary capital improvements to meet the new fire safety standard, but it has done nothing to ensure that these providers are complying with the safety standards. It is doing nothing to enforce its requirements for nursing home providers to install sprinklers, fire doors and other necessary fire safety equipment. There is also a severe shortage of nurses and care workers. According to the Productivity Commission’s report, Austra-lia’s Health Workforce, released this year: There have been longstanding concerns about the size, skill mix and availability of aged care work-ers—particularly in regard to nursing staff. A number of recent reports have reinforced these concerns. For example, the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into Nursing identified aged care as the area of nursing in greatest crisis, with the acute shortage of nurses having led to increased use of unregulated workers, to the det-riment of quality of care.


CHAMBER

Unfortunately, the fact that there is a wage gap of $191.83 per week between nurses working in residential aged care and those working in the public sector does not help this problem.

Apart from addressing the wage gap, the government must also invest more in educa-tion to increase the number of undergraduate nurse places. Last year 2,716 eligible nurse applicants were turned away—that is around 20 per cent of applicants. Labor believes in investing in aged care because Labor be-lieves that Australia’s senior citizens deserve to be treated with respect. It is often said amongst my Chinese community that a soci-ety is judged by how it treats its senior citi-zens. On this score the Liberal government does not have a great account. Whilst we welcome the bills and the increase to pruden-tial regulation, there is a lot more that can be done within the aged care sector to ensure that we protect those people who have gone to wars and fought off depressions to ensure that they are cared for when they most need it.

Ms ANNETTE ELLIS (Canberra) (1.20 pm)—I rise to speak on the Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005, the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005 and the Aged Care Amendment (2005 Measures No. 1) Bill 2005. In doing so I will begin by concurring with the remarks made by the member for Chisholm, the speaker immediately before me, particularly when she made the point about the need for some balanced appropria-tions towards aged care generally. These bills do what should have been done years ago. The Howard government has had nine years to get aged care right. It has taken nine years for this government to protect the hard-earned money—sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars—that some elderly Aus-tralians pay when they go to live in an aged care facility.

The legislation being debated here today is, in my opinion, good legislation. It does three important things. Firstly, it provides a scheme whereby the Commonwealth gov-ernment will repay an outstanding accom-modation bond balance in cases of aged care provider default—for example, if an aged care provider becomes insolvent and cannot repay the accommodation bond it owes to an aged care recipient. I am aware of cases where, for a short time, there was uncertainty about the ability of an aged care provider to repay an outstanding accommodation bond balance. This caused great stress to the resi-dents of those facilities.

The example of a family who had a rela-tive in Villa Lombardia in Victoria demon-strates how dangerous the current legislation is. After Villa Lombardia went into receiver-ship in 2003, the relative in this facility of whom I am speaking passed away. The re-ceivers told the family that moneys could not be found and that the family was considered an unsecured creditor. Thankfully, this turned out to be incorrect; nevertheless, the family had to wait until the facility was sold to be able to receive the remainder of the bond. I am sure we would all agree that this situation is far from acceptable. As shadow minister for ageing at the time, I said at an aged care industry conference, the ANHECA confer-ence of 28 October 2003:

I’m aware that the aged care industry is work-ing closely with the minister to resolve this issue, and I look forward to an outcome in the near fu-ture so that other families won’t have to go through the stress of the families with residents in Villa Lombardia.

It took another three years for this govern-ment to fix the problem. I do not find that acceptable—far from it. Labor has been call-ing on the government for years to address this problem and, thankfully, the government has finally responded.


CHAMBER

The second major change in this legisla-tion is that the Commonwealth government will be able to impose a levy on all aged care providers to recover the funds it has spent and has not been able to obtain from default-ing aged care providers. I am very pleased that the aged care industry has found it pos-sible to support this measure. The third ele-ment of this legislation is to strengthen exist-ing prudential requirements related to ac-commodation bonds, especially in relation to liquidity, record-keeping and disclosure. It is about time. It took the Howard government nine years to protect the hard-earned money of elderly aged care residents. I find that to be a disgrace.

One of the important changes is in sched-ule 4 of the Aged Care Act 1997, ‘Refunding of accommodation bond balances’. The leg-islation before us now forces aged care pro-viders to refund accommodation bond bal-ances with interest. Currently, if there are legal complications—or simply any undue delay—and an aged care provider retains the accommodation bond after a resident leaves or dies, they only have to repay the bond balance without interest.

I know of a case where a family estate had not received the bond balance after several years, and were not entitled to receive any interest when they eventually received the balance. This we would all agree is ex-tremely unfair, when you consider that resi-dents can be charged interest on the bond they owe to the facility from the day the resident enters a service until the day they pay that bond. That is the current provision in the act. I am pleased that, where people are leaving or passing away and no longer need accommodation at the facility, we can now have this particular issue addressed at the end of the process. It is a pity that it took so long, but I am pleased to see that it has finally been addressed.

I do not truly believe that this government fully understands how difficult it is for peo-ple to save to buy their own homes and then have this uncertainty that many of them feel, if they are in the position of having to pay a bond when they enter into an aged care facil-ity. There are still many areas in aged care that need fixing but, after nine years, I do not think I will be holding my breath waiting to see them fixed.

One major problem is aged care shortages. I particularly want to refer to my electorate of Canberra. A Productivity Commission report into government services released last week found that, compared to the rest of Australia, the ACT has the lowest number of residential aged care places, the longest wait-ing list for aged care places, and the highest level of complaints for aged care services. The current aged care planning ratio is 88 residential aged care places for every 1,000 people aged 70 years and over. That is the government’s own target. The Productivity Commission report showed that in the ACT there are 72 beds per thousand people, rather than 88. I think that is a bit of a disgrace, particularly when we know the demograph-ics in Canberra; they are pretty undeniable. We do have an increasing ageing population in this town.

The Productivity Commission report also showed that it took up to one month for 24 per cent of Canberrans seeking an aged care place to enter into an aged care facility, com-pared with 49 per cent of people in New South Wales. Furthermore, it took three months for 51 per cent of such Canberrans to enter a facility, compared with 75 per cent of people in New South Wales. Canberrans have to wait longer to get into an aged care facility, and that is not good enough. Elderly and frail people who need to go into an aged care facility should have access when they need it. The government has failed Canber-rans, I believe, on this issue.


CHAMBER

Even if the government was meeting its own target, I am not sure that all of the peo-ple who need an aged care bed would have access. Labor has been arguing for years that the ratio should have been subject to regular review over the past seven years. The How-ard government did change the ratio, by in-creasing the number of community care places—and I am very pleased about that. But what the government does not tell peo-ple, and does not make very clear in its pub-lications, is that it actually reduced the ratio of aged care beds. The Howard government has made it harder for people to get into an aged care facility.

I want to make a couple of comments about an aged care facility versus community care at home. At-home care is a very good thing and something I am very supportive of. However, families and individuals must be able to make that choice—between at-home care and facility care—confidently and con-sidering all of their circumstances. I am con-cerned to see that the ratio for aged care beds has come down, even though—granted—we are seeing an increase in community care places. I want to know why that is the case.

There will be some people out there, I am sure, who will make the right decision for all the right reasons, but there will be circum-stances—and we all know them—where community at-home care may not work for that particular family or individual. And we need to make sure, in any of the changes that occur in relation to the allocation of these places, that we really think very carefully about the impact those numbers and those changes might have on people’s ability to make those choices.

I know that there are many families out there who are really struggling, even though they are doing what they believe is the right thing in their hearts in caring for and assist-ing in the care of a relative at home. But I

want to make sure that the decision that they are making is being made on the basis of that confidence I spoke of and on the basis that they do know that they have choices.

The Howard government has not reviewed the ratio adequately since it came into power. I do not understand how the government can continue to allocate beds on an old ratio, considering the changing demographics in our society. Our population is ageing and people are living longer and are healthier until much later on in life. The ratio for the target population—that is, people aged 70 years and over—should be reviewed, as should the balance between high- and low-care places and Community Aged Care Packages—that is, at-home care. That ratio should also take into consideration the grow-ing need for dementia-specific and ethnic-specific care services. People in the commu-nity are crying out about the shortage of both community and residential places. Labor figures show that, based on the government’s ratio, there is a shortage of 386 beds in Can-berra and 9,275 residential places in Austra-lia. We can safely assume that is an underes-timate of the shortage in terms of real needs.

Let us not forget the impact of the increas-ing prevalence of dementia in our society, sadly, which will have a major impact on aged care services in the future. It will also, as I have just said, have a major impact on the ability of people to care for their loved ones at home. It is not an easy thing to do. In many cases I do not know how people man-age to do it, but they do. With the increasing prevalence of dementia come all of the stresses and the pressures we are talking about when we talk about choice, confidence in choice and access.

Another important issue I want to talk about today is the shortage of aged care nurses. Unfortunately, since coming into power, I do not believe this government has


CHAMBER

done anything significant except increase the burden for nurses in the aged care sector. Nearly $900 million of taxpayers’ money, which was given to aged care providers to pay nurses and care workers decent wages, is being spent, but we do not know exactly how, because the government refuses to mandate that that money is actually passed on to the nurses. In the 2002-03 budget, ac-cording to the budget statement, the Howard government increased residential aged care subsidies: ... by $211 million over four years to assist em-ployers of aged care workers provide for in-creases in wages and improved workforce condi-tions.

In 2002 the wages gap between nurses work-ing in residential aged care and those work-ing in the public sector was $84.48 per week nationally. In the 2004-05 budget, Minister Julie Bishop announced through the budget statement: An extra $877.8 million over four years through a Conditional Adjustment Payment to improve the financial position of aged care providers and al-low them to pay more competitive wages to staff.

The wages gap in 2005 is now $191.83 per week across Australia. It has gone from $84.48 in 2002 to $191.83 in 2005. Minister Bishop is no longer the minister—she has now moved on to another area. It is time for the new minister to develop a mechanism so that this funding is actually passed on in wages so we can recruit and retain nurses in an area that is struggling to keep them. This is in the interest of not only nurses and care workers but also providers, so that they can attract and retain quality staff.

The recently released unanimous Senate Community Affairs References Committee report Quality and equity in aged care noted that delivery of quality care was under threat from the retreat of qualified nurses, both reg-istered and enrolled nurses, from the aged care sector. The report also noted that there

had been 34 reviews of nursing in seven years. You wonder who reads these reviews in government. If this government were really serious about the provision of quality care for older Australians they would have made a commitment to seriously increasing the number of undergraduate nursing places and closing that wages gap between nurses working in aged care and those working in the public sector. We have a serious aged care nursing shortage now and the Howard government needs to take immediate action to prevent this crisis getting even worse.

I would like to refer to a young constituent of mine who came into my office just eight or nine days ago. She is a mother of five who is taking herself off to full-time university to study nursing—something I was particularly pleased to hear. She told me that she decided she would get some extra work over the Christmas holiday break to help the family budget—her husband is sick at the moment and she has five children. She got a job as a personal carer in an aged care facility here in Canberra—something that we would all ap-plaud. It is interesting: she is training to be a nurse, and we need those desperately; she tried to do work as a personal carer in an aged care facility over the holiday period, something we need desperately, but she had to stop after two or three weeks because it was financially so much to her detriment to undertake that work. The wage was so low and the impact on the family finances so great, thanks to the way the government has created these structures, that it was actually costing her money to go out and do that work. The whole thing is just a puzzle to me, and it is something that needs some serious attention.

On a more positive note, there are some really good things happening in aged care in the ACT. I want to mention one of them in particular. Goodwin Aged Care Services in Farrer in my electorate has commenced con-


CHAMBER

struction of 19 new independent living units. These units are an example, considering our rapidly ageing population, of what we need to be doing. The Goodwin aged care inde-pendent living units have been designed to comply with or exceed the adaptable housing code. This means that residents will be able to remain in those homes much longer and receive more care as they age and/or become frail. It will delay or remove the need for many of those older people to enter into those aged care facilities, given the facility that has been constructed for them now.

The units have more space for residents, who may need wheelchairs, and for their carers. There will be a call system with around-the-clock monitoring in case of emergency. The bathrooms are designed for easy adaptation as the care needs increase, and the bedrooms allow for a mechanical lifter. I commend Goodwin Aged Care Ser-vices for this initiative. The Goodwin people have a longstanding excellent reputation in this town. I have been interested in adaptable housing for several years now—it is particu-larly interesting when we are talking about housing accommodation for older Austra-lians. I believe it is the only way that we can ensure that we look after our ageing popula-tion into the future. I have a view that wher-ever possible the adaptable housing code should apply to any aged care facility or in-dependent aged housing for older folk. In fact, we should almost be mandating it, if we were strong enough to take it that far.

We had an exhibition house built in a housing development on the north side of Canberra. It was completely and absolutely adaptable. It was built in a normal housing display village, just to show people that you can construct houses with easily removable walls, lift-up or drop-down cupboard levels and all sorts of things. I think the more we move towards this model of specialised housing for older people, should it suit them,

the more we will help people and alleviate the need for people to move on.

In conclusion, I support this legislation being debated here today. I wish it had been here a little while ago, but we have it today and I am pleased to be able to support it. I know that older Australians out there who are in the position of requiring that security in a prudential fashion for their bond pay-ments will feel all the better knowing that these positions have now been adopted by the government.

Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR (Corio) (1.38 pm)—It gives me great pleasure to partici-pate in this debate here in the chamber today on the Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005, the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005 and the Aged Care Amendment (2005 Measures No. 1) Bill 2005, because aged care is an issue of serious concern to my constituents. The overall objective of this legislation is one that Labor supports, and Labor will be supporting the passage of these bills through the House.

As I said, the overall objective of the leg-islation is one that we support—that is, to provide greater legislative security for bonds that receivers of aged care services are re-quired to provide in order to access care. Bonds constitute the initial payment that residents often pay approved providers in order to access a service and are usually re-fundable when they leave the service. Be-cause bonds often constitute a significant proportion of a resident’s life savings, it is extremely important that adequate and com-prehensive protection arrangements are put in place to secure the bond payment. I be-lieve there is bipartisan support from both sides of the House for these measures; and the sooner these provisions are implemented, the better for residents and their families.

Australia does face the ageing of its popu-lation. That has huge implications for policy


CHAMBER

in a number of important areas, particularly aged care, health and housing. For example, by 2040, 25 per cent of the population will be over the age of 65. In the Geelong area—and that is the area encompassed by my elec-torate—we have certain pressures that are contributing to the growth of the aged care industry in our region. We have the internal population demographics; we have move-ments from the Western District to Geelong and the coast, and we have the sea change effect where people are moving from major metropolitan areas to the coastal regions in the Geelong area. That simply means that the ageing of the population in the Geelong re-gion is going to be a very important factor that will have to be factored into the policies that are developed at the local council level and at state and federal government level to accommodate these changing demographics in this particular part of Australia.

The City of Greater Geelong has a statistic that persons over 65 years of age constitute 15.2 per cent of the population. When com-pared with the statistics for Victoria, we see that that is a higher figure, as the statistic for Victoria for people over the age of 65 is 13.3 per cent of the population. So the situation is already there in a structural sense, and the demographics are moving in such a way that there will be a significant demand for aged care services in the future.

This has been recognised in the economic development documents that have been pro-duced in Geelong over the time that I have been the member for Corio. The Kelty task-force report, way back in the early 1990s, indicated this particular trend and the impor-tance for Geelong and its region to start planning now to accommodate an increase in the number of aged care residents and, in effect, to make it an important pillar of Gee-long’s economic development into the future.

As I understand it, well over 70 per cent of aged care providers levy bonds on resi-dents. This situation is reflected in the enor-mous growth of bond contributions in recent years. For example, in 1996 we had around half a billion dollars going into bonds but by 2004-05 that had risen to some $4.3 bil-lion—quite a staggering growth over that period. Correspondingly, there has been a growth in the average bond figure that has been paid by residents. In 1996-97, that stood at some $26,000, and by 2004-05 that had risen to $127,000. That particular bond payment forms a very important part of a person’s long-term savings, and it is appro-priate that governments and oppositions sup-port measures that are designed specifically to improve the security of the bond moneys paid by residents.

There is a very simple reason why this legislation is necessary. Under existing ar-rangements, there is not 100 per cent security for people who pay over these particular bonds. As the Minister for Ageing stated in her second reading speech: ... if a provider becomes bankrupt or insolvent, the resident is not guaranteed the return of their bond balance, because the resident ranks as an unsecured creditor under corporations and bank-ruptcy law.

Stripped back, that simply means that there is not 100 per cent security for people who put up bond money in the case of a situation where a provider goes bankrupt or insolvent. So it is important that we close off this situa-tion so that all Australians can have 100 per cent security in this matter. I know that in my electorate there are providers who would welcome this piece of legislation, and, for aged care residents and their families across the board in the community, this adds a new dimension to the security that is provided for their bonds. On their behalf, I reflect here in this chamber their support for this piece of legislation. The objectives of the legislation


CHAMBER

are laid out very clearly in the minister’s second reading speech. The minister said: ... the government’s key objectives are: to im-prove the efficiency and sustainability of the aged care sector and to strengthen the management of bond moneys to reduce the likelihood of provid-ers becoming insolvent or bankrupt and being unable to repay bond balances; to strike a balance between the added security for residents that is provided by this strengthening and the financial impact of the new arrangements on the sector’s viability and its standing with the capital markets, including its ability to construct and maintain aged care homes and pressures that might flow onto subsidies, user charges and the quality and continuity of care; and last ... to ensure that all residents who pay bonds receive their full enti-tlement to the balance of the bonds that they have paid in the event that the provider becomes insol-vent or bankrupt.

This piece of legislation will pay 100 per cent of the bond balance owed to residents with interest in the event that a provider be-comes insolvent or bankrupt and is unable to meet its financial obligations to residents. I do not think there would be any member on either side of the House who would have any objection to a piece of legislation that had those objectives in it.

The aged care sector is a growing sector in the Australian economy, and many people might be interested to know that it is cur-rently the ninth largest employer in Australia and a significant employer in my electorate of Corio in the Geelong region. I have men-tioned before that Australia’s population is ageing and in another, say, 45 years people aged 65 and over will represent one-quarter of our population. That changing demo-graphic will, as I have said before, exert quite significant pressures on the national economy and in various other policy areas such as health and housing.

An interesting statistic has been provided by Aged and Community Services Australia. Their budget submission states that approxi-

mately one-half of older women and over one-third of older men will use residential aged care at some time during their life and many more will access community care ser-vices. I guess all of us at some stage are go-ing to have to confront this situation and de-cide what sort of care we are going to access in our latter years. I have a particular phi-losophy—I have had it for a long time—that you run with the ball and die with your boots on! It may well be that I am one of the fortu-nate ones who will drop over playing ‘super Rules’ football or some other activity—but maybe not; maybe I will be like the honour-able member for Paterson, and we may even occupy the same aged care home if I decide to go interstate and live out my days. But, be that as it may, whether or not we access these services, there are plenty of people now who access them and who need the security—and certainly in the future.

Aged and Community Services Australia have listed the key areas for investment that the current government must look at in the budget they are going to present in May. We know that the Treasurer has been raiding the pockets of working people for well nigh on a decade. That is why we have a surplus that is in the billions, and it is incumbent on the government to start investing in the sorts of areas that Aged and Community Services Australia have identified in their submission. Those areas for investment are: service availability, particularly community care and services for clients with high-care needs; meeting the increasing costs of high-quality service delivery; a sustainable capital raising system; the planning regime, which is a very important one that I will speak a little more about; support for rural and remote service delivery; recruitment and retention of an ap-propriately skilled workforce; and enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of govern-ment expenditure on aged and community care through streamlined administration.


CHAMBER

I do not think there would be a member on either side of the House who would have any problem with that set of objectives and those areas for investment that have been articu-lated by Aged and Community Services Aus-tralia in their prebudget submission. Indeed, they do so on behalf of the many community aged care providers and not-for-profit or-ganisations in my electorate, such as St Laurence services and the multicultural aged care hostel which has been built under the auspices of the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council, just to name two. It is very impor-tant that the government take on board these objectives, because they do reflect off the floor the concerns of the general community about future investment and the need for it in this very important sector.

In their prebudget submission, Aged and Community Services Australia mention the planning regime, and this is where local gov-ernment is extremely important to the plan-ning of aged care services at the local gov-ernment level. My plea goes out to the City of Greater Geelong to make this area a very important priority in their planning schemes. We must have land allocated to the purpose. I have said on other occasions that there are parcels of land in Geelong that are now in what would be considered to be inappropri-ate inner city use, and they could be turned over to the aged care sector to make state-of-the-art precincts where residents can access appropriate aged care services.

I have spoken in this House before on this matter, as far back as 2 and 3 December 2002, when I raised particular concerns about a nursing home development not far from where I live. This was the Glenburn nursing home proposal. Two quite extraordi-nary things happened. The Commonwealth health department allocated an extra 30 beds to this facility. At the same time, the City of Greater Geelong gave planning approval for the expansion of the facility. The important

thing to recognise about the Glenburn in-stance was that this was an inappropriate planning development for the location of the particular nursing home. I had this to say at the time: Given that the current facility is located in a resi-dential area, subject to heritage overlay provi-sions and near the base of a railway overpass on an extremely busy thoroughfare, handling thou-sands of vehicular movements per day, how was council officer approval given for an expanded nursing home involving the demolition of resi-dential properties and the construction of a two-storey commercial operation in this residential heritage area?

I went on to say that there were two central questions surrounding the Commonwealth health department approval and the local government planning approval. I said: These are two central questions which spawn a myriad of ancillary questions relating to council approval processes, planning considerations, VCAT deliberations, care and safety of the aged at Glenburn, residents’ rights and appropriate nursing home developments in the whole Geelong region.

The interesting thing about this development was that the doctors who serviced the facility had extreme concerns about their duty of care and their liabilities under medical in-demnity insurance. And the Country Fire Authority had even stated that the facility would pose a huge risk in the case of fire.

I note the presence of the honourable member for Corangamite in the chamber today. At that time, he joined me in a biparti-san approach to the minister, questioning the allocation of these 30 beds, on behalf of resi-dents, and trying to get this matter addressed and the situation changed. The honourable member for Corangamite, in true bipartisan fashion, facilitated my access to the minister on behalf of my constituents. We put the case. We did not have any success in that, but the questions that we raised were valid ones.


CHAMBER

I understand that the proprietor has now on-sold the beds and that the future of the facil-ity at this location is in doubt.

This once again highlights the importance of local government planning in the provi-sion of aged care in this country, and particu-larly in the Geelong region. As I said, I note the presence of the honourable member for Corangamite in the House today. In Geelong today there is a scandal about local govern-ment and the planning processes. There are real questions being asked about this matter, and no doubt they will be asked on the floor of this parliament in the future.

Having said that, let me say that the mat-ter of the Glenburn nursing home may well be a matter—and we will examine this—that could be referred to the municipal investiga-tor, who is looking at these matters at the local level in the Corio electorate. The need for local government to get the planning right and the need for greater coordination between state and federal governments in the provision of aged care services are a very important issue for Geelong residents. With the march of time—and the honourable member for Corangamite will no doubt echo these sentiments—all of us might be looking down the barrel of spending a stint in these nursing homes. Some of us will reach that destination earlier than others, with all due respect to the honourable members who are in the House at this time.

But be that as it may. The sorts of protec-tions that are given to residents all along the line and the planning that takes place are very important. In this bill we have en-shrined a set of measures that will no doubt give greater security to my constituents in the electorate of Corio to ensure that they get good, high-quality aged care services pro-vided in the best locations where they can access other services. I will be supporting the legislation.

Mr ANDREN (Calare) (1.57 pm)—The Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005, the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005 and the Aged Care Amendment (2005 Meas-ures No. 1) Bill 2005 will strengthen pruden-tial requirements and further protect the con-tribution of aged care residents through their accommodation bonds.

The bond security bill sets up a scheme through which the government will be able to repay outstanding accommodation bond balances to an aged care consumer or their estate in situations where an aged care pro-vider defaults on such repayment as is re-quired under the aged care legislation. Such bonds, it will be remembered, are an invest-ment vehicle for aged care providers to en-able the building up of sufficient funds to provide the urgently needed capital spending requirements of the sector that were identi-fied more than a decade ago in the Gregory inquiry and were introduced by the govern-ment in its aged care reforms of 1997 and later.

Under the provisions of this bill, the Commonwealth carries the risk for attempt-ing to recover the outstanding balance of the bond from the defaulting aged care provider. The bill also contains administrative steps that must be taken so that a levy on all aged care providers can be imposed under the levy bill. The levy bill itself will enable the Commonwealth to impose a levy on aged care providers so as to recover amounts it cannot obtain from those defaulters. The amendment bill strengthens existing pruden-tial requirements related to accommodation bonds, especially in relation to liquidity, re-cord keeping and disclosure.

There is no doubt that the aged care sector is far better resourced than it was in 1996 when I entered this place. Many years of neglect had seen the standard of aged care facilities slip alarmingly, with poor care fa-


CHAMBER

cilities and many older people located in country hospitals, for example, who by any standard were nursing home patients, not hospital patients. Thankfully, that situation is gradually, though not entirely, being turned around.

Figures from 1995-96 and 2005-06 show that the contribution from the Common-wealth has increased from $3 billion to $7.3 billion. There is no doubt that the reforms and changes to the contribution regime from aged care residents in low-, medium- and high-care facilities has helped enormously to rectify the formerly sad state of aged care accommodation in this country.

However, there is a long way to go. While the current structure and funding model with its mix of public and user-pays has helped lift aged care standards, I fear and know there will be a logjam of demand for high-care places in not too many years. The suc-cess of community care packages enabling older people to stay at home longer will cre-ate future demand not for hostel or low-care but for medium- and in particular high-care places—and I know the bricks and mortar are just not there. While the increase in the number of community care packages cer-tainly met a need in recent years to accom-modate those 90 per cent or thereabouts of older people who want to stay at home, I believe we run a risk of supporting this most economic of aged care options while ignor-ing the increasing build-up of need for high care, the most expensive option.

Currently the formula for allocation of aged care places is 108 services per 1,000 people over the age of 70. There are many arguments about how fair this formula is and how applicable it is across the board—compare a high retirement area with a high mortgage belt area and a younger demo-graphic outer metropolitan area, for example. However, that is the formula that we have to

deal with, with just 40 of those places avail-able for high-care residents. I am told that figure has not changed since 1984. I ask the minister whether the demand for high-care places vis-a-vis low-care and community packages has not changed, or why it has not changed, over that time. Indeed, is that ratio still the same? I doubt it very much. Forty-eight of those 108 places are available for low-care and hostel places, while 20 places are allocated to community care packages.

My point is that we need to urgently re-view that figure of 40-odd high-care places, with many people cared for by community packages reaching a point where they really need high care. They are in their place with Meals on Wheels, a visit from a nurse or a volunteer carer, perhaps, or a weekly home and community care package visit. I be-lieve—and I have thought this for a long time—that these packages, while providing the quantity of services, really lack the in-creasing level of quality required. I would like to see those community care packages in the short term be at least a ‘bed and break-fast’ option where a community care nurse gets the person mobile or comfortable in the morning and ensures that they are looked after as they go to bed at night. That is not an ideal circumstance, as we all know of people in their own homes who are alone for those long hours of a night. In many and an in-creasing number of places and cases, I think that they are fast reaching the age where they will need not low-care but high-care nursing home accommodation.

Where will those high-care places be if we keep the formula carve-up as it has been for the past 22 years? Surely we know there has been an increase in the proportion of aged in our population, and it is going to reach sig-nificant proportions—I cannot quite remem-ber the figure, but in the order of 25 per cent of people over the age of 65—by the year 2025.


CHAMBER

Despite the fact that we are going to have a shortage of the resources to build these places, we do not require an accommodation bond for high-care places. That accommoda-tion question has been a political rather than a rational policy issue, in my book. That po-litical decision—and I see Deputy Speaker Barresi nodding his head—will lead us to a funding crisis. We do not have the resources to build the high-care places unless we look at the bond option. No-one, I would suggest, is looking at taxpayers providing all this capital in the years ahead, given the looming figures for the ageing proportion of our population. We cannot expect the young in-come earners of the next 20 or 25 years to provide all of the care for the aged by way of an extension of the aged care sector as part of our hospital process, given the enormity of the problem we are facing in upgrading our hospital care and, as I will mention in a moment, our need to care better for our dis-abled.

So let us not go down the emotive road we travelled in 1997 when the family home was said to be threatened. The family home per-haps should be the equity against which a bond is raised in many situations—except the most obvious hardship circumstances—with draw down limits on bonds and the in-terest receipts used to build new care places. I cannot see any other funding option, given the call on our tax resources in the years ahead and notwithstanding the fact that at the moment we happen to have a pretty attrac-tive sort of a surplus. Let us look at our hos-pital and education options as well. If we do not go there in providing high-care aged places, we will be in real strife.

There are other aged care issues in my electorate that are pertinent to this debate. Indeed, in Oberon, another aged care model—the multipurpose service model—is largely funded by the state health depart-ment, but the aged care component is the

responsibility of the Commonwealth health department. I hope the health minister, who has received a letter on the Oberon situation from me on two occasions, is able to find a staff member to return the calls in the next day or two so I can report back to that Oberon community about their statistics, which show that the population projections for that area have rapidly overtaken the pro-jections from the official figures.

Although a new deal has been signed up to on this MPS for the next three years, these new figures show that those provisions will be far short of the requirement for an area that, like many around Australia, is enjoying in many economic respects the benefit of the tree change phenomenon, with many people retiring to just west of the mountains as a lifestyle choice. But I think we are going to find that the realities are overtaking the offi-cial census figures. It will be interesting to see how this year’s census figures stack up in many parts of this state, particularly in my electorate, compared with the last one. I sus-pect there is a big sea change under way in areas that were regarded as sleepy rural communities in years past.

I think we have to revisit the issue of ac-commodation bonds for high-care nursing homes if we are to provide the capital re-quired to meet the surge in bricks and mortar infrastructure that we are going to need over the next two decades. I think the superannua-tion industry could not find a more secure guaranteed investment than aged care, and surely the super funds of today providing the wherewithal for the funding of aged care tomorrow is a more than satisfying scenario.

Getting back to these bills, the Hogan re-port in 2004 noted the large amounts of money being held in accommodation bonds and pointed out that there was little protec-tion available. Rather than establishing a guaranteed fund via a levy on industry, the


CHAMBER

Commonwealth will act as guarantor for the bond balances. However, it will then levy the industry on a needs basis. The industry sup-ports this ‘good guys’ arrangement whereby good providers bail out the defaulters. The industry’s argument is that such a system does not lock up potentially large amounts of bond money that could otherwise be used by the providers for capital expenditure. I must say that I was staggered to note from the Bills Digest that the average accommodation bond being levied on new residents in 2004-05 was $127,618. I had not familiarised my-self with these bond figures for the last year or so, and on checking that figure with the library I was told that there has been a quan-tum leap almost from $90,000 or thereabouts to $120,000 in the space of a couple of years.

While market forces can dictate what bonds are charged in many areas, while peo-ple are happy to pay for five-star accommo-dation and the extra provision of services and so on and while bonds can only be levied on residents who have assets in excess of $30,500, it seems to me that the enormity of the cost of aged care infrastructure is dra-matically illustrated by this average bond figure. Perhaps it is the lack of a cap. It shows the funding challenge we face in pro-viding aged care accommodation into the future.

It is not as if all this money is available to the aged care sector. They can only draw down a legislated amount. They can derive the benefits of the interest at the bond rate of about eight per cent, but if the fund of bond money increases then obviously the interest returned increases, and I wonder whether we are creating a huge bowl of public assets in these bonds which is serving no greater pur-pose than delivering an interest component and tying up an enormous amount of money. Given that the cost of a high-care bed must be heading towards $100,000 per annum now—it was about $60,000 10 years ago—it

suggests to me that it is an enormous cost that we are looking at here, and we are not going to be able to solve this unless we get very creative and non-political about the way that we access the resources needed.

Catholic Health Australia and the indus-try have supported this process and I do commend the government for this bill and for its contribution to aged care over the past 10 years. There is no doubt we faced a crisis by the middle of the 1990s, and successive coalition aged care ministers have each made a strong contribution to the sector, but I sug-gest we will face another crisis in the near future unless some tough economic and po-litical decisions are made. Dementia care is one issue in particular that needs addressing, as is the viability of low- and intermediate-care accommodation providers in smaller rural communities and those multipurpose services who are catering for the aged care as well as the health needs of more and more smaller communities. I do not know that we have quite got the funding figure right there yet.

Another area that is tacked on to this whole issue is that of the severely disabled younger and middle-aged members of our community. Even in the rare circumstance of nursing home care being available, an aged care facility is not suitable for the young or the middle-aged disabled. This, along with mental health care, is also an area of almost hidden care, particularly in country areas. We need far more care places, and respite care in particular, for those many thousands of car-ers who devote their lives and their own health in saving this country many billions by caring for disabled people in their own homes. We owe these people the very best of care facilities for the disabled, particularly for those who are getting 24/7 care from their loved ones, much to cost of the health of many of those carers. We owe these peo-ple as much attention as we have given aged


CHAMBER

care in the last decade and we owe much more attention to that build-up of high-care aged in our community whose families are going to be knocking on the door for places that just will not be there if the current fund-ing formula continues to apply.

Mr WINDSOR (New England) (2.14 pm)—Before getting into the substance of the Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005 and cognate bills, there are a couple of issues I would like to mention. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the former Minister for Aged Care on her conduct in this ministry and the minister prior to her, Kevin Andrews. In his contribution the member for Calare made a few comments that I agree with. Given the circumstances of the mid-nineties, the cir-cumstances that surround aged people today and the demographics of aged care, the gov-ernment has made substantial changes and substantial gains in an effort to come to grips with current aged care problems and the problems we will be facing in coming years. That is not to say that everything has been fixed and there are no challenges, but I do think that the government does deserve some congratulations on the way it has handled this portfolio in particular.

I still have some concerns that from time to time the amount of paperwork involved in the administration of aged care facilities con-sumes quite a lot of the finances that are channelled into those facilities. The broader community may well have to make some decisions further down the track. I am told that the administrative costs are up to 30 per cent of the operating costs, and some expec-tations of the broader community should be adjusted to take account of those costs. There is no doubt in my mind that, due to the bur-den of administration, some of our aged peo-ple do not have accommodation because the money is going into administration rather than accommodation.

I also recognise the government’s efforts in the way the multipurpose service model has been developed—and I am sure govern-ment members here today would be fully aware of this. I pay credit to a predecessor of mine, Ian Sinclair, who, after retiring from parliament, became involved in a committee that looked at the needs of regional commu-nities, particularly smaller communities, in relation to health and aged care and the mod-els that could be developed. Some years back there was great concern and fear about the multipurpose service model—or MPS, as it is called, though I think they should rename it. I am pleased to say that, in my electorate at least and I think in most country elector-ates, that fear has been alleviated.

The model is an outstanding success that does have some benefits for the costs of run-ning an operation and also delivers to smaller communities an aged care facility which is run together with a health care facility. Dur-ing the mid-nineties there was a risk that the smaller hospitals would be closed and that aged people would not be able to live out their twilight years in the community whence they came. I am pleased to say that in New England there are a number of multipurpose services that have been approved and con-structed or are under construction at the mo-ment. They include Emmaville, Guyra, Wal-cha, Bingara, Barraba, Bundarra and Tingha. They have been embraced by the community, and by the health service too, which is state run. For those in the gallery, the MPS model is one where state and federal governments work together, which is quite strange, but it does happen from time to time. The state government provides the health service part of the structure and the federal government provides the aged care beds. As I said, it is working very well in those smaller commu-nities, which were—in their own minds, at least, and in the minds of others—at risk of losing their facilities.


CHAMBER

I am reminded of a lady from a little town called Emmaville in the north of my elector-ate. Emmaville is one of those smaller com-munities that was campaigning not to lose its hospital. An MPS was established with aged care beds as well as hospital beds as most people would think of them. I visited that town for a public meeting and this lady said to me, ‘We need more beds. You’re the fed-eral member; go and get them.’ I guess all members of parliament have heard that from time to time. Of course you have to explain that there is a formula and that, within our electorate, we are not doing too badly under the formula et cetera. But that was not suffi-cient: ‘We need more beds.’ I mentioned that it had not been open for long. She said, ‘Well, it’s full.’ Then she made a comment that really hit home to me—one of those comments that make it worth while being a member of parliament. She said, ‘We need more beds because people who left Em-maville to go to the coast or the city want to come back because there is now an aged care facility for them to be in.’

That said to me that, in terms of infra-structure, aged care—and also telecommuni-cations, but I will not mix the debates—is absolutely critical if we are to turn around the loss of population from regional areas. There are cost-effective models now like the MPS that send signals to people before they leave, whereas in my story those people have responded to that signal and want to go back and live out their later years in the commu-nity where they made a contribution. I think it is a significant message that should not be missed. There has been a failing in the past, but I think that model is having a significant impact on the decisions people make about their futures. If you know that there is no-where you can be looked after when you are older, you will leave when you are younger. Obviously we then lose all those advantages of country communities such as the extended

family and so on. So I pay credit to the gov-ernment, which perhaps is a shock to some of the government members, for the work it has put in.

Another issue I would like to raise—which the Prime Minister has been involved in, and on which the former minister had a keen ear—is young people in nursing homes. There are something like 6,000 young people in nursing homes at the moment. For a whole range of reasons—including the facilities they need, the various treatments they may need access to and the general atmosphere of being a young person in an old-person’s home—they are inappropriately housed. I know that the Prime Minister has elevated that issue to COAG, and I am hopeful that the states and the Commonwealth will debate it at the upcoming COAG conference.

In my electorate of New England, the community came together about 12 months ago under the leadership of Challenge Armi-dale. We have been working on a submission which presents a regional model. The former minister has that submission and I am sure the new minister has it as well. This submis-sion looks at a model which not only is ap-propriate for young people in nursing homes but which fits into regional communities, and we believe the costing is reasonable enough to be given due consideration by the new minister, the Treasurer and the government. I ask the parliamentary secretary to take that model on board. You may well have seen it before, but have a good look at it, because a lot of work has gone into it by a whole range of health and aged care professionals.

Mr Pyne—I visited your electorate and had a look at them.

Mr WINDSOR—That is right; you did too. But that was prior to this model being developed, and we believe there is some sig-nificant detail in the submission which


CHAMBER

should be considered, particularly if this is-sue is to go before the COAG conference.

There is one other issue I would like to address, which is from time to time de-scribed to me as ‘double dipping’ by aged care homes. I do not mean that in a deroga-tory sense. Aged care homes are expensive operations to run. I am sure that from time to time some members of parliament have had aged parents go through the aged care as-sessment process—I believe that assessment is open for 12 months—be admitted to an aged care facility as a low-care patient and, within weeks of admittance, be reassessed as a high-care patient. Being admitted as a low-care patient allows the accommodation bond to be formulated and charged, and reassess-ment as a high-care patient allows a degree of double dipping. That area needs to be re-visited in terms of the way that is happening.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to look at the way the aged care assessment teams are doing their assessments and the occasions on which the change in the assessment from low care to high care takes place very quickly and allows the homes to access funding addi-tional to the accommodation bond. It seems to be a problem that is developing. I am hearing anecdotal evidence—I am searching for proof at the moment—that there may be instances where the community care people are removing their services from people who have essentially been assessed as low-care patients so that they are pushed towards ad-mittance to aged care facilities and then, once admitted, reassessed as high-care pa-tients, which allows this double dipping to occur. I ask the parliamentary secretary to take that on board.

I will be supporting the legislation. I ask that at the COAG conference these young people who are inappropriately housed in nursing homes be given due consideration and that we do not develop a model in which

country people miss out because the scale of the operation makes it uneconomic. In terms of the MPS process that I mentioned earlier, the government has been a partner with the state governments to construct a model which is not only cost-effective but which delivers services to country people. I ask the Prime Minister to follow through on his commitment on young people in nursing homes and bite the bullet on this issue. The real measure of a society is how we treat our elderly and those who are afflicted by dis-abilities through no fault of their own. Given the nation’s economic circumstances, this is the time when we should bite the bullet for those young people who need extra care.

Ms HALL (Shortland) (2.28 pm)—I in-tend to address the issues that this legislation covers, but I also want to comment on some of the problems which exist in aged care—problems which this government has con-stantly failed to address. It is an area where the consumers, the providers and everybody connected with the industry and the services is very upset and concerned about the gov-ernment’s performance. Essentially, the pur-pose of the Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005, the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005 and the Aged Care Amendment (2005 Measures No. 1) Bill 2005 is to en-hance the protection available to residents of aged care facilities who have paid accom-modation bonds which are paid on entry by non-concessional residents of low-care fa-cilities, by residents of high-care facilities with ‘extra service’ status and by some resi-dents in multipurpose services. I would like to join with the member for New England in emphasising just how effective multipurpose centres are. If there is a model that can be taken on board by this government, it is to go further down the track of multipurpose cen-tres and to work with the states to see if we can deliver better services to people in rural communities. Currently, I am under the im-


CHAMBER

pression that the government is more con-cerned about utilising state governments to—

The SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to yesterday. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Oil for Food Program

Mr BEAZLEY (2.30 pm)—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. I refer to his statement in this place yesterday that ‘The contracts were not with Saddam Hussein; the contracts were with the United Nations oil for food pro-gram.’ Why did the Deputy Prime Minister make this claim when these two contracts, dated 16 July 2002 and 14 December 2002, clearly list the Director-General of the Grain Board of Iraq and AWB Ltd as the contract-ing parties, and not the UN as he claimed?

Mr VAILE—I made that comment yes-terday on the basis that the contracts were clearly negotiated with the Iraq program people at the United Nations.

Council of Australian Governments Mr ENTSCH (2.31 pm)—My question is

to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Min-ister advise the House of the key issues to be discussed this Friday at the Council of Aus-tralian Governments meeting? In particular, will the Prime Minister advise whether pro-gress will be made in finding practical solu-tions in areas such as health and training, which will improve the lives of Australians?

Mr HOWARD—This Friday’s meeting between the premiers and chief ministers and me will be a special opportunity for the gov-ernments of this country to make a number of important practical decisions that will im-prove the lives of Australians, not least Aus-tralians who live in Far North Queensland.

The two most important issues to be dis-cussed on Friday are areas of improved co-operation and investment in health, and also measures that are designed to break down absurd and outdated barriers in relation to skills, training and qualifications. I would call our health care and skills development the meat and potatoes proposals of this week’s COAG meeting.

The health reform package will have a number of very important elements in it, in-cluding better management of chronic dis-ease, more support for cancer patients, better care for older patients in hospitals, measures to reduce the number of younger people with disabilities in nursing homes and better tai-loring of rural health and community care programs to local needs.

The Commonwealth will go to this meet-ing in absolute good faith, and I am optimis-tic that the states will reciprocate. In many of the health areas the Commonwealth is pre-pared to make a significant financial contri-bution, even in one area—that is, caring for younger people with disabilities—where the overwhelming responsibility, under agree-ments negotiated during the lifetime of the former federal government, lies with the states.

As will be revealed on Friday, the Com-monwealth is prepared to invest significant additional funds in all of these areas. We are prepared to address issues relating to nursing home type patients remaining in public hos-pitals, which has been a matter of continued criticism and concern from the states, justi-fied or not. We will expect the states in re-turn to match their responsibilities in a num-ber of areas. The approach that I will be tak-ing to Friday’s meeting is simply this: it is not a question of apportioning blame or fault; it is a question of the two levels of govern-ment working together. That is what I hope will happen.


CHAMBER

Friday will not be a test, or a contest of wallets. It will be a test of goodwill on the part of the governments of Australia. Can I say in that context that there is no issue more absurd, particularly for people who live in Far North Queensland, for example, that we continue to have in Australia these ridiculous rail gauge problems when it comes to the recognition of trade qualifications across state boundaries. For example, I understand that you can get a hairdressing qualification in Western Australia and that you can carry on that occupation in England, but you can-not carry it on in some of the other states of Australia. I am pleased to tell the House that at an officials level there has been a great responses from the states to some practical proposals of the Commonwealth, and I am very optimistic that we are going to make progress.

The final thing I want to say is that issues relating to longer term economic reform will also be on the agenda. I welcome the sup-port, particularly of the Victorian Premier, Mr Bracks, that has been expressed for longer term economic reform. Can I say in relation to that that I have noticed in the me-dia some suggestions coming from some of the states that the states will only be prepared to move further on economic reform if the Commonwealth pays them in advance for doing it. That is not a tenable proposition. The idea that any government should reform areas of their responsibility only if they are paid in advance to do it is of course an ab-surd proposition. If there are economic re-forms in Australia, it is true that there are increased revenues for both the Common-wealth and the states. The increase in the Commonwealth revenues may be greater than that of the states—may be greater—but I remind the House that, when you look at the aggregate expenditures for the future, the liabilities of the Commonwealth are in turn also greater. It is therefore only logical that

the gains from revenue should be propor-tionate to those greater responsibilities.

I believe that with goodwill on both sides—and I will certainly take goodwill from the Commonwealth to this meeting—we can make some practical progress and that, out of this meeting at the end of this week, there will be real gains in areas that are of ongoing daily interest to the people of Australia.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS The SPEAKER (2.37 pm)—I inform the

House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Rt. Hon. Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, accompa-nied by Her Excellency Ms Kate Lackey, the New Zealand High Commissioner. On behalf of all members I extend to our visitors a very warm welcome.

Honourable members—Hear, hear!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Oil for Food Program

Mr BEAZLEY (2.37 pm)—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer again to the answer he provided yesterday and indeed again to my first question. Why did the Deputy Prime Minister claim that AWB contracts with Iraq were certified by the United Nations and that the Australian government only issued export permits, when this simply is not true? Has the Deputy Prime Minister actually seen these contracts, in particular section 2 where it requests ‘cer-tifying signature and official seal’? Deputy Prime Minister, is the seal attached to the AWB contract the seal of the United Nations or the seal of the Australian government?

Mr VAILE—The Leader of the Opposi-tion knows that these contracts are conducted under the auspices of the UN. The UN had to agree to the terms of the contracts and they had to agree to the payment being made out of the escrow account that they controlled.


CHAMBER

Mr Beazley—On a point of relevance, Mr Speaker: this is the Australian government seal. It is your responsibility.

The SPEAKER—The Leader of the Op-position does not have the call. Has the Dep-uty Prime Minister completed his answer?

Mr VAILE—Yes.

Oil for Food Program Mrs MOYLAN (2.38 pm)—My question

is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Af-fairs. Would the minister inform the House of US congressional interest in the Cole in-quiry and its impact on our bilateral rela-tions.

Mr DOWNER—I thank the honourable member for Pearce for her question—and for a serious question about this issue. Let me make it clear that the relationship between Australia and the United States, which has been in the past ridiculed by the opposition, is a very strong and a very successful rela-tionship. The Australian Ambassador to the United States, Dennis Richardson, met over-night with Senator Norm Coleman. The am-bassador told Senator Coleman that Michael Thawley—Ambassador Richardson’s prede-cessor—had made representations last year to Senator Coleman in good faith, and that he and Michael Thawley, the Australian gov-ernment and indeed many others had at that time considered AWB Ltd to be an organisa-tion of repute and integrity. There was no evidence to suggest wrongdoing at that time, as even the United States Wheat Associates had conceded in June 2003, and AWB Ltd had privately and publicly strenuously de-nied any allegations of wrongdoing. Indeed, Mr Richardson had received a similar mes-sage himself, as he told Senator Coleman, from AWB Ltd when he met them before taking up his post in June 2005.

Senator Coleman subsequently issued a statement following the meeting. He said that Mr Richardson had addressed his concerns

and reassured him on several counts, includ-ing that the Cole inquiry will be completely unfettered in its efforts to determine the truth behind the allegations that AWB Ltd paid illegal kickbacks to the Saddam Hussein re-gime, that the Australian government would cooperate fully with the Cole inquiry and that after the Cole inquiry was completed its evidence would be turned over to relevant law enforcement entities as appropriate. Senator Coleman finished up by saying that he was hopeful that this would strengthen the already strong US-Australian relationship.

Some people, and I think we all know who they are here, think that Australia’s reputation has been trashed in the United States and that our strong response is inade-quate. As a matter of fact, some 66 countries were mentioned in the Volcker inquiry. Over 2,000 companies were found by Volcker to have been involved in paying kickbacks from 66 different countries. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only country of the 66 countries to have set up an inquiry of this kind. So I would have thought that the oppo-sition, which has made some of the most preposterous allegations I have heard in 21 years, including the Leader of the Opposition claiming the Australian government is re-sponsible for the killing of American sol-diers—

Mr Beazley interjecting—

Mr DOWNER—I would expect the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition more generally—

Mr Beazley interjecting—

Mr DOWNER—And he defends that! The public will not thank you for making that type of a claim. The opposition should respect the Cole inquiry and let it go about its work in the normal way, instead of con-stantly prejudging the government, prejudg-ing AWB Ltd and indeed making a series of comments which are utterly ill-informed.


CHAMBER

Oil for Food Program Mr RUDD (2.43 pm)—My question is to

the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. I refer to his answer to my question yesterday when he stated: The structure of contracts was purely a matter between AWB and the United Nations.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister also recall telling this parliament exactly the reverse when he said ‘the certification that DFAT did on the contracts was in the structure of the contracts’? Was the responsibility to approve the contract structure the UN’s, as you told us yesterday, or the Australian government’s, as you told us last year?

Mr VAILE—As I continue to say, the contracts were conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, the United Nations had to approve the terms of the contracts and the United Nations approved payments on the contracts. They were operated through that escrow account that was operated by the United Nations.

Economy Mr HENRY (2.44 pm)—My question is

to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House the latest consumer sentiment survey and progress made on implementing the OECD’s report Economic policy reforms: going for growth?

Mr COSTELLO—I thank the honour-able member for Hasluck for his question. I can inform the House that the consumer sen-timent index released for the month of Feb-ruary showed a rise in consumer confidence of 1.8 per cent and that consumer sentiment now stands higher than it has since August last year, although at a more moderate level than in 2003-04. That is consistent with some slowing in consumer demand but a welcome adjustment in the most recent months to price increases such as the extraordinary in-crease in petrol prices with which Australian motorists have been afflicted. It is clear that

strong consumer sentiment is underpinned by low unemployment, low inflation and stable and low interest rates. If we can keep infla-tion under control in the Australian economy, particularly if we can prevent second-round effects flowing from petrol prices, there are prospects to continue strong and steady growth throughout the course of the year. In its most recent survey on Australia, the OECD noted as follows:

In the last decade of the 20th century, Australia became a model for other OECD countries in two respects: first, the tenacity and thoroughness with which deep structural reforms were proposed ... and second, the adoption of fiscal and monetary frameworks that emphasised transparency and accountability.

The most recent Economic policy reforms: going for growth OECD report noted the progress that Australia has made even in the last year—progress in promoting employ-ment of the low skilled, progress in reform-ing disability benefit schemes, progress in strengthening vocational education, progress in reducing marginal effective tax rates for low-income earners and progress in acceler-ating reforms in electricity, rail, gas and wa-ter industries. That was from the release overnight of the OECD report Economic pol-icy reforms: going for growth. It showed that we are making progress in many of those areas where the Australian Labor Party is trying to block reforms, such as labour mar-kets, disability pensions and the like. I must re-emphasise to the House and re-emphasise to the Australian public the importance of continuing the reform program. It is the re-form program that got Australia to where it is today. It is the reform program of today which will get us to where we want to be tomorrow. These deep-seated reforms are what will drive jobs and productivity in the future, and that is why this government is committed to continuing with them.


CHAMBER


the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. After the AWB and the Iraqi Grain Board agreed in Baghdad in July 1999 to change their contract arrangements to in-clude an extra fee of $12 per metric ton, when did your officials first meet with the AWB after that, whom did they meet and what did they discuss—

Mr Downer—And what are their names and addresses?

Mr RUDD—Prime Minister, you think this is just a joke, do you? You just think this is a joke. We are trying to establish some facts.

The SPEAKER—The member for Grif-fith will come to his question or resume his seat.

Mr RUDD—This is when this scandal began, Alex; I thought you would be inter-ested. When did your officials first meet with the AWB after that, whom did they meet and what did they discuss about these new con-tract arrangements with Sadaam’s regime?

Mr VAILE—I thank the member for Grif-fith for his question. I will have to check the records and check with my departmental of-ficials to see who, if anybody, met with them and when it was discussed and what was dis-cussed.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS The SPEAKER (2.49 pm)—I inform the

House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a group of young people who are winners of the Heywire competition, an ABC radio award scheme for regional and rural youth. On behalf of the House, I extend to them a very warm welcome.

Honourable members—Hear, hear!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Export Subsidies

Mrs HULL (2.50 pm)—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the World Trade Organisation’s latest ministerial meet-ing? How has the Australian government helped to level the playing field for my farmers and exporters in the Riverina and also those farmers and exporters right across Australia?

Mr VAILE—I thank the member for Riv-erina for her question on what is a very im-portant issue not just to Australia’s farmers but also to all Australia’s exporters, including Australia’s manufacturing exporters. At the end of last year we represented Australia at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting of the WTO, which includes the 150 member coun-tries of the WTO. It was a very important meeting because the outcome was quite sig-nificant. The most important aspect of the outcome—and I know the member for Riv-erina is very keen to see this enacted—was a commitment by the European Union to end export subsidies by the year 2013. This out-come has been pursued by Australia, the Cairns Group and all the agricultural free-trading countries across the world for over 50 years. To achieve that commitment from the European Union is quite significant in ending what are the worst of all agricultural subsidies—that is, export subsidies and the way they distort in such a terrible way the markets of the world, not just affecting economies like Australia’s but also dramati-cally affecting the developing countries of the world. It is very important to recognise that all the developing countries of the world are very interested in improving their market access to some of the wealthier countries.

A classic example of the damage that ex-port subsidies cause was the resultant out-


CHAMBER

come of a case that we took in the WTO over the last couple years on sugar export subsi-dies. Of course, we are seeing quite a buoy-ant market as far as the sugar industry across the world is concerned at the moment. That is very important, because for many years Australia’s sugar producers have suffered greatly. We won this case against the Euro-pean Union in the WTO. The result was that they had to take their export subsidies off four million tonnes of sugar. It is very impor-tant to our industry and our nation.

We have set a timetable this year to agree the final outcomes in the round in terms of time frames and the formula for when other domestic support elements and other tariffs should be removed not just from agricultural products but from industrial goods and ser-vices. The meeting was very successful. Aus-tralia played a key role as a member of what is loosely called the G6—a group of coun-tries that are trying to lead the way to con-clude this round. They are the United States, the European Union, India, Japan, Brazil and Australia. We continue to work through the course of this year to try and achieve an out-come, which we expect to do by the end of this year. But we should remember that Aus-tralia has led the debate on many of these issues for over 50 years, through govern-ments of both political persuasions. To achieve the outcome that we did in Hong Kong was very good, and to get a commit-ment from the European Union to end export subsidies by 2013 was warmly welcomed not just by Australia’s farmers or our exporters across the country but also by the Australian Labor Party.


the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. I refer the minister to his non-answer to my last question. I refer the minister to the statement of the then Chief Executive of the

AWB, Mr Rogers, that the July 1999 changes in the contracts with Iraq were discussed ‘with DFAT in Canberra before we pro-ceeded’. Given that this statement by Mr Rogers was made more than three weeks ago, the Volcker inquiry has been ongoing for about two years and that the contract changes that we are talking about were at the very beginning of what was to become a five-year long $300 million scandal, how on earth can you stand up in the parliament to-day and evade answering the question? Will you report back to parliament by the end of the day on the question I just asked? When did the meeting happen, who was there and what was discussed?

The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Griffith will rephrase the second part of that question.

Mr RUDD—Will the minister report back to parliament by the end of today on the an-swers to questions concerning: when did his officials first meet with the AWB in Canberra after the July contract changes with the Iraqis, who were those officials and who did they meet from the AWB and what was dis-cussed? These are serious matters.

Mr VAILE—The first point is that we have established the Cole commission of inquiry to investigate all of these matters. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has outlined, we are the only country out of about 66 countries—

Mr Rudd—Mr Speaker, on a point of or-der: there is nothing in Mr Cole’s terms of reference which goes to the question of the government’s competence in its management of the oil for food program.

The SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister is in order.

Mr VAILE—I say again that all these matters are being canvassed within the Cole commission of inquiry.


CHAMBER

Mr Rudd—Mr Speaker, on a point of or-der: the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking to use the cover of the Cole royal commission, which has no powers to investigate this mat-ter—

The SPEAKER—The member for Grif-fith will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister has barely begun to answer the question, and he is in order.

Mr VAILE—The Labor Party keeps in-terrupting when I am trying to answer the question. I will state again that the Cole commission of inquiry has been established to get to the facts of the matter of this whole issue. That is currently part heard. We should be allowing the Cole commission of inquiry to complete its work and deliver its conclu-sions. As to the issue in the last part of the member for Griffith’s question, I indicated before that it was quite a complex question on whom, where, when and what dates and what information. I said I would find out for him and I will find out for him and bring it back.

Operation Wickenby Mr CAMERON THOMPSON (2.58

pm)—My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House what steps the government is taking to bolster enforce-ment of Australia’s tax and financial laws against cross-border exploitation?

Mr COSTELLO—I thank the honour-able member for Blair for his question. To-day, the government has announced that it will allocate another $305 million over the next six years to a multi-agency operation directed at bolstering enforcement of Austra-lia’s tax and financial laws against cross-border exploitation. The money will proceed under the codename Operation Wickenby. This cross-agency cooperation plan will in-volve the Taxation Office, the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Director of Pub-

lic Prosecutions and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.

I am advised by the Commissioner of Taxation that, as a result of a joint investiga-tion between the Taxation Office and the Australian Crime Commission, including the execution of search warrants and unan-nounced access visits in June 2005, informa-tion has been obtained about the promotion of and participation in tailored international tax schemes. These arrangements are alleged to have had at their heart attempts to create fictitious deductions or to conceal income.

Operation Wickenby will be directed at enforcing a number of Australian laws. A wide range of sanctions will be applied, in-cluding confiscation of assets using proceeds of crime, criminal and summary prosecu-tions, actions for breaches of taxation laws and tax assessments. Where breaches of other laws are identified under Operation Wickenby, matters will be referred under law to the relevant agencies. I indicate that this additional funding of $305 million—a very substantive sum over a period of six years—is in addition to the normal funding for these agencies in relation to international matters and it indicates the seriousness with which the Commonwealth law enforcement agen-cies take this conduct. The resources will be directed at investigating and bringing it to an end and this indicates the seriousness with which it is viewed by the Australian govern-ment.

Oil for Food Program Mr RUDD (3.00 pm)—My question is

again to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and goes to the important question of how this corruption scandal be-gan. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm other evidence from Mr Rogers, the then CEO of the AWB, to the Cole inquiry that AWB officials met with DFAT officers in the second half of 1999 and is he aware that Mr


CHAMBER

Rogers told the commission: ‘If there was any change in any contract we were obliged to pass it through Canberra’? What action did the Deputy Prime Minister take to ensure that these new contract arrangements com-plied with UN sanctions?

Mr VAILE—I say again the contract con-ditions, in their compliance with UN sanc-tions, were the responsibility ultimately of the United Nations in approving the con-tracts. That is quite simple. Ultimately, if they approved the conditions then they com-plied with the sanctions—obviously.

Wages Mr RANDALL (3.02 pm)—My question

is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister update the House on the forecasts for likely growth in wages and pensions in Australia?

Mr ANDREWS—I thank the member for Canning for his question. I can inform him and the House that real wages in Australia under the Howard government have grown by some 15.6 per cent—

Mr Howard—15.6 per cent!

Mr ANDREWS—15.6 per cent, Prime Minister, which compares with only 1.2 per cent when the Labor Party was in govern-ment—15.6 per cent compared to a miserly 1.2 per cent. This government, for the first time, has indexed pensions, including the old age pension and the sole parent pension, to male total average weekly earnings, so as real wages in Australia have increased so too have pensions.

The member for Canning asked me a question about whether I was aware of any forecasts for growth in wages and pensions. In this context, I note a letter which was written by the Leader of the Opposition to pensioners in his electorate of Brand. It is a letter, written in November 2005, in which the Leader of the Opposition said, ‘The

Howard government’s industrial relations changes will lead to lower increases in the minimum wage which will in turn bring down the male total average weekly earn-ings, thereby directly hitting the hip pockets of pensioners.’

Mr Beazley—Yes.

Mr ANDREWS—He says yes. This is the letter which the Leader of the Opposition wrote to his pensioner constituents last year and which he confirms here in question time today. As I said at the time, this was just a scare tactic from Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Australian Labor Party. I came across another forecast recently about wages and pensions in Australia. It was one that, unlike the Leader of the Oppo-sition’s letter, does rely on some economic modelling and that modelling is very inter-esting. What this forecast shows is that the wages growth, which is predicted in terms of weekly earnings over the next three years, for 2006-07 is 4.7 per cent; for 2007-08, 4.7 per cent; and for 2008-09, 4.7 per cent. In-deed, this document goes on and says: In a continued tight labour market with acute skill shortages, average weekly earnings will be dragged upwards ...

Upwards. Then it concludes: This will drag the sole parent pension up with it.

Who do you think was responsible for this economic modelling? Was it Treasury? No, it was not the Treasury. This is a document released on 6 January this year by none other than the member for Rankin, Dr Emerson. Talk about letting the cat out of the bag. This document was released by a man on the op-position benches who I believe has some economic expertise, at least more than the Leader of the Opposition. This confirms what I have said that the letter sent by the Leader of the Opposition last year was just a scare campaign. That has been proven by what the member for Rankin has said in this


CHAMBER

document. The thing that will be most impor-tant in the future, as it has been in the last 10 years, in terms of wages for ordinary Austra-lians, and indeed pensions for those in re-ceipt of pensions, is a strong economy in this country. Part of continuing a strong economy in this country is to ensure that we have a modern workplace relations system. That is what this government is about and that is what the opposition is objecting to. We will do what is needed to ensure that the Austra-lian economy remains strong. The same can-not be said for the opposition.


the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. I refer to DFAT’s statement issued yesterday, which reportedly does not deny the department’s involvement in the Tigris matter.

Mr Downer—Oh!

Mr RUDD—You find this a huge joke, don’t you, Alex?

Mr Howard—You’re the joke.

Mr RUDD—Oh, Prime Minister! That’s a $300 million joke, Prime Minister. I refer to DFAT’s—

Government members interjecting—

Mr RUDD—Mr Speaker, the Prime Min-ister and the foreign minister are interrupt-ing.

The SPEAKER—The member for Grif-fith will get to his question.

Mr RUDD—I refer to DFAT’s statement issued yesterday which reportedly does not deny the department’s involvement in the Tigris matter. I quote from correspondence from AWB executive Charles Stott which says, ‘Our friends at DFAT are interested in the outcome of the discussions to recover the obligation.’ Minister, did your office or your department at any stage help the AWB, BHP

or Tigris in Tigris’s efforts to recover money from Iraq?

Mr VAILE—Obviously the member for Griffith has not seen the statement from DFAT yesterday, so I will read it to him. The statement from DFAT yesterday said very clearly: DFAT did not approve the Tigris donation/debt repayment deal. DFAT’s advice has been clear and consistent with the UN sanctions regime.

That is in the statement from DFAT.

Mr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question went much further than that. It wanted to get at the character of the discussions that they have had on this Tigris matter with DFAT. What were they?

The SPEAKER—The Leader of the Op-position is well aware that the chair is not obliged to dictate the answers to questions. The chair follows one standing order on the answers to questions.

Oil for Food Program Mr SOMLYAY (3.09 pm)—My question

is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to recent reactions to evidence given at the Cole inquiry? What is the government’s reaction?

Mr HOWARD—I say to the member for Fairfax that there has been a lot of reaction to evidence given before the Cole inquiry, but one reaction that came from a Western Aus-tralian politician whose Christian name is Kim did catch my eye. It did not come from the better-known Western Australian politi-cian with the Christian name Kim; it came from none other than the Western Australian Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fish-eries, Kim Chance, in the Western Australian Labor government—bearing in mind that he is agriculture minister in the largest wheat-exporting state of Australia. I think what he had to say is a piece of very good advice to


CHAMBER

everybody on both sides of the House. I will read what he had to say: If there has been corruption in the West Australian or in the Australian wheat industry and its market-ing then I would be very disturbed—

nobody can argue with that proposition— but let’s wait until we hear from the Cole inquiry about what the situation really is rather than commenting on bits and pieces of evidence as they fall out of the inquiry.

The reality is that the level of investigation and the measure of transparency displayed by the Australian government is greater than that of any government in the world. This government has subjected itself to an inquiry that no other government, according to my advice, has been willing to do. We have had these indignant comments from the Leader of the Opposition and from the member for Griffith that Cole cannot investigate these matters. That is wrong. It is wrong with a capital W.

Mr Rudd interjecting—

Mr HOWARD—If the member for Grif-fith takes pause for a moment and listens, I will read something that Mr Cole had to say in his statement last Friday. I invite every-body in this House to read this statement. This is what he had to say at paragraph 8: This means that this Inquiry will address and make findings regarding, at least, the following:

a. the role of DFAT in the process of obtaining United Nations’ approval of AWB wheat contracts within the United Nations Oil-for-food Programme ...

In other words, Cole is looking at the behav-iour of DFAT. Is any other government around the world doing that? No. Cole is looking at the role of DFAT. But let me go on.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr HOWARD—I see the fingers point-ing. I knew they would, and they did.

Mr Tanner interjecting—

The SPEAKER—The member for Mel-bourne is warned!

Mr HOWARD—Cole then goes on to say: b. the knowledge of DFAT in relation to such

contracts;

c. what AWB told the Commonwealth—

He uses the generic expression ‘the Com-monwealth’. He does not confine it to DFAT. He does not confine it to officials. He uses the generic expression ‘the Commonwealth’. He goes on to say: d. whether the Commonwealth, and in particular

DFAT—

in other words, he is talking generally about every arm of the Commonwealth, including, of course, ministers— was informed of any knowledge AWB may be found to have had, regarding comments made by AWB to Alia.

Mr Gavan O’Connor—Why don’t you appear?

The SPEAKER—The member for Corio is warned!

Mr HOWARD—He then goes on to say in paragraph 14—and I commend a reading of this to everybody in the House and others who are interested in these proceedings: Accordingly, if, during the course of my inquiry, it appears to me that there might have been a breach of any Commonwealth, State or Territory law by the Commonwealth or any officer of the Commonwealth related to the subject matter of the terms of reference, I will approach the Attor-ney-General seeking a widening of the terms of reference to permit me to make such a finding.

He then goes on to say this: That position has not been reached.

In other words, this man is looking at every-thing and, unlike the opposition, unlike the government, Mr Cole has access at a level nobody else has. He has not only DFAT’s


CHAMBER

documents. They went to DFAT when this inquiry started and copied all the documents that they wanted. This is the cover-up! We were accused by the Labor Party of covering up. That was their first charge. How are you covering up when you invite them into the bowels of DFAT and you give them all the documents? That is some cover-up! Not only has he done that but he has also got the rele-vant documents from my department. More importantly than his getting our documents, he has also got AWB’s documents. We do not have AWB’s documents. The only docu-ments of AWB that we have are those of cor-respondence.

In other words, you have the situation of an outstanding Australian lawyer, a person who had a very high reputation at the Sydney bar before he became a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, who then served on the Court of Appeal in New South Wales, which arguably after the High Court of Aus-tralia is the most prestigious court in this country—he has all of those qualifications—who is acting completely independently of the government. He has access to everything and he is examining everything.

In those circumstances, I think the Leader of the Opposition and those behind him ought to take the advice of their mate Kim Chance in Western Australia. He is a man of great stature and respect in the Australian community. He is a person who is highly regarded in the Australian Labor Party. I know they will not take his advice, because they cannot help themselves. But I think out there the Australian people will respond to this proposition. If you have an eminent law-yer who has all the documents, all the inde-pendence in the world and all the integrity in the world looking at them, I think the Austra-lian people are more likely to believe him than the member for Griffith.

Oil for Food Program Mr BEAZLEY (3.16 pm)—Prime Minis-

ter, then give him the power to make those findings now. If that is your view, give it now, or end this rubbish that you have given him a full, clean slate. In the meantime, you and your ministers have to answer some questions here.

The SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat!

Mr Randall—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to standing order 91, which concerns disorderly conduct. You have ruled on preambles by the Leader of the Op-position before. I ask you to enforce your ruling.

The SPEAKER—I thank the member for Canning. The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.

Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. He still has to an-swer questions in this place, no matter how much the Prime Minister might like to shut him down.

The SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question!

Mr BEAZLEY—My question to him fol-lows the question he did not answer last time. Minister, did your office or your de-partment at any stage help the AWB, BHP or Tigris in any efforts to recover the Tigris money from Iraq?

Mr VAILE—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Again, this is a matter that is being dealt with by the com-mission—and you know that. It has just been very clearly outlined. Commissioner Cole indicated quite clearly last Friday that he intends pursuing the matter.

I refer the Leader of the Opposition, again, to the statement by DFAT yesterday where they said:


CHAMBER

DFAT did not approve the Tigris donation/debt repayment deal. DFAT’s advice has been clear and consistent with the UN Sanctions regime.

Mr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. It related to him, his office, as well as his de-partment. It was not a question of approval; it was help.

The SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister is answering the question.

Mr VAILE—Further to the question and to the statement by DFAT yesterday, I have been advised that, having searched the files, DFAT has no record of any knowledge of the complicated arrangements to inflate wheat contract prices to enable the repayment of the Tigris debt and wheat compensation payments. I am advised that it was aware in 1995 that BHP had funded a shipment of AWB wheat as a humanitarian donation. However, when BHP and AWB proposed that the donation be repaid under a credit agreement, DFAT advised this would violate sanctions. DFAT also emphasised that any changes to the original UN agreement would require sanctions committee approval. This fact has been reported to the Cole inquiry—the point that we continue to make to the Leader of the Opposition. DFAT’s advice was clear and consistent with the UN sanc-tions regime, and DFAT has no record or any knowledge that the Tigris, BHP, AWB deal actually went ahead.

East Timor Mr TOLLNER (3.20 pm)—My question

is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Af-fairs. Would the minister update the House on developments regarding the allocation of natural resources between Australia and East Timor?

Mr DOWNER—I thank the member for Solomon for his question. He has shown a lot of interest in this issue, and he has been a lot of help, too, to the Australian government in

making this possible. I know that the people of Darwin appreciate the excellent work that he has done, or they should do. It is called the Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrange-ments in the Timor Sea. That treaty was signed by me and Jose Ramos-Horta, the East Timorese foreign minister, on 12 Janu-ary in Sydney in the presence of the Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of East Timor, Mari Alkatiri.

This is a good agreement for Australia, and this is a good agreement for East Timor. With the 2003 International Unitisation Agreement, this creates a legal and fiscal regime which will underpin the development of the Greater Sunrise gas and oil field. It splits the upstream revenue derived from Greater Sunrise equally between Australia and East Timor, raising East Timor’s share of the revenues from 18 per cent to 50 per cent, which could lead to additional revenue of up to $5 billion for East Timor over the life of the project. From Australia’s point of view, it suspends maritime claims in the Timor Sea for 50 years.

I think this very clearly reflects a com-mitment by Australia to promote the devel-opment and economic prosperity of one of our closest neighbours, but it also supports Australia’s interests. As Prime Minister Alkatiri said at the signing ceremony, ‘The agreement is a very positive agreement for East Timor,’ and of course I say the agree-ment is a very positive one for Australia.

At the last election the then member for Werriwa, Mark Latham, said that, if he was elected—and the opposition of course asked the Australian people to elect Mark Latham as the Prime Minister—he would recom-mence the negotiating process. Labor wanted to unscramble the whole of this process and start all over again. It might not be the most important reason for people re-electing this government at the last election—there may


CHAMBER

be a range of other issues—but it simply il-lustrates the point that they made a very wise decision.

Oil for Food Program Mr BEAZLEY (3.23 pm)—My question

is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the state-ment of US congressman Henry Hyde: ‘Sad-dam paid $US25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, through the Iraqi Ambassador to Jordan, out of the ac-counts in the Rafidain Bank in Amman which held kickback money Saddam de-manded from suppliers to his regime’?

Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting—

The SPEAKER—The member for Blair!

Mr BEAZLEY—Is the Deputy Prime Minister also aware of comments by Ratib al-Amleh of the Arab Liberation Front, and the organiser of that scheme, who said he could not deny—

The SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The member for Blair is warned!

Mr BEAZLEY—He could not deny that the source of that funding given to these families by Saddam Hussein may have been Australia. What investigations has the gov-ernment undertaken to ensure that none of AWB’s payments into the Rafidain Bank were used to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers or were used in any other way to support military efforts in the region? What investigations have you done?

Mr VAILE—In answer to the Leader of the Opposition’s question, I am not aware of some of those comments that he referred to. There is no evidence that any Australian money has gone in that direction and, if the Labor Party had their way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

Health: Tasmania Mr BAKER (3.25 pm)—My question is

addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister inform the House what steps the government has taken to support health call centres, including GP Assist, in Tasmania?

Mr ABBOTT—I can assure the member for Braddon that, while members opposite engage in an endless scandal hunt and fish-ing expeditions, the Howard government is delivering better health services for the peo-ple of Australia. The government believes that health call centres are useful and impor-tant supplements to existing health services. I want to make it very clear that these are an addition to existing services, not a substitute for them. Health call centres mean that wor-ried people can receive expert advice round the clock on whether they need to attend an emergency department, whether they should see their doctor or whether they can seek other forms of treatment. The centres can provide up-to-date information on where these services are available.

So far, the government has provided $9 million to support Tasmanian GP Assist, which includes a health call centre. We have provided $21 million to the Hunter after-hours service, which also includes a health call centre. We have provided $3 million to help set up the state-wide Western Australia health call centre, which has been operating since 2001. This week the Council of Austra-lian Governments will consider whether there should be a national health call centre, whether a particular model should be adopted and whether all existing call centres can continue to operate concurrently with a national centre. The member for Lalor greeted this announcement with her usual carping negativity. But the Howard govern-ment is prepared to work constructively with the states on this matter, which just goes to


CHAMBER

show that the Australian people trust the Howard government with their health, and it shows that the Howard government remains, most assuredly, the best friend that Medicare has ever had.

Health: Queensland Mr KATTER (3.27 pm)—My question is

to the Minister for Health and Ageing. The minister would be aware that three of every four Queenslanders live outside Brisbane. The manning levels at five major hospitals in these areas are now officially unsafe. A fur-ther three are officially critical and possibly unsafe. This leaves nearly one-third of the state in deep crisis. Is the minister aware how infinitely worse the situation is in the north-ern half of Queensland, where there is now only one doctor per 1,026 people, whilst the Australian average is one doctor per 358 people? Is the minister further aware that his predecessor, Minister Wooldridge, stated publicly that in Egypt alone there are thou-sands of doctors, Coptic Christians, who would come to Queensland tomorrow if a job and visa were offered to them? Would the minister not agree that the substantive action taken by Premier Beattie to address the col-lapse of the system is (1) to have a talkfest; (2) to increase by 20 the medical school places—

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr KATTER—This is a most serious matter, and I really would appreciate the se-rious nature of this matter being taken—

The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Kennedy will come back to his question.

Mr KATTER—Would the minister not agree that the substantive action taken by Premier Beattie to address the collapse of the system is (1) to have a talkfest; (2) to in-crease by 20 the medical school places in Brisbane universities, universities servicing arguably the most doctor-overserviced area in Australia; and (3) to launch a multimillion

dollar advertising campaign to blame the federal government? Finally, could the min-ister assure the House that he will refrain from the temptation of similarly playing politics and immediately address the request to increase the number of graduates at JCU—the only non-metropolitan university in Australia and geographically at the epicen-tre of the problem—a request involving an increase from 60 to the urgently needed level of 150 graduates per year?

The SPEAKER—Order! In calling the Minister for Health and Ageing, I think he will have difficulty in answering the whole of that question. I invite him to keep his an-swer reasonably short.

Mr ABBOTT—I do appreciate the ques-tion that the member for Kennedy has asked. I think he makes a number of very telling points about the behaviour of the Beattie government. I do commend the concerns that he has—concerns which he shares with the member for Leichhardt, the member for Her-bert and many others in this place—about improving health services and medical ser-vices in North Queensland. I can inform him that, under this government, the James Cook University medical school was established. Under this government, in 2004, the numbers of medical students at James Cook were in-creased. I was delighted just recently to go to the graduation of the first class of medical students from that fine school at that fine university.

I take on board the points which the mem-ber for Kennedy has made. I think I can as-sure him and other people concerned about this issue that this government is always looking at ways to increase our medical workforce. Certainly his representations—as well as the representations by the members for Leichhardt and Herbert—will be taken into account as long as the government con-tinues to make decisions in respect of the


CHAMBER

medical workforce to the great benefit of the people of Far North Queensland.

Mr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that fur-ther questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

MEMBER FOR FREMANTLE AND MEMBER FOR SCULLIN: 20TH

ANNIVERSARY IN PARLIAMENT Mr BEAZLEY (Brand—Leader of the

Opposition) (3.31 pm)—On indulgence, we have two anniversaries this week of people in our ranks who have served 20 years in parliament: one in this parliament for the entirety of those 20 years and the other for 20 years in two parliaments. Carmen Law-rence has served 20 years in the parliament of Western Australia and in this parliament, and Harry Jenkins has served 20 years in the federal parliament. Both have been, over the time, superb representatives of the people and superb representatives of the Labor Party. They have enjoyed senior positions: in the case of Carmen Lawrence, that of Pre-mier and then that of a senior minister in the federal government; in the case of Harry Jenkins, that of a longstanding presiding of-ficer in this place. I am sure all members of parliament will wish them well and join with me in my congratulations on their achieve-ment.

Mr HOWARD (Bennelong—Prime Min-ister) (3.32 pm)—Can I, also on indulgence, join the Leader of the Opposition in con-gratulating the member for Fremantle and also the member for Scullin. I recollect try-ing very hard 20 years ago, as a rather strug-gling Leader of the Opposition, to stop the member for Scullin succeeding his father in this place. I meandered through, I think, the Ford motor factory and I did not get a very friendly reception, I have got to say, but things looked up a bit later! He inherited and has maintained a very healthy margin in that seat.

Apart from personal good wishes to the two members, can I say that I do think it is important, whatever our political differences are, to take opportunities to remind both our-selves and the Australian public of the im-portance of public service in political life. There is a tendency sometimes, even for us, to sort of accept and endorse the ritualistic denigration of political service. I think that is a huge mistake. I think the profession of politics is enormously important, and most people who come into this place do so with good motives, with good intentions and with goodwill to the Australian people. I include in that the member for Fremantle and also the member for Scullin. I wish both of them well. I do not think either of them will face any serious opposition from this side of poli-tics, given the character of their seats. So, in the context of their own parties as well as the ongoing political struggle, I wish them well. I also wish the member for Hotham well, and I hope the member for Maribyrnong does not have his political career shortened.

QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Question on Notice

Mr WILKIE (3.34 pm)—Mr Speaker, I ask that you write to the Minister for Trans-port and Regional Services to seek an answer to question No. 2405, lodged on the Notice Paper on 10 October 2005, which previously appeared as question No. 3652, lodged on 16 June 2004, as it now relates to the shortfall of almost $1 million payable to the City of Belmont by Westralia Airports Corporation in lieu of rates.

The SPEAKER—I thank the member for Swan for his question and I will follow up on his request.

DOCUMENTS Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the

House) (3.35 pm)—Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honour-able members earlier today. Details of the


CHAMBER

documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Oil for Food Program

The SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Griffith proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the government to discharge its obligations in relation to the national security and trade interests of Australia.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members re-quired by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Mr RUDD (Griffith) (3.36 pm)—Today the parliament of Australia was visited with the full skills and repertoire of the Inspector Clouseau of the Howard government, to bor-row a phrase which was used in today’s newspaper. I thought it was overegging the pudding a bit when I saw it this morning, but it was completely confirmed in the perform-ance by the minister in question time today. The function of the parliament is to hold the executive accountable. How do we do that? We ask the executive questions.

Government member interjecting—

Mr RUDD—Thanks, Twinkletoes. You just go back and slide into your hole. That was the Minister for Foreign Affairs I was referring to. The function of the parliament is to hold the executive accountable. Today we asked a series of most specific questions. They go to an entirely untold chapter in this saga of the $300 million wheat for weapons scandal. They go to key events of the year 1999. These are critical events, because it is when this scandal begins—and you know

that, Minister Downer. You know it very well.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Griffith will direct his statements through the chair.

Mr RUDD—You know it because the Volcker inquiry has been running for a cou-ple of years now, from the beginning of 2004. You have had teams of bureaucrats throughout DFAT raking through the files, finding everything it is possible to find, and still today we have ministers at the dispatch box thinking it is a fair and reasonable thing to evade the question. These are critical questions. The events of 1999 date from when this scandal began.

We also asked the Minister for Trade questions concerning the Tigris matter. I would have thought that a Deputy Prime Minister of Australia would come into this parliament somewhat better briefed than this one was today. Twice he was asked, first by me, then by the Leader of the Opposition, a very simple and basic question: did you, your office or your department provide any assistance to the AWB, BHP or Tigris to re-cover moneys from Saddam Hussein’s re-gime? It is a very simple and direct question of the type that is often asked here. This min-ister, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, could not answer that straight. He evaded, and if he thinks that the people watching question time today missed the point that he evaded it completely he is sadly mistaken.

This saga in the scandal—that is, what happened in the events of 1999—is critical. Had the Howard government, had the Minis-ter for Foreign Affairs and had the trade min-ister been doing the job that they are paid to do, then the subsequent five-year-long, $300 million scandal would not have happened. It could have been nipped in the bud right back then. So far in the parliament in the last 24 hours we have looked at the powers and re-


CHAMBER

sponsibilities which had this government’s name attached to them, entrenched by UN Security Council resolution 661, requiring national governments—nobody else—to en-sure that none of their corporations or indi-viduals were going to provide funding or illicit goods to Saddam Hussein’s regime.

In this place yesterday we ran through the seven sets of warnings this government has been presented with over the last several years about what the AWB was up to in Iraq. There were the UN’s warnings in early 2000, Canadian warnings prior to that, more UN warnings in March 2000, following up again with a report by the US Government Ac-countability Office in April 2002, before the Iraq war. Then after the Iraq war we saw warnings from the coalition provisional au-thority in June 2003, seven senators writing publicly to the United States administration in October 2003 and, to cap it all off, the CIA’s own report in 2004 about what had happened with the rorts on the oil for food program. These were all warnings which these ministers chose deliberately to ignore.

We have also dealt in this parliament so far with what happened to the money after-wards. I know, Minister Vaile, you find that a difficult question to answer, because if I were in your position I would be humiliated by that question. Because of your own fail-ure to discharge your responsibilities, who knows where the $300 million ended up? We know for a fact from the CIA that some of it went off to fund weapons. The unanswered question is what happened in the bank in Amman, in Jordan. That is where Alia’s money was coughed into and that is where the money was coughed out to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. It is a pretty basic question.

Mr Danby interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports is in a difficult position just there.

Mr RUDD—It is a very basic question for us to put to the government: have you inves-tigated what happened to the money? You are all outraged by this question. Well you might be. You have often stood up here in this place and paraded yourselves as the world’s best friends of Israel. When it comes to this act of monumental national security policy incompetence, allowing $300 million to go through to Saddam’s slush fund, know-ing at the time that Saddam was funding sui-cide bombers, it frankly leaves people in this country speechless as to how you can stand in this parliament and attempt to hold your head up high.

When it comes to this most recent matter for debate, however, it is important that the parliament focus on these new develop-ments. What happened in the critical events of 1999? I would draw the attention of hon-ourable members to this fact: the AWB was privatised as of 1 July 1999. This entire de-bate has been conducted in terms which sug-gest that a problem only arose with the AWB once it had been off there in the private sec-tor. You are wrong. Evidence has already been presented to the Cole inquiry in Sydney that, when the AWB was still fully owned by the Howard government, there was email traffic between AWB staff about how the first set of kickbacks could be arranged. This is while it was wholly owned by the mob opposite, the Howard government. If you disbelieve me on this, I will read you one short extract from one email. This dates from 24 June 1999, referring to an earlier visit to Iraq. Here you have an AWB representative, in a part of the email headed ‘Contract terms and conditions’, writing as follows: IGB—

that is, the Iraqi Grains Board—


CHAMBER

have requested that the offers are submitted CIF—

with insurance and freight— free in truck, Iraq. The cost of this will be USD12 per tonne which the supplier adds to their offer.

Interesting— Hence this part is not an issue.

I am not sure about that— The problem which still needs to be resolved is the payment mechanism, as all Iraq accounts are frozen. IGB have stated that we will be required to pay the maritime agents, and one possible way would be to pay this to an Iraq bank in Amman. IGB will provide details of the banks we can pay this through.

That has already been provided by way of evidence to the Cole inquiry. The critical thing, though, for the attention of the parlia-ment and the nation is this: that transaction occurred within the AWB while the Howard government still owned the AWB. It relates to a visit to Iraq by AWB representatives while you mob still owned them.

I put this to you: around this country for the last decade or so we have seen multiple royal commissions and commissions of in-quiry into allegations—some substantiated, others not—of malfeasance by various cor-porations owned by state governments around Australia such as the Labor govern-ments of Western Australia, Victoria and South Australia. They included the State Bank inquiry and so on. If this matter was unearthed in relation to any state Labor gov-ernment concerning a corporation owned by that state Labor government, you would be howling them out of office. This scam, this rort, which became a $300 million cross-subsidisation exercise for the Saddam Hus-sein military machine, began when you owned the AWB. It was yours. I do not hear any statements of denial from those opposite. The evidence is clear-cut. No wonder you hang your heads in shame when you know

that, this time, there is no excuse. You actu-ally ran the show; it was 100 per cent in your possession.

The clock rolls on to the events later in 1999. It is important to piece these critical events together. There is a mission to Iraq in June 1999 by AWB officials when AWB is still owned by the government. In July 1999 there seems to be another mission, and that is when the first corrupt contracts are signed or agreed. There is a further AWB mission to Iraq in about October or November. The payments actually start flowing in October or November 1999 and, interestingly, it is one month later in December 1999 that this mob get the warning from the government of Canada. It only took a month, and do you know why? I suspect the Iraqis, having got the AWB on board, went off to the Canadians and said, ‘Look, the Australians are on board with this, Bob’s your uncle!’—sorry, Sad-dam’s your uncle—‘and you can be in on the joke as well.’

Except the government of Canada did something different. They actually went to the United Nations and asked, ‘Is this okay?’ That was the right thing to do; something you mob have never done. They were told unequivocally that this was a problem. Fur-thermore, the United Nations then raised it with this government. They did it in January and March of 2000, and, in a continuing ex-ercise of negligence in the discharge of your national security responsibilities, you dis-missed those concerns—it is as clear as day that that is what happened.

There is one key event, however, in the early stage of this unfolding saga which we must focus on, because this minister refused to focus on it in question time today. After the AWB came back from Iraq in about July of 1999, we have evidence from the Cole commission of inquiry that they then went to Canberra. They went to Canberra for discus-


CHAMBER

sions with whom? With this minister’s de-partment: DFAT. And by this stage it was this minister’s department, because by then he had become the trade minister. We know from evidence presented to the Cole com-mission of inquiry that this was not just an ordinary visit. In fact, if I look at some of the evidence which has been presented at the inquiry, there are multiple references to this event occurring and its significance. For ex-ample, there is a clear reference in the testi-mony of Mr Rogers, who was then the CEO of the AWB, that AWB representatives went to DFAT to talk to them about what had gone on in their recent visit to Iraq. Furthermore, there was a reference in the inquiry evidence that, in fact, this was necessary so that ‘peo-ple with DFAT in Canberra could be con-sulted before we, the AWB, proceeded’—that is, with these new contract arrange-ments.

There was evidence presented to the in-quiry that there were folk going to Canberra from the AWB to dialogue with the Depart-ment of Foreign Affairs and Trade to ‘ensure that things were correct’. Furthermore, Mr Rogers said: ‘I think, if my memory serves me correctly, if there was a change to any contracts we were obligated to pass that through Canberra.’

I draw the attention of all members to the fact that this was at the very beginning of this saga. This meeting between the AWB and the department for which this minister is responsible occurred in the second half of 1999 and before the first corrupt payments were made. They did not start flowing until November of that year. This was the core opportunity for this minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was very keen that we directed all questions to the Minister for Trade in question time today. This minister and his partner, the Minister for Foreign Af-fairs, had at that stage a clear-cut opportunity to ensure that this scandal went no further.

However, in question time today I asked this minister on at least three occasions to give us some details about the meeting. When did it occur? Who was there from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade? Who was there from the AWB? What was discussed about these new contract arrange-ments? These are critical questions when it comes to this point: at the end of the day, how do we establish whether you in any faint respect discharged your national security obligations, given to you by resolution 661 of the Security Council? Had you done your job, five years later we would not be having this debate; it would be a debate being had in some other country where corruption is something which happens on an almost daily or weekly basis. The reason it is so stunning here though, Minister, is that the magnitude of it simply takes our breath away. Because the government failed to act at this critical juncture, $300 million flowed and we then had five years over which the kickbacks simply went from one level to the next—from $12 a metric tonne to $25 a metric tonne to $44.50 a metric tonne, and then they added an after-sales service fee.

Minister, if you respond to this MPI today, use the opportunity to explain in clear-cut terms every detail, not the select version, of what transpired in that critical meeting in the second half of 1999 between the AWB and your agency. Therein lies the core exchange where this entire sorry saga of $300 million going to buy guns, bombs and bullets for Saddam Hussein’s regime could have been stopped. You, Minister, failed to stop it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Griffith contin-ues to use the word ‘you’, which it is desir-able not to use in a debate such as this.

Mr VAILE (Lyne—Minister for Trade) (3.51 pm)—In responding to this MPI, I would like to make a couple of points right at


CHAMBER

the outset with regard to the allegations that are being raised by the Australian Labor Party over this issue: firstly, the allegation that the government did absolutely nothing insofar as the so-called warning bells are concerned; and, secondly, that Australian money has gone to fund weapons and suicide bombers. There is no evidence at all that Australian money has gone to fund suicide bombers, and we absolutely refute the allega-tion. With regard to the allegation about what the government did and did not do, there has been no evidence produced that government officials knew about or were complicit in the payment of kickbacks to Saddam’s regime. The government has established the Cole inquiry. I know that the Labor Party has dis-missed the fact that we have established a commission of inquiry with wide-ranging powers. It was clearly and publicly stated last Friday by Commissioner Cole himself that it was adequate for him to investigate the entire matter. He asked for an expansion of the terms of reference to look at the Tigris issue, and that is going to be forthcoming. Of the 66 countries which had companies pro-viding products through the oil for food pro-gram, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated today, only Australia—and the Australian government—is having a full, open and public inquiry into the actions of the Australian companies that were involved in the oil for food program.

I will now go to some of the issues that have consistently been raised by the member for Griffith in this MPI, in his public com-ments and in his questions during question time. Firstly, the allegations of 2000 were without any substantiation—no evidence was provided in that regard—and the responses given were to the satisfaction of the UN. We continue to go back to the point—not ac-cepted by the Labor Party—that these con-tractual arrangements were overseen and dispensed with by the UN under the provi-

sions of the 661 sanctions committee, that they controlled the escrow account and that they approved the contract. We could not issue export permits until they were ap-proved—and that approval indicated that those contracts cleared the sanctions issues.

Further allegations were raised in 2003 by a commercial competitor, US Wheat Associ-ates, and those allegations were made public. On both occasions, AWB, which at that time had an outstanding reputation as a corporate operator both in Australia and internation-ally—and nobody can dispute the fact of AWB’s reputation at the time—strenuously denied those claims. That information was gained and dealt with. Again, the UN Secu-rity Council sanctions committee continued to approve the contracts put before them for the sale of wheat to Iraq. So on those two occasions, if there had been enough evidence of wrongdoing, the UN would not have ap-proved those contracts and they would not have paid the money out of the escrow ac-count.

While I am on this subject, there are a lot of urban myths floating around on this issue which I want to take this opportunity to de-bunk. The public comment on the UN oil for food program in the aftermath of the Volcker report and the Cole inquiry has often been inaccurate and misleading. There has been a concerted effort to attack the government on the basis of so-called facts—and they are not facts. There is a range of false and often-repeated assertions about the government’s role in and knowledge about problems in the oil for food program which have assumed the status of articles of faith. They are basically urban myths. The first urban myth is that the terms of reference are too narrow to investi-gate the government’s role in the oil for food program. The government took the proper and appropriate step of establishing the Cole commission of inquiry to examine the activi-ties of three Australian companies about


CHAMBER

which concerns were expressed in the report by the UN’s independent inquiry on the oil for food program. The terms of reference for the inquiry were entirely appropriate given the nature of the UN inquiry report’s find-ings.

As Commissioner Cole and his counsel have highlighted, DFAT’s role in the oil for food program is being examined by the in-quiry. DFAT staff have been interviewed and relevant documents have been examined by the inquiry. Full cooperation is being pro-vided to the inquiry. On 3 February, Com-missioner Cole said in a statement that the inquiry will address and make findings on the role of DFAT, including DFAT’s knowl-edge about contracts, what AWB told DFAT about wheat contracts and what DFAT knew about Alia. Commissioner Cole also said that if there was any breach of law by the Com-monwealth or any officer of the Common-wealth, he would recommend widening the terms of reference. He has made a public and independent statement about his ability to investigate fully this whole issue. So much, then, for the claim that the terms of reference are too narrow. Commissioner Cole last week asked for an expansion of the terms of reference with regard to one aspect of the operations of AWB. He said quite clearly—and I state it again—that, if there was any breach of law by the Commonwealth or any officer of the Commonwealth, he would rec-ommend widening the terms of reference. I think that point has not been reached yet. So there is a full investigation taking place.

The next myth being peddled, particularly by the Labor Party, is that the government was aware that AWB was paying kickbacks to the Saddam Hussein regime. At no stage during the oil for food program did the Aus-tralian government have evidence to suggest that the AWB or other Australian companies paid kickbacks. Of concern are the repeated efforts by some to infer that DFAT officials

were implicit in sanctions rorting. This is an outrageous allegation. A case in point was the inquiry’s examination of advice provided to the AWB on methods to repay damages arising from wheat contamination in 2002. DFAT provided advice to AWB, which the inquiry’s counsel found was appropriate and proper. This advice was faithfully reflected in an internal AWB email. However, one commentator chose to infer that there must have been some deeper conspiracy, appar-ently saying he wanted to see additional in-formation on the issue before he would ex-onerate the DFAT staff involved. This case is also interesting in that it shows clearly that the inquiry is examining the role of DFAT and the actions of DFAT staff, whose advice was found to be appropriate and proper.

So can I say again that, out of the 66-odd countries who had companies operating within the oil for food program, we in Aus-tralia have established the most transparent and publicly open inquiry, to get to the bot-tom of the facts of the operations of three companies within the oil for food program. That has been acknowledged in the United States. There was a question in the House yesterday about Senator Coleman. Senator Coleman has publicly acknowledged and welcomed the move by the Australian gov-ernment to establish this inquiry so that the facts can be uncovered and brought into pub-lic awareness.

The next myth that is being peddled around relates to the involvement of DFAT—or DFAT allegedly approving AWB con-tracts. DFAT did not approve AWB contracts. That was the role of the UN. The United Na-tions was running the oil for food program. If you read the transcripts, the evidence and the conclusions of the Volcker inquiry, Volcker highlighted exactly the same point. Volcker also highlighted the point that the UN en-gaged Customs officials to check the veracity of those contracts and to check the price and


CHAMBER

the value of what was being traded. So the UN’s 661 sanctions committee and the UN Office of the Iraq Program were responsible for contract approvals. Again I say this fact was highlighted by the Volcker report, the report that preceded what we are doing in Australia as far as the Cole inquiry is con-cerned. The Office of the Iraq Program was established to manage the oil for food pro-gram contract approval process. DFAT or the Australian government could not approve a contract for AWB to send products into Iraq. It had to go through the UN. It was being paid for out of the escrow account estab-lished under that section 661 committee. That is where the payment came from. That is where the arrangements were made. That is where the approval went through. The UN therefore ran the oil for food program and employed Customs experts, as I indicated a second ago, to examine and approve the con-tracts. It was not DFAT but the UN that ap-proved the contracts—it was not DFAT.

The next urban myth that is being peddled around, with just enough information being left to trail the bait, if you like, is that DFAT approved AWB’s use of Alia. DFAT did not approve AWB’s use of Alia, despite any claims to the contrary. AWB’s use of Alia was not in AWB contracts, as Volcker and Cole have highlighted already. AWB never advised the UN it was making payments to Alia for inland transport. It is also important to note that the AWB had apparently been using Alia for around a year prior to its 30 October 2000 letter to DFAT in which AWB made a general inquiry about using Jorda-nian trucking companies. This letter did not mention Alia. DFAT has no record of ever being asked by AWB to conduct due dili-gence of Alia or to approve its use of Alia. The department made this very clear in the statement it issued yesterday—and, obvi-ously, in what has been submitted to the Cole inquiry. We are aware that there will be fur-

ther evidence given in this regard to the Cole inquiry. It is very important to note that be-cause I know that there are other views being expressed on this—and also there are allega-tions and insinuations being left out there on this matter by the Australian Labor Party.

The next urban myth is that DFAT staff travelled with AWB to Iraq in August 2002—again totally untrue. Despite repeated claims in the media, DFAT has no record of any DFAT staff ever travelling with AWB to Iraq, from the start of the oil for food pro-gram in December of 1996 until the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime. It is a good op-portunity to get some of those details on the record. Some of them have already been put on the public record as part of the evidence that has been delivered to the Cole commis-sion of inquiry. They are the facts with re-gard to the involvement of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of dis-charging their responsibilities.

In the time remaining can I just reiterate some of the history here. Australian wheat growers—and I said this in the House yes-terday—are of prime concern and interest to the government. Wheat is one of our major export industries.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Griffith!

Mr VAILE—Interestingly, the Minister for Agriculture and Food from Western Aus-tralia—


The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Griffith!

Mr VAILE—takes the same view.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Griffith is warned!


CHAMBER

Mr VAILE—He believes it is too early to reach any conclusions about wheat exporter AWB and its role in the Iraqi oil for food scandal. Mr Chance says it is best to wait until the inquiry has concluded before mak-ing a judgment—and it is. That is why the Labor Party demanded an inquiry. That is why you wanted an inquiry. That is why the government acted so quickly at the end of last year to establish an inquiry—so that there was an independent and transparent process being run to find out the facts and the details of what has happened as far as Australian domestic law is concerned in terms of the oil for food contract.

We all recall the debate that took place in late 2002 and early 2003 with regard to the coalition of the willing moving into Iraq. The Australian Labor Party opposed that move every inch of the way. We all know that if the Australian Labor Party had had their way Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq, perpetrating the atrocities that he did during the 25 years of the operation of his murderous regime in Iraq. The Australian Labor Party wanted to keep him there. We should let the Cole commission of inquiry finish its work. (Time expired)

Mr McMULLAN (Fraser) (4.06 pm)—I do not know who wrote that speech for the Minister for Trade, but whoever it was did him no service, because he did not answer the key questions. It was quite clear that at any time he went to facts he was reading somebody else’s words and each time he adlibbed he fluffed it, as he did in question time continuously—and I will come back to that in a moment.

However, in all these matters, for publicly elected officials the key question comes back to that which was posed in the Nixon im-peachment hearings of 1974: what did you know and when did you know it? We now find out that the minister’s argument is that

he never knew anything. That is not what I would call a great advocacy of ministerial responsibility and success because, as has been detailed on many occasions—and I will go back to some of them—on very many occasions the minister should and, by any credible explanation, must have known.

I do not want to refer too much to that rather pathetic set of contributions that were written for the minister, which he just read into the Hansard, but I do want to refer to two points. Firstly, he repeated the point that the Prime Minister made: that the Cole in-quiry’s powers are sufficiently broad because the commissioner has made it clear that, if there is any breach of law by a Common-wealth official, he will either seek broader terms of reference or act upon it. But we all know that most, if not all, of the major find-ings that have been made, for example, lead-ing to royal commissions causing the resig-nation of ministers, have not referred to breach of laws; they have referred to impro-priety—to people failing to discharge their responsibility and not acting properly. These are serious allegations and the evidence raised so far suggests that they do apply—and I do not make those allegations against the officials at DFAT. I have worked with that department and it is a fine department. If there are serious problems in a department that go to questions of impropriety on this scale, with this level of public awareness, the responsibility lies with ministers.

The second point I want to make is that the minister continues to say, ‘This must all be okay because the UN accepted our assur-ances.’ One of the strengths and weaknesses of the UN system is that the UN does not have the capacity to go behind the word of member countries. If a member country says, ‘No, there’s nothing to look at here,’ until the Volcker inquiry was set up, the UN had no capacity independently to assess that. The minister says, ‘We must be okay because the


CHAMBER

UN said so.’ The UN said so because Austra-lia advised it so. This is one of those circular arguments that says, ‘We must be okay be-cause we said we are and we got someone to verify it independently who had no capacity to verify it independently.’

Today we saw again from the Minister for Trade, for the second day in a row, an in-credible, unbelievable attempt to defend the indefensible and the deliberate avoidance of serious questions in question time. For ex-ample, yesterday we asked who gave instruc-tions to the ambassador for his visit to US Senator Coleman. There was no answer. To-day we had questions about contracts and meetings, which were met with either refusal to answer, avoidance or ignorance.

We are confronted here with a scandal of the highest order and a failure of proper ad-ministration, which endanger Australia’s reputation and interests. Like many other people in this place, I have spent a lot of time trying to work internationally to enhance Australia’s standing, its reputation and its interests. I do not take lightly the fact that incompetence, maladministration and culpa-ble negligence have undermined some of that good work.

Let us have a look at what we know. Firstly, we know in this matter that $300 mil-lion was funnelled to Saddam Hussein’s re-gime by the Australian Wheat Board in a process that began when the Australian Wheat Board was wholly owned by the Aus-tralian government. Secondly, we know that the Australian government was concerned about abuse of the oil for food program to fund weapons purchases—because two or three years ago the Prime Minister said so. We know that the Canadians were concerned that the Australian Wheat Board was paying this money and they raised it in a manner that came to the attention of the Australian government in 1999, more than five years

ago. We know that the United Nations was concerned and that it raised it with the Aus-tralian government. We know that the New York Times reported concerns in March 2001 and we know that the Weekly Times reported concerns in Australia in August 2002.

If nobody else was looking at this, what was ONA, the Office of National Assess-ments, doing? We know from the ‘children overboard’ affair that ONA scans newspapers and provides reports to the Prime Minister. I would have thought it should do more than that. But, if that is all it does, it should have known in March 2001 that the New York Times was reporting concerns and in August 2002 that the Weekly Times was reporting concerns and drawn it to the attention of the Prime Minister—and I find it very hard to believe that it did not.

In the ‘children overboard’ affair, the Prime Minister was prepared to release ONA advice, in an unprecedented manner—a manner I thought perhaps he should not have done—to support his political interests. Therefore, I would like to know and see what ONA reported to the Prime Minister, to the Minister for Trade and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs about this matter.

I would also be very interested to know—the Australian Financial Review referred to it this morning—what the Australian security services were doing for 5½ years not to find out that an Australian company was funnel-ling money to Saddam Hussein—the biggest security concern of international security agencies, which work cooperatively. The security agencies of the United States, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand work together and it is incredible that none of them knew that an Australian government agency had commenced and an Australian privatised company had continued to funnel this money to Saddam Hussein—the biggest fear of those agencies. We are told that none


CHAMBER

of them knew and, even if they knew, none of them told the government.

If it is true that ministers did not know, it must have been extremely difficult for them to arrange not to know. They must have gone to great lengths to arrange not to know, be-cause it was public knowledge. It was raised with Australia by the Canadian government, it was raised with Australia by the United Nations, it was reported in international newspapers, it was reported in Australian newspapers and yet nobody knew. How could they not know? They must have gone to extraordinary lengths to make sure that they did not know. There is precedent for Australian government ministers going to extraordinary lengths not to know, but this is more damaging than just some internal po-litical game at the expense of the Labor Party. This is serious stuff causing serious damage to Australia’s national interest.

There have been a lot of references to a letter of November 2000, where DFAT gave approval for arrangements with a trucking company, and to how, clearly, the AWB’s letter had not referred to Alia. That is right—read on its face, there is no problem. But we know that the United Nations had raised concerns about the role of Alia before that, generally. When that matter came to such an efficient department as DFAT, it is incredible that nobody associated the fact that the United Nations was raising generic concerns about the use of a particular trucking com-pany to funnel funds to Iraq and that nobody asked whether that was the trucking com-pany being used here—they did not want to know, therefore they did not ask.

We have always had the allegation until today that the AWB went into Iraq accompa-nied by DFAT. I heard the minister refute that today. I am very surprised that DFAT would allow them to go in without accompa-niment. They would not have in the time I

was minister. People who went into Iraq in that period were accompanied by DFAT offi-cials, or at least by Austrade officials, so I would be very surprised if that is the case. I cannot prove that it is not so—the minister has asserted it is not so, but I am very sur-prised and it should be investigated.

What we are saying here is that we have a trade minister who has been culpably negli-gent—incompetent beyond belief. It has cre-ated a scandal and a farce that embarrasses Australia. It is incompetence at best. It is probably culpable negligence, and the gov-ernment does not deserve to survive. This Minister for Trade does not deserve to sur-vive. It is clear that being leader of The Na-tionals, he has spent too much time trying to solve the problems of his party and not enough time taking care of the problems of Australia. (Time expired)

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) (4.16 pm)—I find the ALP’s approach to this issue both offensive and hypocritical.

Mr Kelvin Thomson—On what basis?

Mr PYNE—I am going to explain that to you right now. Yesterday and today the La-bor Party attempted in this House—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! I remind the member for Wills that he has been warned.

Mr PYNE—to link the coalition govern-ment, this administration, to Palestinian sui-cide bombers, in a disgraceful attempt to attack this government and link it to some-thing that they know we would never have any truck with. Their actions are both hypo-critical and offensive.

Mr Kelvin Thomson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the Herald Sun of 7 February containing exact evidence that wheat money was used to fund Palestinian suicide bombers.


CHAMBER

Leave not granted.

Mr PYNE—The reason the ALP’s actions are hypocritical is that the ALP’s record on Israel, in comparison with the government’s, does not bear close study. The government’s record on the support for Israel and its oppo-sition to things like Palestinian suicide bombers and terrorism is peerless in the his-tory of this Federation. People like the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the member for Ca-sey and I have spent a career supporting the right of Israel to exist and the right of Pales-tine to have its own separate state and live peacefully with Israel. For us to be linked to Palestinian suicide bombers by this opposi-tion—by the member for Griffith—is utterly offensive. The ALP’s record on Israel, how-ever, is at best ambiguous. In the last few years they have attempted to walk both sides of the street with respect to Israel. They have attempted to appeal both to the Palestinian—

Ms George—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The comments being made by the parliamentary secretary bear no relationship to the terms in which this debate has been listed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.

Mr PYNE—If the member for Throsby cared to read the matter of public importance she would find that it says: The failure of the government to discharge its obligations in relation to the national security and trade interests of Australia.

It could not be more broad. I am commenting with respect to the national security of Aus-tralia, because the security of Israel, our sup-port for Israel and our opposition to terrorism are all about the national security of Austra-lia.

The ALP’s record on national security is at best ambiguous and at worst disgraceful. The member for Fowler in this place only last year referred to the actions of Israel as

creating a ghetto-like walled compound around the West Bank and Gaza. She also referred to concentration camps in relation to the state of Israel, which is deeply offensive to the Jewish people, given the history of the Jewish people and the Shoah during the Sec-ond World War. She also has referred in pre-vious debates in this House in a most offen-sive way to Israel—

Ms George—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I again wish to pursue the issue of relevance. I think these comments might be relevant in a debate about the re-spective positions of both political parties vis-a-vis the Middle East situation. They certainly are not relevant—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I think I have the gist of the point of order. But I think if the member for Throsby reads the MPI she will see that it says ‘the failure of the government to discharge its obligations in relation to the national security and trade interests of Australia.’ So it is a fairly broad statement. The parliamentary secretary is in order.

Mr PYNE—It is a very broad statement. I point out to the member for Throsby that it was the member for Griffith who today and yesterday accused this government of aiding and abetting Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. I am responding to that because I am deeply offended as a person who in this House has stood up for the rights of Israel and has opposed terrorism for 13 years in a very public way. I took deep offence and chose not to take a point of order during question time because I knew I would have the chance to speak on this MPI later today.

The member for Fowler also in her speech last year referred to the state of Israel as be-ing involved in ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people. The member for Sydney in this place has referred to Ariel Sharon—a man who, by removing settlements from


CHAMBER

Gaza and bringing peace to the West Bank area, has done more for peace in the Middle East than many other people in Israel in the last 10 years and who today lies ill in a coma—as a war criminal. The member for Sydney has referred to Israel as a rogue state. The member for Grayndler, Mr Albanese, has given succour and support to the member for Fowler and the member for Sydney.

My point is that on this side of the House there has never been any ambiguity about our opposition to terrorism, our opposition to Palestinian suicide bombers and our support for the state of Israel. For the Labor Party to try in the last two days to link us to Palestin-ian suicide bombers is deeply offensive. They should hang their heads in shame for doing that and they should apologise to this side of the House.

The second reason I find this MPI utterly hypocritical is because of the hypocrisy of the Labor Party trying to clothe itself as the party which supports national security. It was only at the end of 2004 that the Labor Party—most members on the other side of the House today—supported Mark Latham to become the Prime Minister of Australia; a man that they knew, the member for Griffith must have known and the current Leader of the Opposition must have known did not support the United States alliance.

The most important touchstone of Austra-lia’s national security is ANZUS, our alliance with the United States: the knowledge that the United States and Australia support each other in the event of ever facing a conflagra-tion—which we hope will never happen—at some stage in the future. It has given us an alliance with the most important nation in the world today, the only behemoth in world political affairs. We are in the fortunate posi-tion of being closely allied to that country.

The Leader of the Opposition in the pre-vious parliament did not support that alli-

ance. The former Leader of the Opposition abused the President of the United States, George Bush. He called him a dangerous man. He said, in fact, that the alliance was the last manifestation of the White Australia Policy. He said the US alliance is a funnel that draws us into unnecessary wars, first Vietnam and then Iraq. In his diaries, he makes it perfectly clear that if he had be-come Prime Minister the US alliance would have been put seriously at risk. He makes it clear in his diaries, in terms of national secu-rity, that he did not regard the US alliance as being as important as this side of the House did. So for this MPI to suggest that this side of the House has put national security and our trade interests at risk is deeply offensive to me and is obviously hypocritical. The La-bor Party stands condemned for it.

The member for Griffith and the Leader of the Opposition supported the member for Werriwa, as he was then, in the election to become Prime Minister. They knew that he did not support the US alliance. They might have backed themselves in the vain hope that, if he were elected, they might have been able to control him. But, as various camera-men and others have found in recent years, the former member for Werriwa is not easily controlled. As the Treasurer said yesterday about what the former member for Werriwa would have done to the economy, as he did to a camera, we can say that he would have done the same thing to the US alliance if he had been elected as Prime Minister.

This side of the House can never stand condemned for putting our national interests at risk. This side of the House has fought the war on terror, enthusiastically tried to defeat terror wherever it finds it around the world. This side of the House supports liberty. It supports freedom. It supports democracy. It is trying to make a difference in Iraq. That is why we went into the war in Iraq: to try and bring about a change in world affairs, to de-


CHAMBER

feat terrorism, to create democracy, to give people in the Middle East an opportunity to see that democracy can work in their nations and to embrace it, because democracies tend not to go to war against each other.

The other side of the House, the Labor Party’s side of the House, did not support the war in Iraq. They made it very clear. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition said he would withdraw the troops from Iraq before the job was done. So for the member for Griffith to stand up here and clothe himself in the hy-pocrisy of this MPI in an attempt to make the coalition side of the House the side that does not support national security is a farce and a mockery. The Australian public would know that to their very bones.

The Australian public know that on na-tional security, on the economy, it is the coa-lition that will deliver good government. The public know that, when it comes to national security, the Labor Party is a risk. It was a risk in the sixties, it was a risk in the seven-ties and it would have been a risk again in the war on terror across the world. For the ALP to lecture this government on national security is akin to General Pinochet lecturing the Chilean people about freedom of speech. It is akin to Henry VIII lecturing the English people about the sanctity of marriage and the importance of families.

What we have really seen here in this de-bate and for the last two days is the member for Griffith’s audition for the Labor Party leadership, which is going slightly off the rails for him because he knows he is not go-ing to get a scalp because there is nothing for us to be ashamed of. He wanted to replace Simon Crean. He talked about it, and he held various press conferences outside his home in Brisbane. He wanted to replace Mark Latham. He did his Hamlet act: ‘Will I? Won’t I? No, I’ll stand aside for Kim Beazley.’ We all know that he did not have

any voters in the Labor Party caucus. The member for Throsby knows that he had no votes in the Labor Party caucus. But it was a brilliant show business line and it got him a lot of publicity. He is now out to get Kim Beazley. He is more Macbeth today than he was Hamlet back in those days. And this is all an audition for his desire, his ambition, to lead the Labor Party—nothing more. (Time expired)

Mr WINDSOR (New England) (4.27 pm)—Before speaking to the general thrust of the matter of public importance, I want to note my interest in some of the comments that the member for Sturt made, particularly in relation to the reasons for entry into the war in Iraq. I think, using the logic that he expressed, one would have to ask why mili-tary forces from Australia are not currently in Zimbabwe. The atrocities that are happening in Zimbabwe at the moment—the deaths and the inhumanity—surely have to be regarded by this government as being of some signifi-cance. There are similar circumstances: a despot and a lack of food in that nation, but regrettably there is no oil. I think that says something in itself.

My major reason for rising today is not to try and pre-empt the Cole inquiry. I agree with a number of speakers who have said that the Cole inquiry should take its course and that, if there are some political adjudica-tions to take place, they should take place then. But there are a number of issues that I think people are raising to try and create illu-sions in relation to the wheat industry. I do not think there has been a member of parlia-ment who actually grows wheat or has been associated with the wheat industry at an ag-ropolitical level who has spoken in this de-bate. There are a lot of people making deci-sions in relation to what they believe the wheat industry is saying.


CHAMBER

I am a grain grower myself, a former member of the Grains Council of Australia and the grains committee of the New South Wales Farmers Association, and one who does have wheat growers within his elector-ate. Wheat growers are not saying to me what a number of members of the opposition have been saying, particularly during ques-tion time today—that is, that they are happy to see access to these markets through any means at all. Wheat growers are not happy to see bribes being used to access markets. Wheat growers do not want this sort of be-haviour to continue, because it is very obvi-ous that, if we are in negotiations in relation to free trade, as our trade minister is, and we give an image that our grain growers are comfortable with access at any price, we put not only them in a position that they do not hold but also any future negotiations in rela-tion to trade, the level playing field, those against subsidisation and those who want open access to marketplaces at risk.

The wheat growers who have spoken to me are most concerned about the conduct of the Australian Wheat Board—in fact they are shocked. They do not know whether the gov-ernment did or did not know of certain cir-cumstances that occurred. But the Prime Minister made the point a few days ago—and I would hope that all members of the government and anybody who knows any-thing about this take heed of what he said; I hope he himself takes heed of it—people should tell the truth in relation to this issue. Because if we do not and the information is hidden there will be an impact on our trading credibility, and the very wheat growers that everybody is trying to make a position for are the ones who will suffer.

The future of the wheat industry has been raised. There is conjecture within the coali-tion about the future of the Australian Wheat Board and the single desk arrangements. Wheat growers who have spoken to me, and

I am sure to other country members of the parliament, are most concerned that this is-sue is being used within the government, outside the government and internationally as a reason to destroy the single desk export arrangements. I made it very plain that I sup-port Mark Vaile in his stand to maintain the single desk arrangements for wheat exports from this nation. If people in the coalition are going to plead, ‘Let’s wait until the Cole in-quiry is over before we make judgments on the outcome of the inquiry and on who did what in terms of the corruption process and who knew what,’ they must also hold back from using the Cole inquiry as the very ex-cuse to destroy the single desk arrangements that currently exist.

If there are people within the Australian Wheat Board, and it seems there are, who have been involved in corrupt activity they should be rooted out and should face the full penalty of the law. If there are ministers of this government who may through that in-quiry or other inquiries be found wanting in terms of what they told parliament and the truth of the matter, they should be made ac-countable for their actions as well. To all sides I make this plea: don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Do not use old politi-cal rivalries as a platform to remove the sin-gle desk at this point in time.

The broader issue that we are dealing with here, and the assumption that some have used, is that we have a problem in terms of trade. Just putting aside the United Nations sanctions at the moment and this peculiar problem with Iraq, we have a problem with trade. We export 80 per cent of what we grow, so we need to export. Therefore, ac-cess to export markets is paramount. We know we are dealing in a corrupt world mar-ket. If you are going to deal in a corrupt world market there is almost an acceptance amongst some—Senator Joyce made some appalling statements the other day, implying


CHAMBER

that bribes are acceptable to gain access to the market. There are people who say, ‘If you don’t do that it’s a zero gain. You do not sell any of the product.’ I do not agree with that, and I am surprised that the National Farmers Federation has not condemned those very words. When a nation that has been at the forefront of trying to free up trade and has been antisubsidisation is silent—in the case of Senator Joyce, a member of the govern-ment, and others who are implying quietly that the wheat growers would accept such behaviour—it is implying that a bribe not a subsidy is okay. That in itself is corruption. We should not stand by and allow that sort of activity to happen.

Assuming that we do have problems with the surplus that we produce within agricul-ture, what are we going to do about that? I made some comments in relation to that this morning. We export 16 million tonnes of grain, on average, from this nation. If this government removed itself from dealing in two corrupt markets—everybody is saying that the wheat market is corrupt, and every-body has always said that the oil market is corrupt—and looked at the policy initiatives that it could put in place for renewable en-ergy, for instance, and some of that grain could be transferred out of food production into energy production, which is right on the issue that this MPI is about, national secu-rity—energy is a very important part of na-tional security. The Americans have woken up; President Bush has woken up to that and is moving down a different line, so maybe our own Prime Minister will follow the president on this issue.

For this parliament to say that, in terms of renewable energy targets, 0.83 of one per cent of our energy needs is going to be achieved by renewable energy—not a man-datory target but a voluntary target—over the 10 years from 2001 to 2010 and that that is an acceptable path to take is to me a demean-

ing statement for those involved not only in the energy industry but also in the farming industry. If this government mandated a 10 per cent use of ethanol in our cars, that would remove half the amount of grain that we currently export, some eight million ton-nes. So rather than endorsing corrupt behav-iour as part of the world market and some-thing that we just have to accept, surely we have to start looking at other ways and means. If people do not want to pay anything for our food, let us look at producing our own energy, because we have to pay their price for energy. An ethanol level of 20 per cent, and there are other permutations and combinations, would remove the need to export grain at all or to enter those corrupt world markets. I make this plea: let us look at some of the alternatives for grain before we look at destroying the single desk ar-rangements.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McMul-lan)—Order! The time for consideration of the matter of public importance has expired.

MARITIME LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2005

First Reading Bill received from the Senate, and read a

first time.

Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY BILL 2005

Report from Main Committee Bill returned from Main Committee with-

out amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.

Ordered that this bill be considered imme-diately.

Bill agreed to.


CHAMBER

Third Reading Ms GAMBARO (Petrie—Parliamentary

Secretary (Foreign Affairs)) (4.38 pm)—by leave—I move:


Question agreed to.


AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AND

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2005

Report from Main Committee Bill returned from Main Committee with-

out amendment, appropriation message hav-ing been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.

Ordered that this bill be considered imme-diately.

Bill agreed to.

Third Reading Ms GAMBARO (Petrie—Parliamentary

Secretary (Foreign Affairs)) (4.39 pm)—by leave—I move:


Question agreed to.


FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

(No. 2) 2005 Referred to Main Committee

Mr BARTLETT (Macquarie) (4.39 pm)—by leave—I move:

That the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2005 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS Rearrangement

Ms GAMBARO (Petrie—Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs)) (4.40 pm)—I move:

That orders of the day Nos 3 and 4, govern-ment business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES Public Works Committee

Reference

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McMul-lan)—Before I call the Special Minister of State I will congratulate him. It is the first time I have had a chance to congratulate my neighbour on his new promotion.

Mr NAIRN (Eden-Monaro—Special Minister of State) (4.40 pm)—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. While this motion is not specifically to do with your electorate, it is in the neck of the woods, so to speak, so it would be of interest to a member in the ACT.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER—True.

Mr NAIRN—I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the

Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consid-eration and report: Proposed fitout of new leased premises for Centrelink at Greenway, ACT.

Centrelink proposes to undertake a fit-out, at a cost of $40.9 million, of new leased prem-ises for its National Support Office at Greenway in the Australian Capital Territory. The proposed fit-out will provide a work environment which integrates flexible work-space design with easily reconfigured ceiling and subfloor services, thereby reducing the cost of organisational and technological change. Construction of the office complex began in September 2005, and the building is scheduled for delivery in August 2007. Sub-


CHAMBER

ject to parliamentary approval, the fit-out procurement process could begin in June 2006, with the fit-out elements being manu-factured between November 2006 and Au-gust 2007, for installation in the new build-ing between August and November 2007. Centrelink plans to occupy the building pro-gressively in November and December 2007. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

AGED CARE (BOND SECURITY) BILL 2005

Cognate bills:



Second Reading Debate resumed.

Ms HALL (Shortland) (4.43 pm)—As I was saying before question time interrupted my contribution to this debate on the Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005 and cognate bills, this legislation enhances protections available for residents of aged care facilities. At that particular time I was reflecting on residents that utilise multipurpose services, MPS. I was making the point that these ser-vices are a very valuable innovation in the delivery of aged care services and was noting the importance of this government entering into an agreement with the states. MPS allow for the effective delivery of services to communities where both health and aged care services are at risk, under threat or non-existent. So I think that this is a very good avenue for the government to actually work in partnerships with the states. It should be used as a model to get away from the blame game of one arm of government blaming the other arm of government for problems that exist.

Under the current arrangements, if a resi-dential care facility provider becomes bank-rupt or insolvent, the resident is not guaran-teed that they will get the relevant accom-modation bond amount refunded. That is not good enough, and I believe that this legisla-tion is essential to address that problem. The bond security bill provides for a scheme whereby the Commonwealth will repay out-standing accommodation bond balances to relevant aged care recipients in cases where aged care providers default. The Common-wealth can then attempt to recover the bal-ance amount from the defaulting aged care provider.

Also contained are administrative steps that must be taken so that a levy on aged care providers can be imposed under the levy bill. The levy bill will enable the Commonwealth to impose a levy on approved providers of aged care if it needs to recover its costs after repaying accommodation bonds to aged care residents whose approved provider becomes insolvent and defaults. The bill will enable the Commonwealth to impose a levy on aged care providers to the extent necessary to re-cover the amounts that it has not been able to obtain from defaulting providers and disclo-sure. This new prudential requirement will be developed over time and will be subject to review. The Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill will enable the Commonwealth to im-pose a levy on approved providers of aged care if it needs to recover its costs after re-paying accommodation bonds to aged care residents whose approved providers become insolvent and default.

Levies can be imposed on approved pro-viders of aged care once a cost recoupment determination is made by the minister. The determination is made when the Common-wealth has not recouped money it has paid out in compensation to aged care residents entitled to bond refunds from a defaulting approved provider or when the Common-


CHAMBER

wealth wants to recover associated adminis-trative costs. The bond security bill provides for the making of cost recoupment determi-nations and contains the process by which defaulting approved providers are identified and arrangements are made for the Com-monwealth to compensate affected aged care residents and recoup its costs. This bill does not actually impose a levy. The rate of any levy will be determined by regulation and cannot exceed the cost recoupment determi-nation amount in any particular case. While any levy imposed may apply different rates to different classes of approved providers, it cannot discriminate between providers on the basis of their location in a particular state or part of a state.

Whilst we are discussing this legislation, I believe that it is imperative that I bring to the attention of the House some of the issues that have been of real concern to both providers of aged care and those people who utilise aged care services. Unfortunately, the provi-sion of aged care has been flawed. The gov-ernment spruiks its innovations and the ex-citing things that it has done in aged care but, unfortunately, they are not working on the ground. The providers of aged care services find that the true cost of effective models of residential and community care are not being funded and that they should be indexed ade-quately. They are particularly concerned about the quality of services that are avail-able to meet the needs of older people and younger Australians.

The issue I think the government needs to address is the Commonwealth own purpose outlays—COPOs. It is currently at 1.86 per cent and is linked to the minimum wage. My question to the government is: what will happen to the COPO indexation now that minimum wages are to change and that the Fair Pay Commission is to be considering wage increases? I see this having the poten-tial to impact on the provision of aged care

services and the potential to impact on the viability of residential aged care facilities. I know that residential aged care facilities be-lieve that they are underfunded and that the COPO payment should be somewhere be-tween four and six per cent as it currently does not meet the costs that are associated with the index.

The government is constantly telling us that we have an ageing population and that in 2011 the baby boomers of the world will begin to reach the age of 65. This is a crisis and something that we must address imme-diately. We have had the Treasurer’s Inter-generational report and last night and earlier today we debated the Future Fund, but I still do not believe that the government has in place the proper legislation to address these needs.

I will quickly mention that aged care pro-viders in both residential and community aged care services since 1997—which puts it right in the government’s court—have ex-perienced costs rising faster than their in-come. This is because when the government fixes the subsidies that the providers will be paying it does not look at things like workers compensation, wages, utility payments, gen-eral insurance, professional indemnity insur-ance and many other fixed costs that do not come into the formula. This is not good enough. Whilst this legislation will improve the situation for residents of aged care facili-ties and their families in relation to aged care bond security, I do not think it addresses any of the issues that I have touched on so far.

In addition to that, we have the existing chronic bed shortage. I know that within the Shortland electorate that I represent in this parliament there is an enormous waiting time for both assessment by the aged care assess-ment teams, particularly in the Hunter area of the Shortland electorate, and the delivery of services—be they in the community or


CHAMBER

actually accessing a bed in a residential care facility. Part of the problem is dealt with by the states absorbing the problem. Those peo-ple who are waiting for a residential bed are being housed or cared for in an acute bed in a hospital. This is not the optimal outcome for those people awaiting a placement in the residential aged care facility and also creates a problem for acute care hospitals.

These are some of the issues that need to be addressed in addition to looking at the aged care bond security. I would add to that the fact that we have a chronic workforce shortage within the health system. There is a chronic shortage of nurses within the acute care system and, more particularly, within the aged care system. This government has failed to address that. There are many more vacancies for assistance in nursing and nurses in the aged care facilities than there are people to fill them. I fear that that may increase as the government’s new industrial relations legislation kicks in and those peo-ple’s wages will become even lower than they are today.

Back in the 40th Parliament there was an inquiry into the future ageing needs of Aus-tralia. It enquired into long-term strategies to address the ageing of the Australian popula-tion over the next 40 years. Unfortunately, that inquiry went through the whole of the 40th Parliament and at the end of that par-liament a draft report was produced. To me, that says that the government is not serious about aged care. It looked at the recommen-dations of Hogan, who expressed concerns about the workforce issues. He linked that in one respect to the disparity of wages between the acute sector and the aged care industry. This inquiry highlighted a number of prob-lems. I will highlight the broad themes that were identified by that inquiry. There was an inadequate focus on services aimed at main-taining healthy functions such as physiother-apy, podiatry, nutrition, speech, oral health

and the diversity of settings—the availability and quality of care for people with dementia or mental health problems and needing res-pite. Respite came up time and time again, on a daily basis and from the perspective of residential aged care. There was confusion about multicommunity care services and is-sues around the quality of community care services. You could have a number of organi-sations competing within the one area with a duplication of services and still people in the community could not access those services. This has not been dealt with. These are real issues that are affecting people on a daily basis.

One of the other issues that are having an enormous impact on residential aged care and older people in the community is the chronic doctor shortage. People are being denied beds in residential care facilities sim-ply because this government has not ensured that there are enough doctors to go into those residential care facilities and make sure that those people can get the services they need. I recommend that all members of the House read this document on the future ageing of Australia. I recommend that the government thinks very carefully about its commitment to older people, because if it cannot even develop a full report to this parliament that addresses the needs of older Australians then it has a big problem. It really does show a lack of commitment in the area of aged care.

I reiterate that issues such as the shortage of aged care beds, the inordinate amount of time that people have to wait for a place in a residential aged care facility, the lengthy time that people have to wait to actually be assessed by ACAT and then access services in the community are a real problem for our ageing population.

The Aged Care Amendment (2005 Meas-ures No. 1) Bill 2005 will enable the strengthening of the existing prudential re-


CHAMBER

quirements relating to accommodation bonds, especially in relation to liquidity, re-cord keeping and disclosure. The new pru-dential requirements will be developed over time and will be subject to review. Flexible care services are those that are provided out-side the normal residential and community care system. Multipurpose services—MPSs, as I mentioned earlier—provide a much more flexible model because they have aged care and health care services combined. They are particularly useful in smaller communi-ties. I was fortunate enough to visit Tullam-ore and see them operating in that commu-nity. I reiterate what I said earlier and rec-ommend them to this government. Each should be extended. They operate very effec-tively. They allow people to stay in their own home and get the high-level care that they would receive in a residential care facility.

Entry contributions are amended in schedule 2. That means that all rules apply-ing to approved providers of residential care services and flexible care services that hold accommodation bonds will also apply to ap-proved providers that hold entry contribu-tions paid before October 1997. Schedule 3 provides that approved providers will com-ply with the prudential requirements if they comply with the new prudential standards that will be imposed under proposed new section 57(4). User rights principles may be set out in prudential standards, and these are defined as standards providing for the pro-tection of accommodation bonds and entry contributions, balances of care recipients, sound financial management of approved providers and the provision of financial management.

Three standards are intended: liquidity standards, records standards and information standards. Implementation of the last two standards will assist with the operation of the guarantee and the recoupment schemes pro-vided for under the Aged Care (Bond Secu-

rity) Levy Bill 2005. Records standards will mean that approved providers holding bonds will establish and maintain independent au-dited records and ensure refunds of accom-modation bonds.

Once again, I would like to reiterate that there is more to aged care and more to pro-viding services than the government has here. I do not oppose what is in these bills, but I think there is a long way to go and a lot of issues that this government needs to look at. We need to ensure that services are out there in the community for our frail aged Australians. We need to ensure that the aged care facilities are properly funded, that the services provided in the community are pro-vided in the best possible way, that we do not have duplication of services and that we ac-tually provide the best service available to those people who need those services.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) (5.01pm)—I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to sum up these important bills in the aged care sector: the Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005, the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005 and the Aged Care Amendment (2005 Measures No. 1) Bill 2005. I would also like to apologise to the member for Shortland for trying to cut her off before question time, not realising that the speakers list had moved around a little. I would also like to thank the member for Shortland and the opposition generally for their support for the bills. I would like to thank the members for Reid, Rankin, Cow-per, Banks, Riverina, Fowler, Hasluck, Chis-holm, Canberra and Calare for their contribu-tions.

Ms George—That is very courteous.

Mr PYNE—The member for Throsby says I am being very courteous, but when the opposition and the government are in furious agreement about important changes it is


CHAMBER

worth while being courteous. It does not happen as often as it should. I thank the gov-ernment for putting these bills forward and the opposition for supporting them. The gov-ernment has presented three very important bills which guarantee the repayment of bonds to residents in the event of an ap-proved provider becoming bankrupt or insol-vent. The bills also ensure improved pruden-tial arrangements in aged care services hold-ing bonds. The government is delighted with the support that it has received, and I will happily sum up the debate.

The Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005 enables the Australian government to repay residents’ bond balances with interest in ac-cordance with the amendments in the meas-ures bill if the residents’ approved provider of aged care becomes bankrupt or insolvent. This means that every resident who has paid or, in the future, will pay an accommodation bond is guaranteed to have their money re-paid even if their approved provider becomes bankrupt or insolvent. The legislation pro-tects all pre-1997 entry contributions for en-try to Commonwealth funded services. The legislation also protects bonds paid by aged care residents in flexible care services known as multipurpose services. Without this new government guarantee, a resident would con-tinue to rank as an unsecured creditor to an insolvent or bankrupt approved provider and may have to wait months or even years to have their bond balance repaid and still not be sure of recovering all of the money owed to them. Under the arrangements set out in the bill the government will repay the bond balance owing to the resident and in ex-change any rights the resident had to recover the amount from the approved provider will be transferred to the Commonwealth. The government will then stand in the shoes of the resident and seek to recover the money paid by pursuing the defaulting provider. If necessary, through the provisions set out in

the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Bill 2005 the government will levy all aged care providers who hold bonds to recover any amount owing.

Existing protections under the Aged Care Act 1997 have worked well, as is shown by the fact there has not been an instance where a resident’s bonds balance has not been re-paid because of the bankruptcy or insolvency of a provider. The government believes, however, that these additional protections are timely. The average new bond was valued at $26,000 in 1996-97 and was $127,600 in 2004-05. Bonds can represent a significant proportion of a resident’s life savings and, understandably, residents and their families expect secure arrangements for their bonds and reassurance that their bond balances will be repaid when the resident leaves the home.

This legislation reflects the government’s three objectives. The first objective is to im-prove the efficiency and sustainability of the aged care sector and strengthen the manage-ment of bond moneys to reduce the likeli-hood of providers becoming insolvent or bankrupt and being unable to pay bond bal-ances. The second objective is to strike a balance between the added security for resi-dents that is provided by this strengthening and the financial impact of the new arrange-ments on the sector’s viability and its stand-ing with the capital markets, including its ability to construct and maintain aged care homes. The final objective is to ensure that all residents who pay bonds receive their full entitlement to the balance of the bonds that they have paid in the event that a provider becomes insolvent or bankrupt.

The new arrangements set out in the three bills will improve both the security of bonds and the management of bonds by the sector. They will complement the $877 million con-ditional adjustment payment which was im-plemented in 2004 and which requires ap-


CHAMBER

proved providers to prepare audited general purpose financial reports. These are two government initiatives which over time will assist to make the residential aged care in-dustry more financially mature and more sustainable. The introduction of these protec-tions demonstrates the coalition govern-ment’s commitment to a world-class system of aged care that provides high-quality, af-fordable and accessible services to meet the individual needs and choices of older Austra-lians. With that, I commend the three bills to the House.

Question agreed to.


Message from the Governor-General rec-ommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading Mr PYNE (Sturt—Parliamentary Secre-

tary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) (5.06 pm)—by leave—I move:


Question agreed to.





Question agreed to.





Question agreed to.





Question agreed to.





Question agreed to.


TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT (NATIONAL ACCESS REGIME)

BILL 2005 Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 December 2005, on motion by Mr Pearce:

That this bill be now read a second time.

upon which Mr Fitzgibbon moved by way of amendment:


“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:

(1) delaying the introduction of this bill for al-most 3 years since the Productivity Commis-sion report was released;

(2) failing to amend Part IIIA of the Trade Prac-tices Act to include the pricing principles in the bill;

(3) failing to properly indicate the relationship of this bill to the report of the infrastructure Taskforce;

(4) failing to produce a single, clear and pro-competitive legislative framework for infra-structure regulation; and


CHAMBER

(5) adding to the complexities of the regime and posing further time delays by providing for a merit-based appeal against declaration arbi-tration outcomes”.

Mr PROSSER (Forrest) (5.09 pm)—The Trade Practices Amendment (National Ac-cess Regime) Bill 2005 makes amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 that will im-plement the government’s response to the Productivity Commission’s report No. 17, Review of the national access regime. The review supported the retention of the regime but made 33 recommendations seeking to improve the regime’s operation, including changes to clarify the regime’s objectives and scope, encourage efficient investment in new infrastructure, strengthen incentives for commercial negotiation and improve the cer-tainty and transparency for regulatory proc-esses. The majority of these recommenda-tions were endorsed by the government.

These changes aim to provide a balance between ensuring a means for business to gain access to nationally significant infra-structure while providing incentives for new investment. The changes are also designed to provide access seekers and investors with greater confidence and certainty about the regulatory framework to enable them to make well-informed decisions.

The national access regime comprises two components—a legislative framework con-tained in part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974, and clause 6 of the 1995 Competition Principles Agreement negotiated between the Commonwealth, state and territory govern-ments. Under part IIIA, business can seek access to strategically important infrastruc-ture services on reasonable terms and condi-tions. This access can be sought in cases where replicating the infrastructure con-cerned would not be economically feasible and where commercial negotiations with the infrastructure owner or operator has failed. This is to ensure that facilities with natural

monopolies do not create barriers to compe-tition.

The national access regime establishes three pathways available for an access seeker to gain access to a strategically important infrastructure service under part IIIA. The parties seeking access may apply to the Na-tional Competition Council to have the ser-vice declared. Declaration gives the access seeker a right to negotiate with a service provider, with provision for arbitration by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission if these negotiations are unsuc-cessful. Declaration of a service under part IIIA establishes a right for access seekers to negotiate terms and conditions of access with facility owners. If negotiation is unsuccess-ful, part IIIA establishes an enforceable right to dispute resolution through arbitration by either a private arbitrator or the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

While part IIIA does not preclude private negotiation between an access seeker and a facility owner, declaration of a service shifts the negotiating balance. The fact that nego-tiations for declared services are underpinned by the threat of arbitration will inevitably condition those negotiations. Negotiation between access seekers and access providers can also be affected by imbalances in infor-mation available to the parties. A service provider’s greater appreciation of the cost and price structures for the services in ques-tion, their technical operation and the degree of spare capacity weakens the bargaining position of the access seeker. Under the dec-laration process, access is provided only to services produced by the infrastructure facil-ity and not to the facility itself.

Section 44B provides clarification that the term ‘service’ includes the use of an infra-structure facility such as a road or railway line, handling or transporting things such as goods or people, and a communications ser-


CHAMBER

vice or similar service but that it excludes the supply of goods, the use of intellectual prop-erty or the production process, except to the extent that it is an integral or subsidiary part of the service. Further, declaration is only possible if the infrastructure facility by which the services are being provided is of national significance having regard to the size of the facility, the importance of the fa-cility to constitutional trade or commerce or the importance of the facility to the national economy. In addition, it must also be uneco-nomical for anyone to develop another facil-ity to provide the service.

As a consequence, the service providers in this context either own or operate a facility of national significance, duplication of which must be uneconomical, that is used or is to be used to provide a service subject to decla-ration. Such facilities traditionally tend to be in public ownership due in part to the sig-nificant capital required to develop a facility. Since the mid-nineties, however, many of these previously government owned verti-cally integrated entities such as electricity, rail, gas and port sectors have been priva-tised or corporatised and have been subjected to vertical separation.

Infrastructure service providers will now be either a vertically integrated provider, such as a provider of an infrastructure ser-vice that also provides services in an up-stream or downstream market—for example, an electricity authority responsible for gen-eration, transmission and distribution—or a non-integrated provider, such as a provider of an infrastructure service that is not in-volved in providing services in upstream or downstream markets. As the services pro-vided by these natural monopoly facilities have been subjected to varying forms of con-testability, third party access seekers could include participants from a wide range of sectors motivated to compete on reasonable terms and conditions with service providers.

A party may also seek access through an ‘effective’ access regime. Where an effective access regime already exists, declaration is not available and an access seeker must use the effective regime. In the case of a state or territory access regime, the question of effec-tiveness can be pre-determined through the process of ‘certification’. An access regime can be certified as effective by the Com-monwealth minister following the council’s recommendation that the regime satisfies the clause 6(4) criteria contained in the competi-tion principles agreement.

A party may also seek access under the provisions of an access undertaking. Part IIIA allows service providers to submit a voluntary access undertaking to the commis-sion for approval. An undertaking sets out the terms and conditions under which access to the service or services will be provided. An undertaking may be submitted in relation to existing or proposed infrastructure and can either apply to an individual service or pro-vide the basis for an industry access code.

Services covered by undertakings cannot be declared. I must add here that, while I generally support the principles of third party access—such as power generation utilities feeding into a grid that gives better competi-tion—there are, however, certain circum-stances where I do not support third party access. The best example that I can give is the rail infrastructure in the iron ore industry in the north-west of Western Australia.

Effectively, the whole rail and loco activ-ity is deemed to be part of the same process. Indeed, when the diesel fuel rebate did not apply to locomotives in the rail industry, it could be claimed by the iron ore industry because the locomotives were deemed to be part of the total mining operation process. The entire process is about the management, scheduling and coordination of the rail net-work and rolling stock. The success of the


CHAMBER

north-west operation is that one entity coor-dinates the entire operation over all managed sites.

The iron ore companies operate their fleets so that they can extract different grade orders from different mines to get the mate-rial to their blending operations at the port, and they make highly efficient use of their infrastructure to complete the process to meet growing export demands. Therefore, one of the challenges with third party access is the adverse impact on existing operators. The mine-to-rail-to-port activity is an inte-grated logistics chain and is considered to be one complete process that does not lend itself well to interruptions and to being shared with third parties.

Third party access could be accommo-dated, in my view, provided a single entity controlled the operation to ensure that there was minimal disruption to the mining infra-structure and that there was no reduction in production outputs. Third party access would have to be compatible and assimilate with current operations and procedures. If giving third party access to rail infrastructure in the mining sector in Western Australia had the effect of lowering production efficiency and increasing the cost base, in this instance I would not support third party access to exist-ing infrastructure.

The major changes proposed in the bill give effect to the government response and include the insertion of a new objectives clause in part IIIA to provide for greater cer-tainty for infrastructure owners, access seek-ers, investors and other interested parties. The bill also requires decision makers under part IIIA to have regard to the objectives clause when making their respective deci-sions. The objectives clause emphasises the need for part IIIA decisions to promote com-petition by promoting the economically effi-

cient operations and use of investment in infrastructure.

It also recognises the role of the national access regime in establishing a framework to promote a consistent approach to access regulation in industry-specific access re-gimes. The implementation of the objectives clause will promote consistency and provide guidance to decision makers in the applica-tion of part IIIA. This will enhance regula-tory accountability and ensure certainty for all stakeholders, as well as contribute to greater investor confidence in investing in infrastructure facilities.

The national access regime seeks to pro-mote competition in the economy by promot-ing the efficient investment in, and use of, infrastructure facilities of national signifi-cance and it provides an avenue by which firms can seek access to services provided through infrastructure facilities owned and operated by others. To this end, the bill will encourage efficient investment by the intro-duction of pricing principles that will pro-vide additional certainty to regulated firms and access seekers and will help to address concerns that a regulator’s own values will unduly influence decisions relating to the terms and conditions of access. The pricing principles will assist in ensuring consistent and transparent regulatory outcomes. They will also enhance certainty for investors and access seekers and facilitate commercial ne-gotiations between parties.

Changes are also proposed to the declara-tion threshold. The government has agreed to amend the ‘promote competition’ declaration criteria contained in paragraph 44G(2)(a) to ensure that access declarations are only granted where the expected increase in com-petition in an upstream or downstream mar-ket is not trivial. A number of criteria must be met before a service provided by means of an infrastructure facility can be declared


CHAMBER

under part IIIA, thereby giving third parties the right to negotiate access with the service provider. These include: access to a service would promote competition in at least one market, other than the market for the service; the infrastructure facility is of national sig-nificance; and access, or increased access, to the service would not be contrary to the pub-lic interest.

The bill amends the criteria so that decla-rations of service cannot be recommended unless access to a particular service would promote a material increase in at least one market, other than the market for the service. This should help reduce any uncertainty for access providers and lessen the perceived regulatory risk of the regime for prospective investors in significant infrastructure.

A number of changes are proposed under the existing arbitration requirements in part IIIA. The ACCC will be given discretion to conduct multilateral hearings in arbitrations, following notification to parties in a dispute. Such processes will allow the commission to consider the service in its entirety and could streamline administrative requirements and reduce costs. The arbitration provisions will be amended to make it explicit that, when arbitrating a dispute, the ACCC can require a service provider to permit interconnection to its facilities by the access seeker.

In the absence of any developed case law on this issue, the government is taking the opportunity to provide clear guidance in this area to access seekers and service providers. It is also proposed to finetune the provisions relating to arbitration of disputes over access to declared services to facilitate timely deci-sion making and to ensure that the arbitration process is not used as a strategy to delay the provision of access to services.

The bill also applies a number of non-binding target time limits to various deci-sions under part IIIA. While the time limits

are not binding on the decision makers con-cerned, they oblige the decision makers to publish a notice of any extension beyond the target time limit, thereby providing regula-tory transparency, as well as increasing in-centives for timely decision making.

The bill also introduces legislative provi-sions for public input on declaration and cer-tification applications and proposed access undertakings where it is reasonable and prac-tical for the National Competition Council or the ACCC, as the case may be, to undertake such consultation. This will provide for more informed decision making, particularly when assessing the public interest in each case. The bill places additional obligations on ministers, the council and the commission to publish reasons for their decisions or rec-ommendations.

This will enhance procedural transparency and regulatory accountability and will facili-tate informed consideration of whether there are grounds to challenge a decision by merit review before the tribunal or judicial review by the courts. The commission will also be required to publish reports on completed ar-bitrations for services declared under part IIIA. The bill sets out a range of minimum requirements to be included in the reports, but the specification of minimum require-ments will not preclude the commission from reporting on a matter relevant to an arbitra-tion, subject to the exclusion of confidential commercial information. Publication of arbi-tration reports will enhance regulatory trans-parency and may provide guidance for future cases.

In addition to encouraging efficient in-vestment in infrastructure facilities, the bill also includes measures to enhance the incen-tives for commercial negotiation between access providers and access seekers. One such important measure is to allow access providers to lodge an undertaking after a


CHAMBER

service has been declared. Post-declaration undertakings will reduce the need to deter-mine terms and conditions of access through arbitration procedures. This will improve certainty for service providers and access seekers and will facilitate commercial nego-tiations between them.

In conclusion, this bill significantly en-hances the national access regime by intro-ducing improvements that will further en-courage efficient investment in and use of important infrastructure facilities in Austra-lia. Importantly, the regime is not intended to replace commercial negotiations between access seekers and providers and seeks to support the legitimate interests of essential infrastructure owners.

The changes being proposed by the gov-ernment provide a balance between ensuring a means for business to gain access to infra-structure, while providing incentives for new investment in essential infrastructure. The changes are also designed to provide access seekers and investors with confidence and certainty about the regulatory framework so they are able to make well-informed deci-sions. I commend the original bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.

COMMITTEES Selection Committee

Report

Mr CAUSLEY (Page) (5.27 pm)—I pre-sent the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 13 February 2006. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of com-mittee and delegation reports and private Members’ business on Monday, 13 February 2006

Pursuant to standing order 222, the Selection Committee has determined the order of prece-dence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business on Monday, 13 February 2006. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as fol-lows:

COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS

Presentation and statements

1 JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON CORPORATIONS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES

Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission

The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to con-clude by 12:35 p.m.

Speech time limits —

Each Member — 5 minutes.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]

2 STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS

Digital TV — Who’s buying it ?

The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to con-clude by 12:45 p.m.


Each Member — 5 minutes.


PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

Order of precedence

Notices

1 Mr Griffin to move: That this House:


CHAMBER

(1) recognises that the atrocities that occurred in Rwanda between 1994 and 1995 were some of the most horrific and appalling crimes seen in recent history;

(2) notes that between April and July 1994 up to one million Tutsi and moderate Hutus were killed at the hands of the militia;

(3) notes that in response, Australia deployed 657 ADF members to Rwanda in 1994 and 1995 as part of the United Nations Assis-tance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR);

(4) notes that the Australian contingent was largely a medical team whose key role was to provide medical care and health support for UNAMIR and, where possible, those injured by the massacres;

(5) acknowledges that Australian troops came under direct fire in and around refugee camps and faced the daily threat presented by land-mines and other explosive devices placed to maim or kill Australian soldiers;

(6) acknowledges that these peacekeepers ex-perienced the most horrible events such as the massacre of up to 8,000 men women and children at the Kibeyo refugee camp in April 1995;

(7) notes with concern that many of these troops are now suffering serious mental and physi-cal disabilities as the result of their service;

(8) notes that despite the severe trauma and the danger faced by Australian Peacekeepers in Rwanda, their service is still not treated as warlike service under the Veterans’ Entitle-ment Act; and

(9) calls on the Government to immediately re-classify this service from ‘hazardous’ to ‘warlike’ in recognition of the risk faced by these troops and the magnificent contribution they made to the protection of Rwandan citi-zens. (Notice given 7 February 2006.)

Time allotted — 30 minutes.


Mover of motion — 5 minutes.

First Government Member speaking — 5 min-utes.

Other Members — 5 minutes each.


The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

2 Mr Baird to move:

That this House:

(1) recognises and supports the United Nations Association of Australia (NSW Division) for its resolution to declare 2006 the ‘National Year of Community’;

(2) acknowledges the importance of ‘commu-nity’ to the social fabric of Australian soci-ety; and

(3) notes the role of community in developing young Australians. (Notice given 10 October 2005.)

Time allotted — remaining private Members’ business time prior to 1.45 p.m..



First Opposition Member speaking — 5 min-utes.




3 Mr Tanner to move:

That this House:

(1) notes that approximately 1,000 Australians under the age of 50 are living in nursing homes because they have a severe disability such as acquired brain injury;

(2) recognises that in most cases such accom-modation is not appropriate, and that greater choice is needed for these younger people;

(3) acknowledges that as both federal and state governments are deeply involved in the aged care sector, both levels of government have a role to play in addressing this problem;

(4) notes that the Aged Care Innovations Pool has provided a small start to addressing the problem; and


CHAMBER

(5) calls on federal and state governments to use the Council of Australian Governments proc-ess, and the current Senate Community Af-fairs Reference Committee Inquiry, as a basis for a combined effort to deal with this seri-ous problem. (Notice given 31 May 2005.)

Time allotted — 30 minutes.



First Government Member speaking — 5 min-utes.




4 Mrs B. K. Bishop to move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that Australia’s rates of inter-country adoption are significantly lower than leading western nations;

(2) notes that the Commonwealth should take the primary role in managing Australia’s ex-ternal relations in inter-country adoptions;

(3) recognises the role that non-government or-ganisations should have in managing inter-country adoptions in Australia; and

(4) notes that parents of children adopted from overseas have less access to benefits and en-titlements than the rest of the community. (Notice given 10 November 2005.)

Time allotted — remaining private Members’ business time.



First Opposition Member speaking — 5 min-utes.






Debate resumed.

Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth) (5.27 pm)—The Trade Practices Amendment (Na-tional Access Regime) Bill 2005 follows on from the findings of the Productivity Com-mission’s review of the national access re-gime. The bill amends the Trade Practices Act 1974 to enable implementation of most of the recommendations made by the Pro-ductivity Commission in that review.

This bill is of great importance to the fu-ture of Australia’s national infrastructure needs and comes at a time of ongoing ne-glect of our national infrastructure by the Howard-Costello government. The bill fol-lows call after call by industry, the states and federal Labor for the government to actively work to address our national infrastructure needs.

Since May 2001, on at least 11 separate occasions, the Reserve Bank has referred to infrastructure capacity constraints impacting negatively on our national economy. As re-cently as its May 2005 quarterly statement on monetary policy, the RBA warned the government that capacity constraints were stifling economic growth. Most galling in failing to address our national economic in-frastructure needs was the Treasurer’s 10th budget, which ignored the fact that, when interest rates increased by 25 basis points in March 2005, capacity constraints were cited as half the reason by the Reserve Bank.

In addition to the Reserve Bank’s warn-ings, over the last 12 months the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the OECD and CEDA have all voiced their dis-satisfaction with the government’s compla-cency in this area. Since 1997, public sector investment, including in infrastructure,


CHAMBER

slumped to around 2.2 per cent of GDP, the sixth lowest of all OECD countries. An analysis by the Business Council of Australia shows a $90 billion shortfall in Australia’s infrastructure. The BCA estimates substan-tive infrastructure reform could lift the level of our GDP by two per cent or $16 billion annually.

Most recently, Hugh Morgan, the past president of the BCA, summed up the collec-tive frustration of the business community when he said: There’s really no strategy, there’s no plan for Aus-tralia’s infrastructure needs.

The Howard-Costello government’s response over the past year or so has been to commis-sion no fewer than eight separate ad hoc in-frastructure inquiries, including the Prime Minister’s own so-called Exports and Infra-structure Taskforce. One overriding factor relating to all of these inquiries is a complex regulatory regime and a lack of coordination of national interest priorities so far as infra-structure is concerned. On 1 June 2005 the Prime Minister’s taskforce issued its formal report. Even the Prime Minister’s own hand-picked Exports and Infrastructure Taskforce, led by his old mate Max Moore-Wilton—and labelled by Hugh Morgan as ‘a committee to protect Sir Humphrey’—found there were ‘underlying weaknesses’ in Australia’s export infrastructure which must be addressed to prevent further capacity constraints and bot-tlenecks developing in export industries.

Labor’s view is that all levels of govern-ment, particularly the Commonwealth gov-ernment, need an ongoing source of inde-pendent expert advice on the extent of infra-structure problems, how to fix them and how we plan for the roads, railways, ports and communications networks of the future. Consistent with Labor’s view, and despite its shortfalls as a political fix to a policy prob-lem, the Prime Minister’s taskforce report

noted that the greatest impediment to the development of necessary infrastructure is the way in which the current economic regu-latory framework is structured and adminis-tered. The taskforce called for a simplified regulatory test, suggesting that regulators base decisions on whether proposals by the infrastructure owner are reasonable in the commercial circumstances and in light of statutory objectives. This recommendation reflects the fact that the crux of the com-plaints made by asset owners is that regula-tors are overly concerned with keeping down the prices that monopoly infrastructure op-erators charge over the short term, leaving providers with insufficient incentives to make much-needed investment in necessary infrastructure expansion.

That background brings us to the bill. La-bor’s attitude to the bill is reflected by the second reading amendment, circulated and moved in the name of Mr Fitzgibbon, the shadow assistant Treasurer, shadow minister for revenue and member for Hunter. That second reading amendment reads:

“whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:

(1) delaying the introduction of this Bill for al-most 3 years since the Productivity Commis-sion report was released;

(2) failing to amend Part IIIA of the Trade Prac-tices Act to include the pricing principles in the Bill;

(3) failing to properly indicate the relationship of this Bill to report of the infrastructure Task-force;

(4) failing to produce a single, clear and pro-competitive legislative framework for infra-structure regulation; and

(5) adding to the complexities of the regime and posing further time delays by providing for a merit-based appeal against declaration arbi-tration outcomes”.


CHAMBER

The second reading amendment refers to the absence of pricing principles in the bill, to be addressed by an amendment to be moved in the committee stage by the member for Hunter, which has been circulated in his name.

The bill remains timely—if not overdue, given the fact that it was introduced last year and sat on the Notice Paper for a consider-able time. It is timely that a bill addressing infrastructure access issues is being consid-ered at the present time. The government might pretend that it is timely, but it is also massively overdue. Our current national in-frastructure difficulties could well have been averted had the government not been com-placent and acted much earlier to provide certainty to investors and to access seekers.

The bill before us is the government’s formal response to the Productivity Commis-sion’s review, which had its genesis 10 years ago when Labor was in government. Many will recall the Hilmer committee’s report on national competition policy which made a number of recommendations on a national approach to competition policy, the outcome of which in 1995 was agreement by the states and territories to implement national competition policy. The fundamental premise of national competition policy was increas-ing competition throughout the economy in order to build economic capacity and more effective national economic performance.

The national access regime was included as part of the 1995 national competition pol-icy. There are two aspects to the national access regime, one of which is dealt with in the bill today. The first is clause 6 of the 1995 competition principles agreement which was negotiated between the federal, state and territory governments. That agree-ment set out the principles for assessing third party access to nationally significant infra-structure. The second is the legislative

framework found in part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974, which seeks to ensure that infrastructure with natural monopoly characteristics does not become a barrier to competition. Under part IIIA of the act, ac-cess to nationally significant infrastructure can be made available to businesses in situa-tions where duplicating it would not be eco-nomically feasible or, in other words, where it would be an inefficient use of capital and where commercial negotiation has failed to see agreement on access arrangements.

There are three ways in which an access seeker can currently gain access to such natural monopoly infrastructure. Firstly, they can do so by applying to the National Com-petition Council to have the service de-clared—a mechanism that establishes a right to negotiate terms and conditions of access with the service provider. In the event that negotiations fail, declaration also gives an access seeker the right to seek binding arbi-tration by the ACCC. Secondly, they can do so by seeking access through an ‘effective’ access regime, meaning that it satisfies cer-tain agreed criteria. Thirdly, they can do so by seeking access under the provisions of an access undertaking from the service provider which has been approved by the ACCC.

In October 2000, the government commis-sioned the Productivity Commission to un-dertake a review of that regime. That report was delivered on 28 September 2001 but not released until 17 September 2002, together with the government’s interim response. But it was not until February 2004—over 2½ years from the delivery of the review—that the government finally responded to the Pro-ductivity Commission’s findings. The delay from September 2001 to February 2004 on a matter of such fundamental importance to our national economic efficiency, productiv-ity and international competitiveness is obvi-ously unacceptable.


CHAMBER

To compound that delay, it has taken nearly two years following the government’s formal response for the legislation to finally be dealt with by the House. It is five years since the commissioning of the original Pro-ductivity Commission review into national access and four years after the Productivity Commission delivered its report to the fed-eral government, and only now do we see the legislation formally being debated in the House. That is five long years of uncertainty for third party access seekers to nationally significant infrastructure—five long years that have seen hurt done to the Australian economy.

The government’s overdue response con-tains a number of changes to the national access regime that Labor supports. Two rec-ommendations are worth mentioning today because they go to the heart of building a competitive environment that also guarantees certainty for consumers and investors alike. The first is the introduction of a new public policy objects clause. The objects clause is intended to promote the economically effi-cient operation of, use of and investment in infrastructure so as to effect competition in both upstream and downstream markets and, importantly, to ‘provide a framework and guiding principles to encourage a consistent approach to access regulation in each indus-try’. Labor supports this approach. It is a sensible measure because it provides guid-ance on the intent and purpose of part IIIA of the act.

The second relates to pricing principles contained within the legislation. In its 2002 report, the Productivity Commission recom-mended that pricing principles ‘with specific application to arbitration for declared ser-vices, assessments of undertakings and evaluations of whether existing access re-gimes are effective should be included in part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act’. In its formal response to the Productivity Commis-

sion’s report, the government in 2004 agreed that statutory pricing principles should be established in relation to part IIIA to provide guidance for pricing decisions. I support the government’s logic that such an approach would contribute to consistent and transpar-ent regulatory outcomes over time as well as provide commercial certainty for both inves-tors and access seekers. Accordingly, the government’s formal response stated that it would include specific pricing principles in part IIIA, including that regulated access prices should:

(i) be set so as to generate expected reve-nue for a regulated service or services that is at least sufficient to meet the effi-cient costs of providing access to the regulated service or services; and

(ii) include a return on investment commen-surate with the regulatory and commer-cial risks involved.

As well, the government agreed that any ac-cess price structures should:

(i) allow multi-part pricing and price dis-crimination when it aids efficiency; and

(ii) not allow a vertically integrated access provider to set terms and conditions that discriminate in favour of its downstream operations, except to the extent that the cost of providing access to other opera-tors is higher.

Given that this was the government’s formal response to the Productivity Commission’s recommendations, it would not have been unreasonable to see these principles some-where in the legislation. The government had, after all, gone so far as to draft the ap-propriate principles with the specific refer-ence that: The Government agrees to include the following pricing principles in Part IIIA.

However, an initial review of the legislation revealed that any such pricing principles were to be excluded from the body of the legislation and included only in the regula-


CHAMBER

tions, to be specified by the Treasurer. This would have been a significant watering down of the previous position taken by the gov-ernment. The government’s decision to move pricing principles into regulations was done without any adequate explanation, even with the benefit of a Senate inquiry.

This was a point neatly put in the public hearings of the Senate Economics Legisla-tion Committee on 11 August, when the En-ergy Network Association said: We think it could potentially have a chilling effect on new infrastructure development because … you—

an investor— may make a different sort of risk-reward assess-ment investment decision on the basis of whether or not these pricing principles are within ministe-rial determination or the statute.

It is extraordinary that at the first opportunity the government had to demonstrate that it was actually capable of doing something to rectify our national infrastructure prob-lems—after eight infrastructure inquiries as well as numerous bodies calling for urgent work by government to alleviate our national infrastructure difficulties—it stumbled on the detail with a flawed policy implementation.

Not including the pricing principles in part IIIA could have had two adverse conse-quences. Firstly, it would have diminished the certainty that investors and access seek-ers have been seeking for both existing infra-structure and future infrastructure invest-ment. Secondly, part IIIA acts as a model access regime for industry specific access regimes. Removing pricing principles from part IIIA would have promoted greater di-vergence across industry specific access re-gimes rather than a consistent, certain na-tional approach. This runs directly counter to the intent of the objects clause itself.

Regardless of the contents of any pricing principles, leaving them as a matter for the

discretion of the Treasurer of the day is poor policy. It will not foster the certainty and transparency that pricing principles en-shrined in legislation would do. It will not achieve the certainty needed to ensure that commercial operators invest in our nationally significant infrastructure into the future. It would have meant that investors and poten-tial investors in infrastructure subject to part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act would have had no idea what pricing rules might apply, other than the fact that they would be be-holden to whatever pricing principles the Treasurer decides to promulgate following their investment. As such, the pricing princi-ple regulations may have turned out to be somewhat different from investor expecta-tions and may well have undermined the ba-sis of that investment decision.

Labor is glad to see that the government has finally seen the sense of enshrining the pricing principles into the body of the legis-lation rather than allowing it to be deter-mined through ministerial determination. Labor believes that the guiding principles for the pricing of access charges for nationally significant infrastructure must underpin the certainty investors and users both need. It is only by enshrining these principles in the legislation that the level of certainty inves-tors and users both need can be guaranteed over time. It is certainty for investors and users alike that will underpin future invest-ment and growth in our nationally significant infrastructure, one of the fundamental under-pinnings of our future economic productive capacity.

That is why Labor believes that regulated access prices should (1) be set so as to gen-erate expected revenue for a regulated ser-vice or services that is sufficient to meet the efficient costs of providing access to the regulated service or services, and (2) include a return on investment commensurate with the commercial risks involved. That is also


CHAMBER

why Labor believes that the access price structures should, firstly, allow multi-part pricing and price discrimination when it aids efficiency; secondly, not allow a vertically integrated access provider to set terms and conditions that discriminate in favour of its downstream operations, except to the extent that the cost of providing access to other op-erators is higher; and, thirdly, provide incen-tives to reduce costs or otherwise improve productivity. Labor does not believe that the government has gone far enough to ensure a competitive environment for infrastructure development in our nation, and that is why Labor will move its own amendment to the pricing principles to further ensure a robust, competitive environment for infrastructure development. That is reflected by the com-mittee stage amendment circulated in the name of my colleague the member for Hunter.

Australia needs to simplify the provision of nationally significant infrastructure if we are to take Australia to the next level of pro-ductivity improvement. This government has failed dismally to take Australia to that next level. The government has failed to invest in our future national prosperity, instead com-placently taking five long years to get us to this point and have the content and detail worked out correctly. Current and future in-vestors require both timely and certain out-comes to make the right investment deci-sions and they require an environment that encourages further investment. Australia’s economic and productivity performance de-pends on certainty—both regulatory cer-tainty and legislative certainty. While Labor supports this bill for the greater economic good of our nation, we take exception to the flawed implementation of this legislation. We call on the government to support La-bor’s amendment to ensure an appropriately competitive environment of certainty for infrastructure investment and development. I

commend the second reading amendment and the detailed committee stage amendment circulated in the name of the member for Hunter to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—Before I call the member for Moncrieff, I would like to acknowledge the new Minister for Workforce Participation, who is at the table. I congratulate her on her well-deserved elevation to higher office.

Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (5.46 pm)—Mr Deputy Speaker, I join with you and associ-ate myself with your remarks. I am pleased to speak today to the Trade Practices Amend-ment (National Access Regime) Bill 2005, and I will comment about the remarks that the member for Perth made in his contribu-tion to this debate. It is important to recog-nise that the national access regime plays a crucial role in our national economy. Many years ago, the roll-out of cable and broad-band which took place, most notably across the suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, saw a duplication of the type of infrastructure that, potentially, we could be talking about with respect to this bill.

Whilst a competitive environment in an open economy such as Australia is some-thing to be cherished and fostered because it typically leads to the most optimal economic outcomes, it can also be said that an overly competitive environment, especially where economic efficiencies can be gained from natural or near natural monopolies, would result in suboptimal economic outcomes. Recognising this, the principle of a national access regime was introduced as part of the Hilmer recommendations in the early to mid-1990s.

Various speakers in this debate have high-lighted those principles contained in the competition principles agreement that was reached between the federal and state gov-ernments at COAG. At that point, it was gen-


CHAMBER

erally regarded that a national access regime would provide the kind of framework that would lead to good economic outcomes that were in consumers’ interests where natural monopolies existed or natural monopoly characteristics existed in a particular market. The key, of course, is to differentiate be-tween those markets in which it is important to protect a natural monopoly because it pro-vides optimal economic outcomes and those markets in which monopolies ought not be protected because they lead to, for example, price gouging or other economic inefficien-cies leading to suboptimal economic out-comes.

In that regard, I am pleased that the gov-ernment is taking steps to address some of the features that have emerged as a conse-quence of a number of reviews of the opera-tion of the national access regime. We know that the Trade Practices Act is designed to promote competition in markets—that is a positive thing. Part IIIA of the Trade Prac-tices Act puts in place a legal regime to fa-cilitate user access to services provided by essential facilities that operate as natural monopolies—for example, railway lines, gas pipelines and electricity and water infrastruc-ture.

My constituents may wonder what is the benefit and purpose of a national access re-gime. How does it apply to their daily lives? For all Australians the efficient utilisation of not only capital but, importantly, the goods or services produced in natural monopoly markets does have an impact, for example, on the prices that we pay for some of these services. Electricity, water and gas are all common services and it is important that we regulate them correctly.

In recent years, we have also seen the great economic stock that Australia has as a result of being the world’s best producer in primary industry and energy markets. In par-

ticular, in Australia’s west, in Queensland and in parts of Central Australia we see very large amounts of our natural resources being successfully exploited and sold to foreign markets, all of which has helped to contrib-ute to the long period of economic growth and sunshine that Australia has enjoyed. When one considers that there are many bil-lions of dollars worth of capital tied up in sunk costs to exploit this type of energy and these natural resources, it is absolutely cru-cial that the respective governments of the day, Commonwealth and state, have the cor-rect policy settings if they are to continue to provide the incentive necessary to create a commercial return for those companies that sink those billions of dollars of capital.

I heard the member for Perth making various comments about his concern over what he alleges are delays by the government in the introduction of this bill. I also heard him speak of a lack of a uniform approach with respect to access, as well as a number of other aspersions that he cast on the operation of this bill. In fact, I think the line that the member for Perth used was that, after five long years of hurt being felt by the national economy, he was pleased to see this bill be-fore the House. I am fascinated that appar-ently five long years of harm has been done to the national economy, because the last time I looked at the figures the Australian economy was in better shape than it has been for decades. Under the stewardship of the Treasurer, Peter Costello, we have seen the Australian economy continue to move for-ward with the investment of record amounts of capital in new infrastructure projects. We have seen record prices achieved overseas for Australia’s natural resources. This has been done under the existing access re-gime—an access regime, I might add, which was introduced by the Australian Labor Party.


CHAMBER

In stark contrast, I turn the parliament’s at-tention to the operation in Queensland of a separate, state based access regime, which operates under the Queensland Competition Authority Act. In particular, the Queensland Competition Authority, for a period of slightly less than two years, was looking at the issue of how to deal with a coal port in Queensland at which we were getting an ex-ceptionally poor level of service. This is the kind of infrastructure that is crucial to our national economy, crucial to maintaining export growth and crucial to generating wealth for this country. Yet, under a state Labor government, we saw that infrastruc-ture bogged down because the Queensland Competition Authority was unable expedi-tiously to make an informed decision which would lead to the kind of certainty that was required by the companies involved.

It is important that governments act, but it is also important that governments get the policy settings right, and this bill does get those settings right. In September 2005, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee recommended that the bill be amended so that the pricing principles would be included in the bill itself rather than implemented through a subordinate legislative instrument. The government has accepted this recom-mendation, and I too am pleased that this took place. Effectively, the amendments as a result of the acceptance of this recommenda-tion are that a minister must, by legislative instrument, determine principles relating to the price of access to a service and that the bill should set out the pricing principles re-lating to the price of access to a service. The ACCC will be required to have regard to the pricing principles when making an arbitra-tion determination and when deciding whether to accept an access undertaking or access code. The fact that the pricing princi-ples are contained in the statute rather than in subordinate legislation is, as I said, a step in

the right direction, and I am pleased that the Australian Labor Party acknowledges that.

Access regimes, by their very nature, are complex. An access regime typically in-volves the utilisation of infrastructure worth hundreds of millions of dollars, if not bil-lions of dollars, and the companies involved are playing a high-stakes game. In that re-gard, it is little wonder that many of the ex-isting infrastructure projects that the Austra-lian economy is enjoying the use of are sub-ject to often protracted negotiations between the various parties when it comes to an ac-cess regime. It almost goes without saying that it is in the interests of the parties to achieve as expeditious a resolution on an access regime as possible. It goes without saying that, where there is clearly a benefit to be gained through the utilisation of existing or forward-looking infrastructure that is to be introduced into Australia, and where there is capacity that allows for one or more compa-nies to utilise that infrastructure, there is something to be gained by companies work-ing together.

It has been my observation that this has occurred on many occasions. In fact, there have been a number of instances in which the national access regime has worked very well. There are, of course, those instances in which, when it comes to the national access regime, a stakeholder does not wish to see access granted to its infrastructure. And it is typically in these instances that we see the protracted kinds of negotiations and indeed the protracted arbitration that often takes place. Where an effective access regime can be put in place, or access undertakings pro-vided, we have seen that utilised. But we are now dealing with, for example, infrastructure under a declared service. That declared ser-vice, as others have mentioned in this debate, provides for negotiation and subsequently arbitration by the ACCC where resolution cannot be achieved. It is these most difficult


CHAMBER

aspects of negotiations on access regimes for the piece of infrastructure concerned that often capture the media headlines and the interest of the business community, because any big business with a piece of infrastruc-ture that is potentially subject to being a de-clared service places a lot of stock in the judgments made and decisions taken by the ACCC as part of the arbitration process.

The fact that we see the incorporation of pricing principles into legislation that is not necessarily industry specific makes an im-portant contribution and provides indicators to the various stakeholders and potential new market entrants as to the kinds of considera-tions that the ACCC will take into account with respect to that piece of infrastructure or indeed to a piece of infrastructure that may potentially be subject to being a declared service. In this regard, pricing principles must be transparent. I am pleased that, through the amendments the government has agreed to, we will see that transparency con-tained in the bill.

Pricing principles are important also be-cause it is very clear that, for those who are engaged in industry, the economic power-house that drives this country and creates wealth—the infrastructure that we see par-ticularly in Western Australia, Central Aus-tralia and along the eastern seaboard—is the kind of infrastructure for which owners want to know that a commercial return will be supplied. Owners are of course seeking op-timal economic result for the kind of capital that is sunk into major infrastructure pro-jects. In this regard, the incorporation of the pricing principles helps to provide the cer-tainty that is required.

In many respects, despite the protests of the member for Perth and other members opposite, many aspects of access undertak-ings have proved to be very successful. Ac-cess undertakings and effective access re-

gimes do work effectively, and we have seen that on many occasions. So it is a bit false for members opposite to claim that where you have protracted negotiations under a declared service it is somehow an indication of the inappropriateness of the national access re-gime—principally because, by virtue of the fact that if an effective access regime were not put in place or if access undertakings were not provided, it almost goes without saying that that particular piece of infrastruc-ture was always going to be the subject of negotiation and indeed arbitration. So in that respect, this bill is a positive step forward. The pricing principles are included in the legislation, and that is a positive step for-ward. I am very pleased to commend the bill to the House today.

Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (5.59 pm)—I want to support Labor’s amendment to the Trade Practices Amendment (National Access Regime) Bill 2005. I think we need to make sure that we have as strong a compe-tition regime as we can, and I think there are risks inherent in the bill presented to the House that that regime will be diminished. Frankly, this is a government that does not support the competition policy and the vari-ous small business protections that were put in place by Labor governments during the 1980s and 1990s. It is a government which has, in a variety of ways, sought to damage small business, effectively preventing them from collective bargaining. Labor remains the sober advocate of fairness and protection for small business from monopolistic behav-iour, and indeed the protection of all workers to collectively negotiate.

This bill changes the regime under which a service provider can obtain access to an infrastructure facility. The purpose of the regulation is to seek to ensure access to in-frastructure where elements of natural mo-nopoly exist and to enhance competition and restrain monopolistic behaviour while en-


CHAMBER

couraging investment in infrastructure. The Productivity Commission reviewed the re-gime back in 2001, and this bill is the gov-ernment’s response to the Productivity Commission’s recommendations. The bill changes the existing regime by including a new objects clause that decision makers will need to have regard to when setting access pricing arrangements. Secondly, it introduces for the first time pricing principles which the Productivity Commission has recommended be embodied in part IIIA of the Trade Prac-tices Act.

I am concerned that a consequence of some of the measures in the legislation is that, under cover of the current infrastructure debate, the Howard government will unravel important competition principles in favour of private monopolies at the cost of competition and, therefore, at the cost of the Australian economy and the consumer. Indeed it is in-structive to look at how the government uses its friends to solicit advice and third-party reinforcements. Take, for example, the case of the Prime Minister’s former head of the Public Service, former key adviser, tactician and confidant of the Prime Minister, Max Moore-Wilton, who was also a former head of the Wheat Board which has become a matter of some controversy in recent times. In his role as CEO of Sydney Airport Corpo-ration he is the chief executive of the mo-nopoly provider of Australia’s largest air gateway. This makes Mr Moore-Wilton one of the most powerful figures in transport in-frastructure in this country, leading a major private sector operator with the ear of the government.

Last year he was appointed by the Prime Minister to serve on the taskforce to advise on export infrastructure. Apart from the head of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Brian Fischer, the other member of the taskforce was Henry Ergas, an economist well known for advising

private infrastructure monopolies. Mr Moore-Wilton presides over a deregulated industry in which he is able to set the access fees, and indeed Sydney airport fees have gone through the roof. Not surprisingly, there have been some claims that Mr Moore-Wilton is abusing his monopoly power and that Sydney airport should be re-regulated. To fend off the criticism, Sydney Airport Corporation produced work by Network Economics, which turns out to be none other than the company of Mr Henry Ergas, that other member of the Prime Minister’s infra-structure taskforce.

So it is little wonder that some in the in-dustry were bemused by the appointment of Mr Moore-Wilton to a taskforce to look at whether other private monopolies, such as ports, should be exempt from price controls. The executive director of the Board of Air-line Representatives of Australia, BARA, Warren Bennett, had this to say in a report in the Financial Review of 22 April last year: The airlines see that as being rather strange—that an operator of a private monopoly should be in-volved in determining government policy about whether private monopolies should be regulated. You can bet your bottom dollar that if a favour-able outcome is determined in the case of marine ports–that they are allowed to be privately devel-oped with no regulation—then all of the airport operators will be clamouring for the same sort of treatment.

Cathay Pacific’s Australian general manager said: It certainly sits oddly. He’s not going to be impar-tial, is he? The chaps who are paying him—

that is, Macquarie Bank— are going to be paying him to toe one particular line.

A spokesman for the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, was reported in the same article. He said: I can’t see Max has any conflict of interest. The infrastructure taskforce is looking at blockages


CHAMBER

and I don’t think anyone sees Sydney Airport as a major infrastructure blockage.

But when the report came out it had precious little to say about physical infrastructure blockages. Guess what? It was all about regulation! But before we come to the report, it is instructive to look at what else the for-mer Deputy Prime Minister’s spokesperson had to say about the question of Sydney air-port’s predatory pricing practices. He was reported, again in the Financial Review, as saying: ... before privatisation, prices had been artificially held down and were now simply moving towards more real levels.

Of course, what is a real level is in the eye of the beholder. BARA’s Warren Bennet points out that deals with other airports have been completed smoothly but that negotiations were stuck with Sydney airport because they were trying to push through much bigger increases. He said: You get the feeling you’re dealing with a monop-oly. They have the market power and we’re fight-ing an uphill battle.

An uphill battle indeed. In a letter to Max Moore-Wilton dated 31 May 2005, Mr Ben-nett laments: At the meeting on 20 May, the airline representa-tives were very disappointed when the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited resorted to threat-based negotiations to progress outstanding issues. Specifically, the airlines were informed that ‘su-perior economists’ are available to SACL who would discredit the airlines’ arguments in any arbitrated process. On this basis, the airlines should be prepared to accept an outcome close to the SACL offer.

The process of negotiation is supposed to involve the tabling of proposals or offers for considera-tion. Not surprisingly, SACL’s tactic of threats and demands generated little progress on the out-standing issues between SACL and the airlines.

There is no doubt that Max Moore-Wilton was playing hard ball and would not want

any pesky ACCCs or National Competition Councils to get in his way. And the ACCC has had things to say about airport monopo-lists. Commissioner John Martin was quoted in the Australian Financial Review as say-ing: ... airports are a monopoly and there should be some control ... lt’s fair to say that the commis-sion took the view when the government was looking at this that price capping was justified.

But of course the decision about these mat-ters was not one for the ACCC. It also proved to be a vexed issue for the National Competition Council when Virgin Blue ap-plied in late 2002 to have Sydney airport reregulated. The National Competition Council issued a draft determination in fa-vour of the airline but generated an ava-lanche of media attacks and lobbying from Mr Moore-Wilton. Then, in an about-turn, the National Competition Council, under new leadership a year later, issued a final recommendation that Sydney airport should not be reregulated. In January 2004, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Ross Cameron, signed the final decision to leave the airport unregulated. When he lost his seat at the federal election a few months later, he was almost immediately employed by—you guessed it—Macquarie Bank, own-ers of Sydney airport. This is all too charac-teristic of the Howard government: decisions which favour particular private business in-terests followed by a return of the favour further down the track.

The matter was still appealed to the Aus-tralian Competition Tribunal, but the Prime Minister went ahead anyway and appointed his old friend to the taskforce on export in-frastructure. Given the live issues before the Australian Competition Tribunal, this was not an appropriate appointment. Mr Moore-Wilton had more than a minor conflict of interest. It raises real questions about this government’s intentions in relation to the


CHAMBER

appropriate regulation of monopolies, par-ticularly with the prospect we now have of the full privatisation of Telstra.

So what did Mr Moore-Wilton and Mr Er-gas find in their taskforce report? There was just a fleeting reference to physical infra-structure blockages or looming blockages—in particular to land based congestion at the Port of Melbourne, Port Botany, the Port of Brisbane, Fremantle, Adelaide and Port-land—and a finding that detailed analysis was required to determine port access con-straints over the next 10 years. But virtually all of the rest of the report was devoted to a discussion of regulation—no mention of how the government’s pork barrelling and politi-cal game playing was diverting vital dollars from important export infrastructure such as roads and rail. The report did note that:

During the course of the taskforce’s inquiries there was a strong, clear and consistent call from industry for the Australian Government to take a leadership role in facilitating efficient investment in infrastructure, especially key transport infra-structure ...

Despite noting that, the report proceeded to ignore the whole question of investment in infrastructure, especially key transport infra-structure. Its recommendations dealt solely with process issues—regulation, planning and coordination—so we had a single na-tional regulator; simplifying and streamlin-ing the regulatory process and ‘light-handed’ regulatory approaches, in particular ‘a pre-sumption that issues to do with export ori-ented infrastructure will be resolved by commercial negotiation between the infra-structure provider and users’; improved time lines for decisions by regulatory agencies; joint planning processes for ports; industry coordination of logistics chains; regulatory agencies to consider the whole of the logis-tics chain; and an infrastructure audit, this last one being the ultimate cop-out by a lazy government in office for 10 years that re-

sponds to an infrastructure crisis with report after report after report. What a surprise that the government conjectured on the findings of this particular taskforce report even before it was released, given its composition. No doubt its findings were music to the ears of private monopolies. The report said:

If our problem in earlier years was at times profligate investment by government owned mo-nopolies, the risk today is that efficient, commer-cial investment will be delayed or even deterred by inappropriate policy settings. Simpler, more transparent, predictable and accountable regula-tion is of key importance in this respect.

Macquarie Bank could not have said it better themselves. Indeed, I suppose the report was them talking.

There were a number of useful sugges-tions in the taskforce report, but I do high-light Mr Moore-Wilton’s conflict of interest to make a point about monopolies. We must take great care when utilising ‘light-handed’ regulation to ensure that we do not hand to monopolies a cash cow and hold other busi-nesses which must deal with them to ransom. If this government is seeking to change the playing field and amend the competition pol-icy reforms put in place by the previous La-bor government, we must examine its mo-tives and the fine print and keep it account-able.

This bill changes the regime under which a service provider can obtain access to an infrastructure facility. The purpose of the regulation is to seek to ensure access to in-frastructure, where elements of natural mo-nopoly exist, to enhance competition and restrain monopoly behaviour while encour-aging investment in infrastructure. The bill, as I indicated earlier, amends part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act, which deals with access to monopoly infrastructure, allowing pricing principles to be determined by the Com-monwealth minister. It includes a new ob-jects clause that decision makers will need to


CHAMBER

have regard to. Labor’s view is that the ob-jects clause should have mentioned restraint on monopoly behaviour and included much stronger procompetitive language.

The threshold for the application of the regime is raised to include only projects of national significance. New arbitration ar-rangements and appeal procedures are pro-vided for, but rejected by the government was the Productivity Commission recom-mendation that the arbitration provisions of part IIIA be amended to provide for two-sided information disclosure requirements involving both the access provider and the access seeker. The access seeker should be required to provide sufficient information, including technical and commercial require-ments, to enable the access provider to re-spond to the request for access. The provider of the declared service should be required to provide sufficient information to an access seeker to facilitate effective negotiation on the terms and conditions of access. Access to the federal regime is restricted to cases in which no effective state access regime exists, immunity from the regime is provided where a government service is provided by com-petitive tendering, and the bill introduces new target time limits, procedures for con-sultation and reporting of decisions.

One thing that the government party room had a bit of an argument about I understand was the provision in this bill to substantially reduce the powers of the ACCC to stop anti-competitive conduct that involves providing a good or service on the condition that goods or services are purchased from a third party, which is known as third-line forcing. I be-lieve that the amendment which has been moved by my colleague the member for Hunter goes in the right direction and will ensure that this legislation does not have a detrimental impact on competition and does not tilt the balance overly in favour of mo-

nopolies. Therefore, I would urge the House to support the amendment.

Debate interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS

Oil for Food Program Mr VAILE (Lyne—Minister for Trade)

(6.16 pm)—Mr Speaker, I seek the indul-gence of the chair to add to an answer.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—Indulgence is granted.

Mr VAILE—I wish to add to an answer I gave earlier today to the member for Griffith concerning claims of a meeting between the AWB and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in mid-1999 on oil for food pro-gram contracts. I can advise the House that, upon checking, DFAT has no record of any DFAT-AWB meeting in that period in which the mid-1999 changes made to the contracts were discussed. I am also advised that, in response to Mr Rogers’s claim at the Cole inquiry in which he said Mr Eamons would have had discussions with DFAT on this is-sue, Mr Eamons later said in evidence that he did not discuss contract arrangements with DFAT. Therefore, the premise of the question by the member for Griffith is completely accurate.



Debate resumed.

Mr McARTHUR (Corangamite) (6.17 pm)—I refer to the previous speaker, the member for Wills, and make the observation that his discussion revolved around the infra-structure of airports which historically were publicly owned and moved to the private sector. My discussion will revolve around private sector investment, where investors place their money at risk in the Pilbara re-


CHAMBER

gion, and the quite major impact this bill will have, depending on the outcome.

However, I am very pleased to contribute to the important debate on the Trade Prac-tices Amendment (National Access Regime) Bill 2005. The Howard government is acting to improve the workings of the national ac-cess regime arrangements instituted in part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 to pro-vide investors and access seekers with greater confidence and certainty over the regulatory environment and to encourage investment in infrastructure. The national access regime is a complex regulatory mechanism, as most members would be aware. The challenge for government is to protect the property rights of businesses to ensure private enterprise has the incentive to invest in infrastructure while enhancing na-tional productivity and wealth creation.

The provisions for a national access re-gime are intended to assist the private sector in maximising utilisation of essential pub-licly owned infrastructure and supporting competition. The national access regime is not intended to strengthen opportunities for a socialist state to interfere in private business affairs. In this regard governments have a responsibility to carefully consider the pow-ers proposed to be delegated to regulators and to curb those to allow wherever possible for businesses—asset providers and access seekers—to negotiate the use of facilities on a commercial basis. This simple position is that the national access regime was proposed to allow private enterprise to compete against state government owned and regu-lated monopoly services. Prior to the national competition policy reforms of the 1990s, these state owned services—water, power and transport—were generally inefficient and held back Australian industry, retarded eco-nomic growth, distorted investment and hamstrung our export industries—agriculture, resource and manufacturing—

making vibrant Australian business and in-dustry less competitive in the international market.

The national access regime was not meant to undermine private businesses which had invested in privately owned and operated infrastructure. Private infrastructure owners should expect to be able to determine access arrangements commercially without undue interference from government and on a basis that is suitable to them. To illustrate this point with a contemporary example, I cite the case between Fortescue Metals Group Ltd and BHP Billiton. In this case Fortescue, a private company, is seeking legal access to the private railway infrastructure of another private company, BHP Billiton, at the com-pany’s Mount Newman railway system lo-cated in the Pilbara region. Fortescue Metals Group has applied to the National Competi-tion Council to have the BHP railway infra-structure declared under the Trade Practices Act and the NCC’s draft recommendations released in November 2004 supported decla-ration.

Declaration of the private rail infrastruc-ture would not necessarily mean that Fortes-cue Metals Group, or another smaller com-pany, would automatically gain access to the railway but it would provide ‘a legally en-forceable right to negotiate access to the Mount Newman rail line’. I quote again: A decision to declare the Mt Newman service will not automatically result in FMG gaining access.

A decision by the Minister to declare the Mt Newman service will entitle FMG to seek access either through an agreement negotiated with BHP Billiton or, in the absence of an agreement, through arbitration by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The ACCC has the power to impose access terms ...

The source of these quotes is an NCC media release, ‘draft recommendation’, 4 Novem-ber 2005.


CHAMBER

An agreement could be negotiated with BHP Billiton or, failing that, access could be arbitrated by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission, which could im-pose conditions on BHP Billiton over the use of its own private infrastructure. Such an outcome would undermine the confidence in private investment. That is the key argument that I put forward in this contribution.

This bill introduces amendments to part IIIA as the government’s response to the rec-ommendations of the Productivity Commis-sion’s inquiry report Review of the National Access Regime, September 2001. The bill’s provisions are consistent with the findings of the Prime Minister’s Exports and Infrastruc-ture Taskforce, which reported in May 2005. The taskforce made important findings in relation to the national access regime. The national access regime was established com-ing out of the national competition policy reforms recommended by the report of the Hilmer committee on national competition policy. The Hilmer report discussed the im-pact on national competitiveness and on business access to, and investment in, ‘essen-tial services’ that represent ‘essential facili-ties’ for businesses. The report stated: ... the term ‘natural monopoly’, electricity trans-mission grid, telecommunication networks, rail tracks, major pipelines, ports and airports are often given as examples. Some facilities ... oc-cupy strategic positions in an industry, and are thus ‘essential facilities’ in the sense that access to the facility is required if a business is to be able to compete effectively ...

The source of that quote is the report by the Independent Committee of Inquiry into na-tional competition policy from 1993.

The matter of access to such facilities in-cludes not only the matter of obtaining ac-cess to the ‘essential facility’ but also the pricing and conditions attached to the access. The Commonwealth and state and territory governments considered the Hilmer report

and agreed to implement the national compe-tition policy package of reforms. The na-tional access regime was an important ele-ment of these reforms, allowing third parties to seek access, on reasonable terms and con-ditions, to the services of essential infrastruc-ture facilities. Principles for a national access regime were established under clause 6 of the Competition Principles Agreement be-tween the Commonwealth, states and territo-ries, and the legislative framework was es-tablished, as I mentioned earlier, under part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

So the philosophical question is: who has a right of access to infrastructure facilities in Australia where it is not practical or eco-nomical to duplicate the infrastructure? That is the key question I wish to address. We see these questions on the debate on Telstra with regard to who should own the Telstra net-work and who, under regulation, should have access to that infrastructure. There are de-bates concerning who owns the port facili-ties—the member for Wills alluded to that—and who has access to these services; who owns the free-to-air television spectrum and who has access to purchase the licences; ownership of electricity networks and the cost of accessing these networks for energy retailers; and who owns the road network and who should contribute to road mainte-nance and upgrade. The answer to these questions is becoming more difficult with the changing ownership arrangements following corporatisation and privatisation of what were originally government owned facilities and services and because of private-public partnerships. The national access regime has been reviewed many times since the intro-duction of national competition policy.

I was pleased to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Commit-tee on Communications, Transport and Mi-croeconomic Reform inquiry into the role of rail in the national transport network. The


CHAMBER

committee reported in July 1998 and the re-port was entitled Tracking Australia. This was a very good report which considered the effectiveness of the national access regime as it applied to utilisation of Australia’s rail in-frastructure. The committee was asked to consider Rio Tinto’s iron ore rail operations for its wholly owned subsidiary, Hamersley Iron, in the Pilbara. The case is different in the Pilbara because, unlike the eastern sea-board, where we are talking about rail infra-structure built by Australian taxpayers, Rio Tinto’s rail network is independently owned and operated and has been purpose-built to support its own operations and paid for by their own shareholders. Rio Tinto explained the difference in the circumstances in its 1998 submission to the Productivity Com-mission’s inquiry into progress in rail re-form:

Privately owned rail systems in the west were designed from the start to be fully�integrated into the production systems of which they are part. This is a pattern of development quite different to that experienced earlier in the eastern States, where State governments played the major role in providing ‘common carrier’ infrastructure ser-vices across the region and it was not open to the coal companies to develop their own rail systems. In designing policy to enhance community wel-fare, it is vital that these differences be recog-nised. Failure to do so risks very substantial dam-age. The reform process, as it has been experi-enced to date, has impacted very differently on the privately owned systems in the west and the State-owned monopolies in the east. Both sets of impacts need to be carefully considered in assess-ing the progress of reform and recommending measures to enhance the flow of benefits.

The committee considered the potential dis-ruption to Rio Tinto’s highly integrated op-erations through third party access to the mine to port rail haulage operations and the risk to private investment in the development of infrastructure facilities. The fundamental question is: who has the right to determine

access to privately owned and constructed infrastructure facilities such as the Rio Tinto iron ore rail? On this matter, the Tracking Australia report makes the following com-ment in paragraph 4.54:

The committee recognises the potential na-tional benefits of granting third party access to privately owned infrastructure of economic sig-nificance, such as the Pilbara iron ore railways. However, it also recognises the enormous diffi-culties in providing for that access without inter-fering with the property rights and/or material interests of the infrastructure owner. The commit-tee considers that, in general, the benefits to costs ratio of providing for third party access to rail infrastructure, private or public, is unlikely to be positive where that rail infrastructure forms part of a highly utilised, integrated production process (such as mining or milling).

I personally observed these operations and support that recommendation very strongly. In a briefing to parliamentarians last year, Rio Tinto argued that the company’s ability to respond to market opportunities for in-creased demand from China is directly re-lated to the single user nature of its privately owned rail infrastructure. Rio Tinto’s export capacity will have expanded by 75 million tonnes per annum between 2002 and 2006, ‘adding $3.75 billion to Australia’s export earnings’. Rio Tinto have also argued: Allowing third party access to the Pilbara infra-structure will inevitably mean that the inefficien-cies of the east coast multi-user facilities will be transported to the Pilbara.

This is a sobering argument. The Productiv-ity Commission was asked to review the na-tional access regime and reported in Septem-ber 2001, which report I mentioned earlier. The government’s response to this report underpins the amendments in this bill.

Dr Alan Moran, from the Institute of Pub-lic Affairs, made an important submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry in De-cember 2000, and it is worth mentioning in this debate. The submission addresses the


CHAMBER

question of access to private infrastructure. It is a fairly long quote, but it should be on the public record. The IPA wrote:

Ostensibly, the Hilmer Report itself did not differentiate between private and publicly pro-vided essential facilities. It was however aware of the harm that could be visited on private property rights generally by regulatory seizure of some of those rights. Hence ... the report understood the deleterious investment implications of regulation. Indeed, the authors said they were, ‘conscious of the need to carefully limit the circumstances in which one business is required by law to make its facilities available to another’ (p.250). The Hil-mer Report returned many times to emphasise the need to avoid undermining property rights and, hence, investment incentives, (e.g. p. 256, 258). Hilmer added ‘While it is difficult to define pre-cisely the nature of the facilities and industries likely to meet these requirements, a frequent fea-ture is the traditional involvement of government in these industries, either as owner or extensive regulator.’

In reality the impetus for the Hilmer report was to redress the competitive restraining effects of state government owned or controlled monopolies. In Australia in the early 1990s the only “essential facilities” were those businesses which enjoyed government support or protection from competi-tion.

This is an important element to recognise when considering the extent to which the national access regime should impact on pri-vate infrastructure.

More recently, the impact of the national access regime on Australia’s exports and in-frastructure was considered by the Prime Minister’s Exports and Infrastructure Task-force, which reported in May 2005 and which the member for Wills referred to in his speech. The taskforce was chaired by Dr Brian Fisher and its members were Max Moore-Wilton and Henry Ergas. It was a high-powered taskforce with intellectual depth and considerable experience in this area. The taskforce addressed the conflict that exists under the national access regime

between the objective of promoting competi-tion and the need for government to step out of the way of successful Australian busi-nesses operating on the highly competitive international market. It said: ... Australia has a strong interest in the efficiency of export oriented infrastructure. However, it is important to remember that export industries op-erate in competitive world markets. Producers have little ability to increase price above the com-petitive level, as they are largely price takers ...

As a farmer, I agree with that entirely. It also said: ... the view of the taskforce is that regulation should be sparingly applied to infrastructure used by export industries.

It also said: ... third party access to a vertically integrated, tightly managed, logistics chain may promote competition, but undermine the efficiency with which that chain is operated and managed.

Currently, there is no clear mechanism allowing an ‘efficiency override’—

and I emphasise that comment— for applications for declaration of export related facilities under Part IIIA or its associated regimes. Part IIIA lacks any authorisation mechanism, based on efficiency, that could be used to limit the scope of access. While there is a public benefit limb to the Part IIIA tests, its phrasing signifi-cantly narrows its impact. Finally, while there is an exemption provided for ‘production proc-esses’, that term is not defined, nor is any guid-ance given as to the purpose and scope of the exemption.

Even if efficiency considerations were not explic-itly included in Part IIIA, the taskforce believes it would be desirable to clarify the ‘production process’ exemption. More specifically, it should be made clear that the purpose of the exemption is to prevent the imposing of third party access in vertically integrated, tightly managed, logistics chains, especially those related to our export in-dustries. This would minimise the risk that access regimes would disrupt and undermine the very


CHAMBER

areas of the economy that have performed best in the management of export related infrastructure.

That is from the May 2005 publication Aus-tralia’s export infrastructure: report to the Prime Minister by the Exports and Infra-structure Taskforce. I note that Rio Tinto, which I mentioned earlier, have strongly en-dorsed the implementation of the taskforce’s ‘efficiency override’ consideration into part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. The taskforce also reported: In our view, there should be a presumption that issues associated with export oriented infrastruc-ture will be resolved by commercial negotiation between the infrastructure provider and users. We accept that this will often be imperfect, but it is still likely to be preferable to intrusive regulation.

Again I support that point of view. The infra-structure taskforce recommended the Coun-cil of Australian Governments simplify and streamline the regulatory process applying to export oriented infrastructure by: ... providing a presumption that issues to do with export oriented infrastructure will be resolved by commercial negotiation between the infrastruc-ture provider and users.

I welcome the taskforce report. The infra-structure taskforce and the IPA have reflected my own views on the application of the na-tional access regime. I apologise to members of the House for the technical nature of this bill and the explanation, but it is a very com-plex legal argument which does reflect a fi-nal decision in the case of BHP, Rio Tinto and those companies that have made invest-ments of shareholders’ money in infrastruc-ture.

The national access regime is important to allow competition to state government regu-lated services, to maximise the utilisation of and investment in infrastructure to support the economic prosperity of the country. By introducing the ‘efficiency override’ provi-sion, as recommended by the Prime Minis-ter’s infrastructure taskforce, regulators

would consider the individual circumstances of each case and, where private infrastructure assets were in question, the competition ob-jective would be offset by the need to sup-port the efficiency of successful existing op-erations, such as Rio Tinto Iron Ore at Ham-ersley Iron in the Pilbara.

I commend the bill. I have some sympathy with the amendment put forward by the op-position and some of the points of view that I have read in the press. It is a complex issue. It is one that I have looked at quite carefully in terms of the railway access. If we have the current railway arrangements for freight in Australia where access regimes are being negotiated quite equitably on the one hand and where private sector investment in the north-west has made absolutely huge in-vestments in rolling stock and railway track on the other hand, those investments should be protected and not overridden by some very fine legal interpretation of part IIIA of the access regime. It would be my hope that these amendments in the bill would clarify some of these very technical arguments and that investors in future could be assured that their billions of dollars of investment into infrastructure projects would not be at risk by legal interpretations of the act, both in spirit and in the legal content.

I commend the general debate on competi-tion policy. I think both governments have done an excellent job in promoting the com-petition concept. I think it is part of Austra-lia’s current prosperity that we have taken away the bottlenecks of those non-competitive activities of state governments in the last 15 years so Australia is at the fore-front of those infrastructure activities which are generally undertaken by state govern-ments and local councils in other countries. I think we lead the world. I hope that this bill will lead the world in providing clear, abso-lute guidelines that will protect private inves-tors so that they can invest with confidence


CHAMBER

in the future because of these considerations. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr CREAN (Hotham) (6.36 pm)—I rise to support the amendment moved by the member for Hunter on behalf of the Austra-lian Labor Party. I say at the outset that La-bor do support the recommendations of the Productivity Commission which form the basis of the Trade Practices Amendment (Na-tional Access Regime) Bill 2005. We also support the bill’s intention of improving the operation of the national access regime. This regime aims to ensure access to infrastruc-ture where elements of a natural monopoly exist so that we do enhance competition, de-spite that natural monopoly, and we restrain that monopoly behaviour while at the same time not putting up a barrier to investment, which I think was the point the member for Corangamite was making towards the end of his speech. I am sure he made it at the begin-ning too, but that is the bit that I heard.

The bill moves to change the act in the following ways. It includes a new objects clause. It includes pricing principles. It pro-vides for the regime to include only projects of national significance. The bill contains new arbitration and appeal procedures. There is restriction of access to the national regime where there is an effective state regime, there is immunity from the regime where a gov-ernment service is provided by competitive tendering and there are new target time limits and procedures for consultation and report-ing of decisions. So this has some important and comprehensive elements attached to it.

In particular, we support the inclusion of pricing principles in the act, as originally recommended by the Productivity Commis-sion but not originally embraced by this gov-ernment when it first brought the bill into the House. I will come to that in a minute. The point I want to make at this stage is that we urge the government to accept the amend-

ment proposed by the member for Hunter which allows consideration of regulatory risk but does not necessarily mandate that that consideration occur. The government, on the other hand, proposes to mandate the consid-eration of regulatory risk.

Over recent years we have seen the priva-tisation of many formerly publicly owned infrastructure facilities. Given that trend, it is essential that we ensure that users have fair and reasonable access to those facilities and that exorbitant monopoly rents are not ex-tracted which will be passed on to consumers or which will make our exports more expen-sive on world markets. What Labor have concern with is the way the principles are proposed to be worded. It in effect tips the balance too far in favour of the owners, who may well set exorbitantly high prices at the expense of users and consumers. We accept that regulatory risk is and can be a pricing factor for providers and has to be subject to regulatory control. The real issue is: how do we take account of that regulatory risk? In some cases, it may be appropriate to take account of it, in others not. What the gov-ernment’s amendments do is essentially mandate that in all cases it is taken account of. That means that the owner will be able to pump up prices for what they assert to be that regulatory risk and insist that it has to be taken account of because the act as is pro-posed requires it. Our amendment effectively provides discretion to the regulator. It would leave it to the discretion of the regulator, and we believe that is the sensible course of ac-tion to take.

It is interesting to note—and I said this earlier—that when this bill first came into the House there were no pricing principles included in it. We argued at the time that there needed to be pricing principles. Again, the member for Hunter, on our behalf, put forward a set of those principles. The gov-ernment has now accepted that pricing prin-


CHAMBER

ciples have to be included and has proposed by way of an amendment to include them, but not to the full extent that we were sug-gesting. This bill gives an opportunity for greater certainty for both investors and users, and these are the two vital components when it comes to the provision of these services.

In the second reading speech the Parlia-mentary Secretary to the Treasurer quite rightly listed the reasons why statutory prin-ciples are important. Those opposite were late converters to this cause; nevertheless, they have been converted and we welcome it. What we ask is: why don’t they go to the full extent that we have been suggesting? The Productivity Commission recommended statutory pricing principles be established. The parliamentary secretary said that they will provide guidance on the broad objec-tives of access regimes and how these will be applied, they will provide greater certainty to regulated firms and access users, they will provide guidance for approaches in particular industries and they will help to address the concerns that a regulator will unduly impose its own values.

The government, having thought long and hard over four years, and having brought this bill into the House with no pricing principles included, caved in on the day debate on this bill was first scheduled. That was some time ago, because debate on this bill has been a long time coming, as all members who are prepared for it would know. Whilst the gov-ernment has adopted Labor’s amendment and suggestions for pricing to a large extent, it has not gone the full extent and this legis-lation does come to us in a weaker form. La-bor’s amendment will strengthen it.

The basic purpose of the Trade Practices Act is to promote competition and to protect users and consumers. The national access regime which this bill amends is a legal re-gime in the Trade Practices Act to facilitate

user access to services provided by essential facilities—essential facilities that operate as natural monopolies such as rail lines, gas pipelines, electricity and water infrastructure. It does not make sense to build duplicate railway lines, roads, electricity grids and so on. We do accept that you need only one of the carriageways, a physical structure, in the forms that I have identified. But, given that we acknowledge that point, putting those monopoly facilities in private hands demands that we ensure that provisions are in place to prevent them from extorting monopoly rent from the natural monopoly they have come to own.

Telecommunications is obviously another vital piece of infrastructure, particularly for the regions—and I will come to that in a minute. It is not dealt with in this legislation; it is dealt with separately. The provision of telecommunications services throughout the nation and particularly in the less populated and less profitable rural and regional areas is of great concern. It is the great enabler for our regions. Without affordable access to fast broadband internet connection, the regions will be left behind. If we want them to par-ticipate in the information economy and to establish small businesses in their homes or in their remote communities, they need to have affordable access to this infrastructure. It is the great challenge. It is a debate that we will have, particularly associated with the further sale of Telstra, if the government pro-ceeds down its intended path.

In the context of the national access re-gime, the principles inherent in it and the access to it, it is interesting to remind our-selves that the pricing of Telstra’s last mile infrastructure, which is in effect a natural monopoly, also presents the same sorts of challenges to the provider of it, unless we also ensure access to users at affordable rates. One of the reasons that we as a nation have failed to properly utilise broadband is


CHAMBER

the lack of effective last mile access. This is an issue that is going to be debated seriously.

Whilst Telstra is not dealt with in this bill, I think you can see that the sorts of principles that apply to a national access regime also have relevance to this other vital piece of infrastructure. Everywhere that I travel in regional Australia, the need is always raised with me for affordable broadband access. It was underpinned in the recent State of the regions report. In essence, it found that the regions that have good access are doing well; those that do not are left behind.

Labor are committed to fighting for the provision of affordable broadband access throughout the nation. In my view, it is probably the greatest infrastructure challenge that this nation faces. Just as access to the standard telephone was the clarion call of the past, access to fast broadband is the new one. It is about how we link the regions; it is about how we empower them. It is the fun-damental issue that regional development will hinge on. Labor believe that the best way to do that is to keep Telstra in govern-ment ownership, and to the extent to which there are market failures—and there are many, otherwise we would not be talking about the problem—to fund that market ac-cess through a component of the ongoing dividend stream. Labor have always argued that in the past. If anyone doubts the signifi-cance of it, we proposed this back in 1998. I got the library to do the calculation. At that stage we proposed a 35 per cent component of Telstra’s dividend stream being applied to a fund to connect the nation. The library has indicated that, had that policy been put in place, there would have been in excess of $5 billion in that fund. That would have taken us a very long way to the connectivity chal-lenge that I have talked of and, in particular, to fund the market failure, which is inherent in the more remote and regional areas of our country.

Our view is that the government’s solution will not work, because they are going to sell it, they are going to get a one-off payment, but they are not allocating sufficient from that payment to meet the task. The National Party have gone along with this—once were Nationals, I might say, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley. I know your allegiances. In our view, they are now just a paid-up branch of the Liberal Party. The defection of Senator Julian McGauran is an example of it. I seri-ously think that the way in which the sell-out by the Democrats saw their demise as a po-litical party because they ratted on a funda-mental commitment to the electorate, so too will the sell-out of Telstra by the National Party herald their demise. We are already seeing the fracturing within that party struc-ture. It has a terribly important political component attached to it, quite apart from this very fundamental issue as to how we connect the nation.

Labor do not just oppose the sale for the sake of it. We oppose the sale because, if we are going to try and address a regulatory re-gime or control to ensure affordable access, one of the best ways to do it is to have gov-ernment ownership, but also access to the dividend stream in perpetuity to fund the necessary expenditures.

The ACCC and this parliament, through legislation like this bill, have to ensure that in most cases the monopoly telecommunica-tions providers—certainly at the moment that means Telstra—have to provide competitive access to the networks for other providers or direct access to consumers. This is a debate that is going to run hot. It will be interesting to see next week in Senate estimates how Telstra responds to this. Labor will be taking a very keen interest, but it will also be inter-esting to see what sorts of questions the Na-tional Party will be asking on this crucial issue for the reasons that I have just outlined.


CHAMBER

It is my contention that we do need sound principles underpinning an access regime. We all accept the way in which what were monopolies perhaps under government statu-tory bodies and under government control in the past have moved in different directions, in many cases in the hands of private provid-ers. If we are going to go that way—and we have supported that direction—it is essential that we underpin competitive pressures and opportunities in the community through an effective access regime.

This government has been soft on compe-tition policy. I was interested to note that the Treasurer is calling upon COAG this week to back his plans through greater competitive pressures to start addressing our bottleneck issues. This government has been very poor in supporting a competitive environment. It has failed to allow small businesses access to collective bargaining. It has failed to allow the ACCC to continue to make decisions on mergers. It has failed to reform the Trade Practices Act to constrain abusive market power, especially against small businesses. It has refused to introduce cease and desist or-ders, which we think are terribly important, where people are exploiting their monopoly or duopoly position, and it has tried to water down third line forcing laws, but we forced it to back down.

There is a deficiency factor in the so-called clarion call of the Treasurer in urging greater competition. Whilst we do support greater competition and regimes that support it, it will count for nought unless the gov-ernment is prepared to invest in the nation’s ailing infrastructure. That was an issue that I spoke about earlier today in another de-bate—a debate associated with the Future Fund—a means by which we take the pro-ceeds of a nation’s prosperity and reinvest it in social and economic infrastructure that makes a better return than simply putting the money in the bank.

We have the opportunity to create an envi-ronment to better build this nation, to better build it by stronger competition arrange-ments. This bill forms part of that, but it is deficient in that it does not go far enough on the pricing principles and also on the ques-tion of a government being prepared to in-vest sensibly in the nation’s infrastructure. We need a national infrastructure audit. We need a national strategy involving state and federal governments, and that is what COAG should be addressing and turning its mind to on Friday. How do we identify the infrastruc-ture imperatives for this nation and how do we work together to achieve them?

People are sick of the buck-passing. They do not want to see the unseemly brawls that always come out of these conferences about whose responsibility it is. People want the problem fixed. They want their roads, their ports, their electricity, their gas pipelines and telecommunications infrastructure. Govern-ments have a responsibility to lead. This government is not leading. This bill is defi-cient on the pricing principles. I urge the government to take a more responsive, coop-erative and leadership role at COAG to ad-dress the infrastructure needs of this country. (Time expired)

Mrs VALE (Hughes) (6.57 pm)—I appre-ciate the opportunity to speak on the Trade Practices Amendment (National Access Re-gime) Bill 2005. I note the comments of the honourable member for Hotham. I would like to add and point out to him—and I am sure he is very much aware of this—that a government entity does not have to own an organisation or an entity to control it. We are the legislators, and we can determine the size of the ballpark and the activity by our regula-tions and legislation. However, this particu-lar bill—the purpose of which is to make practical amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974—will implement many of the rec-ommendations that were made by the Pro-


CHAMBER

ductivity Commission in its review of the national access regime. A national access regime that promotes competition is essential for Australia’s infrastructure facilities such as natural gas pipelines, the electricity grid and the rail track, all of which play a key role in Australia’s economic and social develop-ment.

A separate regime, part XIC of the Trade Practices Act, applies to the telecommunica-tions sector. The efficient use of and contin-ued investment in facilities such as these is of strategic importance to our country. Ac-cordingly, the government’s policy is to as-sist realising the potential contribution of such services to economic growth and the improved wellbeing of all Australians. An important element of national competition policy reforms was the establishment of a national access regime, allowing third parties to seek access to the services of certain es-sential infrastructure facilities on reasonable terms and conditions, if commercial negotia-tions fail. This ensures that facilities with natural monopoly characteristics do not cre-ate barriers to competition. This promotes competition in upstream and downstream markets, which is essential for sustaining strong economic growth and job creation, and contributes significantly to efficiency and innovation. Importantly, the national access regime is not intended to replace commercial negotiations between access seekers and providers but seeks to support the legitimate interests of essential infra-structure owners.

The national access regime was intro-duced following the Hilmer report’s recom-mendations. The Commonwealth, state and territory governments proceeded to imple-ment the reform measures. All became signa-tories to the competition principles agree-ment, and the Commonwealth inserted part IIIA into the Trade Practices Act. Clause 6 of the competition principles agreement sets

down the operating principles for the na-tional access regime. It specifies for the Commonwealth to establish a generic access regime, and part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act puts this generic access regime in place. It also makes provision for state and territory access regimes to operate alongside the Commonwealth regime so that, where a state or territory regime has been certified as op-erating in accordance with the principles of clause 6 of the competition principles agreement, access to this regime cannot be sought under part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act.

So, with access regimes operating at both the Commonwealth and the state and terri-tory level, access seekers may have to rely on accessing a facility under part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act, through a state and terri-tory based industry scheme which may or may not have the support of legislation, or through a Commonwealth scheme that falls outside the scope of part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act—such as the telecommunica-tions scheme in part 11C of the Trade Prac-tices Act or the airport scheme in the Air-ports Act 1996.

The amendments contained in this bill all relate to part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. The provisions of part IIIA give individuals and businesses the opportunity to seek access to services supplied by certain publicly and privately owned infrastructure facilities on reasonable terms and conditions and fair prices. Part IIIA provides three paths to gain-ing access to an eligible infrastructure ser-vice: (1) having a service declared; (2) using an existing access regime which has been deemed to be effective; and (3) seeking ac-cess under the terms and conditions specified in an undertaking given by the service pro-vider and accepted by the Australian Compe-tition and Consumer Commission.


CHAMBER

Access through declaration of a service can occur where an individual or business has been denied access to a facility and they apply to have the National Competition Council declare the service. The National Competition Council makes a recommenda-tion to the minister on whether or not the service should be declared. In making its recommendation, the National Competition Council must consider whether it would be economical for anyone to develop another facility that could provide part of the service. The National Competition Council must not recommend declaration of a service unless access or increased access to the service would promote competition in at least one market other than the market for the service; it would be uneconomical for anyone to de-velop another facility to provide the service; the facility is of national significance; access to the service can be provided without undue risk to human health and safety; access to the service is not already the subject of an effec-tive access regime; or access or increased access to the service would not be contrary to the public interest.

Once the National Competition Council has made a recommendation to the minister regarding the declaration, the minister must then make a decision on whether the infra-structure should be declared. The minister must make and publish that decision within 60 days of receiving the National Competi-tion Council’s recommendation. Importantly, at the same time, the minister must notify the applicant and the infrastructure owner of the decision and provide both parties with a statement of reasons. There have been only two declarations to date, both covering cargo handling services at Sydney and Melbourne airports. The Productivity Commission re-port notes that, even though there have been few declarations, the threat of declaration has helped shape the access regime at state and territory level. Once a declaration has been

made, the applicant who has applied for ac-cess has a legal right to negotiate on the terms and conditions of access and, if those negotiations are unsuccessful, the parties can seek to have the matter arbitrated by the Aus-tralian Competition and Consumer Commis-sion.

Section 44M-44Q of the Trade Practices Act sets out a process whereby an access regime can be certified as ‘effective’. A party cannot seek access to a facility through part IIIA if the facility is an effective access re-gime. The only regimes that can be certified as ‘effective’ are state and territory govern-ment access regimes. The Trade Practices Act does not provide a certification process for Commonwealth government and non-government access regimes. For a regime to be certified, the minister in the responsible state or territory must apply to the National Competition Council for a recommendation about whether the regime is effective. The council must make a recommendation to the designated Commonwealth minister. Section 44M provides that the minister must then decide whether to certify the state or territory access regime as effective. The minister’s certification decision is reviewable by the National Competition Tribunal. If a facility has been certified ‘effective’, the party seek-ing access to the facility must use the state or territory access regime. If the facility has not been certified ‘effective’, the access seeker may either rely upon the state or territory access regime or apply for the facility to be declared and access negotiated under part IIIA.

Certification provides all parties with cer-tainty about how access will be regulated. While this benefits access seekers, it is also crucial for infrastructure operators and de-velopers, particularly in relation to new in-vestment. It is noteworthy that certification can only be used by state and territory gov-ernments. Other entities wishing to achieve


CHAMBER

certainty in the status of their access regime must lodge an undertaking with the Austra-lian Competition and Consumer Commis-sion.

A new objects clause is inserted into part IIIA to provide for greater certainty for infra-structure owners, access seekers, investors and other interested parties. The bill also requires decision makers under part IIIA to have regard to the objects clause when mak-ing their respective decisions. This will help promote consistency and provide guidance in relation to each decision maker’s approach, thereby enhancing regulatory accountability. The government has also agreed that statu-tory pricing principles should be established in relation to part IIIA to provide guidance for pricing decisions and to contribute to consistent and transparent regulatory out-comes over time as well as certainty for in-vestors and access seekers. This bill enables pricing principles to be determined by the Commonwealth minister.

The Australian Competition and Con-sumer Commission will be required to take into account those principles when making a final determination on an access dispute, when assessing a proposed new access un-dertaking access code and when considering whether to vary the terms of or extend the expiry date of an existing access undertaking or access code. The commission may also take such principles into account when mak-ing an interim determination on an access dispute. On review, the Australian Competi-tion Tribunal will also be required to take the pricing principles into account where the tribunal is required to reconsider a decision of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. To ensure consistency in all three access routes under part IIIA, the Aus-tralian government will also work with par-ticipating jurisdictions to include the same pricing principles in clause 6 of the competi-

tion principles agreement for the purposes of assessing certification applications.

A number of changes will be made to the existing arbitration requirements in part IIIA. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be given the discretion to conduct multilateral hearings in arbitrations following notification to the parties to the dispute. Such processes will allow the com-mission to consider the service in its entirety and could streamline administrative require-ments and reduce costs. Provisions to allow parties to safeguard commercially confiden-tial information and to require the commis-sion to explain its reasons for conducting multilateral hearings against the wishes of the parties will enhance regulatory transpar-ency and provide guidance for future multi-lateral arbitration hearings.

Consistent with provisions contained in the telecommunications access regime in part XIC of the Trade Practices Act, the Austra-lian Competition and Consumer Commission will also be given the discretion to grant in-terim arbitration determinations. This change will ensure that appropriate outcomes, in-cluding the access seeker gaining access to the service, can be realised in the period leading up to the final determination by pre-venting an access provider from using the arbitration process as a strategy to delay pro-viding access or to delay providing access on fair terms and conditions.

In another improvement, this bill enables access providers to lodge access undertak-ings and access codes with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission after a service has been declared, which will provide a means for achieving certainty on access terms and conditions, thereby facili-tating negotiations between access providers and access seekers. By increasing the incen-tive to negotiate for both parties, post-declaration undertakings should reduce re-


CHAMBER

course to arbitration, thereby reducing the burden on the regulator and the industry.

This bill also applies a number of non-binding target time limits to various deci-sions under part IIIA. While the time limits are not binding on the decision maker con-cerned, they oblige the decision maker to publish a notice of any extension beyond the target time limit, thereby providing regula-tory transparency as well as increasing in-centives for timely decision making. The new target time limits are: four months for the National Competition Council to assess an application and to make a recommenda-tion to the designated minister that the ser-vice be declared or not be declared; 60 days for a ministerial decision to revoke a declara-tion; six months for the National Competi-tion Council to assess an application and to make a recommendation to the Common-wealth minister that a state or territory re-gime for access to a service or proposed ser-vices is or is not an effective access regime or that the period for which a decision is in force be extended; 60 days for the Com-monwealth minister to decide that a state or territory regime for access to a service or proposed service is or is not an effective ac-cess regime or that the period for which a decision is in force be extended; six months for the Australian Competition and Con-sumer Commission to assess a new access undertaking or access code or an application to vary, extend or withdraw an access under-taking or access code or an application to approve a tender process as a competitive tender process; six months for a final arbitra-tion determination for a declared service by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; and four months for the proc-essing of an appeal by the Australian Compe-tition Tribunal.

This bill will also place additional obliga-tions on ministers, the National Competition Council and the Australian Competition and

Consumer Commission to publish reasons for their decisions or recommendations. This will enhance procedural transparency and regulatory accountability and will facilitate informed consideration of whether there are grounds to challenge a decision by way of merit review before the Australian Competi-tion Tribunal or judicial review by the courts. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will also be required to publish reports on completed arbitrations for services declared under part IIIA. This bill sets out a range of minimum requirements to be in-cluded in the reports, but the specification of minimum requirements will not preclude the commission from reporting on a matter rele-vant to an arbitration, subject to the exclu-sion of confidential commercial information. Publication of arbitration reports will en-hance regulatory transparency and may pro-vide guidance for future cases.

As the government’s key adviser on the National Access Regime, the National Com-petition Council will be required to report annually on the operation and effects of the regimes, including on specific matters identi-fied in this bill. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will also be re-quired to include information in its annual report regarding the time it took to make cer-tain decisions and to include information about decisions made under the new provi-sions in existing public registers.

In conclusion, this bill will improve the operation of the national access regime. Whilst many of the amendments are proce-dural in nature, they have scope to make the decision making process more efficient and effective. Many of the procedures will bring greater certainty and clarity to both access seekers and access providers, especially those initiatives dealing with the determina-tion of access prices. Opportunities for de-laying access through delaying techniques will also be curtailed by the imposition of


CHAMBER

time limits on certain decisions. This is a practical amendment which seeks to provide practical outcomes. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr HAYES (Werriwa) (7.15 pm)—I rise to support the opposition’s second reading amendment to the Trade Practices Amend-ment (National Access Regime) Bill 2005. Despite the victory of commonsense over pig-headedness when the government back-flipped on the inclusion of pricing principles in this legislation, which has been the consis-tent position of the opposition, the govern-ment have nevertheless still been caught short. While they have reluctantly been dragged along in the debate and did finally concede that some pricing principles should be enshrined in this legislation, the govern-ment have been caught short because, quite frankly, they have squibbed on the bill. They have rushed to introduce some pricing prin-ciples and some parts of Labor’s position, but they did not have the stomach for the whole deal. Instead of accepting Labor’s amendment, the government have placed some principles in the bill but have certainly retained an escape clause. Granted, the es-cape clause is a little more difficult to use than leaving everything to the Treasurer’s discretion through a set of regulations; nev-ertheless, there is an escape clause.

In yet another example of the opposition leading the government on issues of national economic significance, some semblance of competition will finally be introduced in this bill. After four years of hand wringing about how it might respond to the report of the Productivity Commission, the government has come through with another half-baked effort. The importance of investment in in-frastructure has received considerable atten-tion of late as the Australian economy now starts to reach capacity restraints. Infrastruc-ture is the veins and arteries of our economy. It is the roads, ports, railways, airports, pow-

erlines, pipes and wires that allow people, goods, commodities, inputs and information to move efficiently between economic agents. Infrastructure is a critical source of our economic competitiveness. It represents the basic building blocks of our economy, and the efficient management of our infra-structure is critical to the long-term success of our economic progress.

But, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would not know the importance of infrastructure from the way this government treats it. Labor real-ises the importance of sound investment in infrastructure. We on this side of the House have realised that if you do not have the ba-sics in place—if the building blocks are not right—you really are starting from behind. The Hawke and Keating governments real-ised the importance of efficient access to significant economic assets. The reforms of a decade ago were critical to boosting the competitiveness of the Australian economy, boosting economic growth and increasing the living standards of all Australians.

When I started my career I worked for Sydney Water. Of course, back then it was known as the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board. It was set up as a mo-nopoly and operated as one. During my time there nobody would have thought it possible for someone else to be able to use its net-work as part of their own business rather than simply using water provided by the network. At that time, natural monopolies were just that—monopolies.

Times have certainly changed and so has technology. The network businesses that were previously thought to be natural mo-nopolies are now at a stage where more than one retailer can use the existing distribution network to deliver their product. The techno-logical chains that allow access to network monopolies prompted the development of national competition policy and the Competi-


CHAMBER

tion Principles Agreement. They led to the development of access regimes so that distri-bution businesses previously thought to be natural monopolies could become subject to competition. This led to cost reductions for businesses’ inputs and certainly cost reduc-tions to residential consumers.

I do not remember the exact figures, but not too long ago I recall reading that small businesses in New South Wales had experi-enced a real reduction in their electricity costs in the order of 20 per cent. A similar reduction was experienced in port charges. Furthermore, there was about a 40 per cent reduction in rail freight charges. This is not to mention the impact that national competi-tion policy has had on the cost of water, sew-erage and gas. Not only is it business cus-tomers who benefit from these significant cost reductions but also domestic consumers benefit through lower prices for goods and services, and the Australian economy bene-fited as it became increasingly competitive on the world stage.

A significant proportion of the economic growth that we are experiencing today can be attributed to the micro-economic reforms introduced in the 1980s, of which competi-tion policy was among the most significant. Fundamental to the reforms were the sound underpinnings of the Trade Practices Act and the Competition Principles Agreement. While it is important when setting about such reforms that businesses seek access to sig-nificant infrastructure assets and owners and operators of those assets have some certainty about how access arrangements will be de-veloped and implemented, even more impor-tant, and critical to access decisions, is price. Pricing arrangements are the key determinant of the economic viability of a project. Access arrangements live and die by the pricing ar-rangements. Owners seek to maximise their revenue and return while those seeking ac-

cess look to minimise their costs—a natural economic balance.

Price is critical to access arrangements, yet the government has not taken the issue seriously enough to introduce some real competition principles into this bill. While it will claim that its changes to the bill are a great achievement and are pivotal to the fu-ture of the economy, the truth is that it is sell-ing the infrastructure short.

In the amendments to its own bill which the opposition has forced on the government, the government has left an escape hatch to be used in times of emergency—an escape hatch that will allow monopolists to dodge the rules and continue to extract monopoly rents and impose deadweight losses on our economy. The escape clause I refer to is in the government’s decision to include regula-tory risk in its pricing principles. Regulatory risk is an interesting concept. It is often cited by those seeking to increase their prices to a level slightly above what would be regarded as economically efficient. Regulatory risk is used by companies to defend bloated pricing proposals by using the concept to pump val-ues that are used in the calculation of appro-priate rates of regulatory return.

Labor considers regulatory risk to be a concept that can be included in the pricing principles, while the government believes that regulatory risk must be included in the pricing principles. I am confident that over the coming years, because of the unwilling-ness of this government to truly commit it-self to implementing full and proper pricing principles, we are sure to hear many debates about the level of regulatory risk associated with an investment. Monopolists will claim that they have a higher degree of risk for their entire investment and will use that ar-gument in a false effort to boost the beta val-ues, which will become so important in the calculation of rates of return. The argument


CHAMBER

they will use to boost the beta values used to calculate the required economic return will feed through to the final price and be passed on to consumers.

Regulatory risk should be included as only a subclass of commercial risk and not a sepa-rate class of risk. The government has not had the courage of its alleged competition convictions on this, and that is why the La-bor amendment should be adopted. I find it particularly concerning that these amend-ments introduce potential for the granting of immunity from declarations. Under these amendments, immunity may be granted to new infrastructure projects that have been developed through competitive tendering processes. The minister noted in his second reading speech that this is because competi-tive tendering processes are likely to see the removal of the potential to extract monopoly rents. While I agree that it is likely that the potential to extract monopoly rents from these projects will be minimised through the use of competitive tendering, it assumes that infrastructure is tendered for and built in a highly competitive market. However, if the market is not highly competitive, the poten-tial for the successful tenderer to extract mo-nopoly rents remains. It may be somewhat reduced, but nevertheless it remains.

While the amendments in this bill are cause for concern, I cannot help but wonder how these changes will mesh with the recent decision of the Council of Australian Gov-ernments and the findings of the Prime Min-ister’s Exports and Infrastructure Taskforce. Any examination of such issues must neces-sarily examine the effectiveness of current regulatory arrangements. The taskforce re-port makes interesting reading. It says that regulators have been too focused on remov-ing monopoly rents. I find that extraordinary because, as I understand it, part of the pur-pose of the regulation of monopolies is to reduce the scope to extract monopoly rents.

Continuing to allow the extraction of mo-nopoly rents is in direct conflict with trying to produce a competitive and efficient econ-omy. It seems that, in the interests of speed rather than getting the process right and hav-ing inefficiencies removed, it is better to set-tle for reasonable access arrangements than to settle for ‘near enough is good enough’.

Based on the previous statement of the government, I would have thought that enter-ing into reasonable access arrangements, which would no doubt include reasonable pricing arrangements, would result in some monopoly rents continuing to be extracted and would accordingly result in an artifi-cially inflated input cost. Hence, exporters in this country would be left at a competitive disadvantage. I find it odd that the Prime Minister’s taskforce would recommend an approach which would result in exporters being less competitive, which flies in the face of the government’s objective of dou-bling the number of exporters by this year.

The minister’s second reading speech claims that this bill is consistent with the recommendations of the taskforce. However, they certainly cannot be considered to be consistent with the findings of the COAG review of national competition policy. That is likely to be a hot topic for debate when the Prime Minister meets the premiers, possibly later this week. Importantly, after consider-ing the issues surrounding infrastructure, COAG last year at least acknowledged that the process of reform must continue. It said: It is important not to be complacent about the continued performance of the Australian econ-omy. Resting on the achievements of the last dec-ade will cost the Australian community opportu-nities for greater prosperity.

Australia’s productivity performance is under threat, with further reform essential if the eco-nomic expansion of the last 14 years is to con-tinue.


CHAMBER

So while the collaborative efforts between the states, the territories and the Common-wealth are being developed, we stand here today debating amendments to a system of rules that govern access arrangements with-out reference to or knowledge of the findings of that COAG review.

Debate interrupted.

ADJOURNMENT The SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30

pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn.

Werriwa Electorate Mr HAYES (Werriwa) (7.30 pm)—Just

over 12 months ago the suburb of Macquarie Fields experienced four nights of rioting. The scenes televised on the news each night were not pleasant, and the events of those nights have had a lasting effect on the residents of Macquarie Fields and the surrounding sub-urbs. Unlike the more recent riots in suburbs like Cronulla, which have been put down to racial tensions, it seems to everyone—parents, grandparents, children, community workers and certainly the police—in the community of Macquarie Fields that, putting aside the trigger for the events, those few nights of violence and disorder were the product of frustration.

Unlike recent riots in beachside suburbs, things have not returned to normal nearly as quickly in Macquarie Fields. The physical signs of the events have long gone but the social impacts on members of the commu-nity continue. Sadly, all too regularly I hear reports of young people who are applying for jobs being faced with comments about the riots, just because they happen to live in or around Macquarie Fields. Some have even gone so far as to put down different ad-dresses, outside the postcode area, just for an opportunity to get through the first cull of job applicants.

You would be hard pressed to find any lo-cal who believes that life is easy in the public housing estates of Macquarie Fields, Ingle-burn or Minto. It is not. Many residents rely on the support services provided by govern-ment to help them manage their daily lives. In the main the residents of these areas are great people, and I am proud to be their rep-resentative in this place. The residents of public housing estates in suburbs like Mac-quarie Fields face some fundamental disad-vantages in life, but they are supported by a number of organisations that seek to over-come this disadvantage through the delivery of excellent support services.

There is no doubt that the residents of these areas have been consistently ignored by this government. While they are battlers, they are not the Howard battlers living in marginal seats. Rather they are the victims of this government’s neglect when it comes to funding for public housing, which has ex-perienced a real reduction of 30 per cent since 1996. They are the victims of the gov-ernment’s obsession with the lowest priced delivery of government funded support ser-vices.

The key to improving areas of substantial disadvantage is consistency and relations building between service providers and those needing the support services. A model of government funding that simply seeks to give grants to providers by way of a com-petitive tender often does not result in the level of consistency required to achieve out-comes. Today I have written to the Minister for Families, Community Services and In-digenous Affairs, proposing the adoption of an affirmative action plan for Macquarie Fields. Under this plan, competitive tender-ing for federal government grants for the provision of social services would cease for a period of five years with a view to allowing consistent service provision in areas of fun-damental disadvantage. This plan will shift


CHAMBER

the focus off the cost of services and put it back onto what is being delivered.

No longer will the federal government’s responsibility be considered to be discharged simply through the provision of funding, rather it will shift the focus to the delivery of real solutions. The plan does not propose that competitive tendering for these services be scrapped altogether but that it be suspended for a period of time. Rather than seeking the cheapest provider, the government would shift its focus to performance management in small and highly targeted areas to achieve some positive outcomes in communities that are in considerable need. The plan may allow service providers to come together, possibly to pool funds and establish programs with a whole-of-community focus rather than have a model for programs delivered in isolation due to funding constraints.

A coordinated approach has had some success with young people in the Macarthur region, through the Macarthur Youth Com-mitment. The Macarthur Youth Commitment, which may lose its funding later this year, is an organisation that has established a net-work to inform strategic planning and ac-tions to build partnerships in the area, and it has had some very significant success.

I encourage the minister to seriously con-sider this plan so that action may be taken to break the cycle of unemployment, crime, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and child neglect that has come to character-ise some areas within our community. A small-scale, sensible and targeted affirmative action strategy can only have a positive im-pact. (Time expired)

War Graves Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (7.35

pm)—The Centennial Park Cemetery is a well-known part of my electorate. It was es-tablished in 1936, and most residents in my electorate would have relatives who are bur-

ied there and may also have been to funeral services conducted there. I rise on the issue of war graves, which is of importance to my electorate, especially to veterans, RSL groups and veterans’ families.

Currently there are three types of graves for veterans. The Australian government pays tenure for the graves of war dead from World War I and World War II and from Ko-rea and Vietnam. The second category is for the graves of those who have died post war from war related injuries. In this case the tenure is the responsibility of the next of kin, and the Australian government provides a plaque. The third category is for veterans who die post war but not from war related injuries.

One of the problems we have in South Australia is that we have limited tenure for grave sites. Leases are held for only 50 years. What has happened is that the leases in Derrick Gardens, which was established in Centennial Park in 1952, started to come up in 2002, and signs were placed on the graves asking relatives to renew their leases. This occurs only in South Australia and Western Australia, where there is limited tenure. In other states, graves are there in perpetuity.

Many families believed that the graves of veterans did have perpetual tenure. In 2002 the previous Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Danna Vale, wrote to the South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, asking for a legislative change to remove limited tenure from the graves of our war dead. A South Australian parliamentary select committee was estab-lished to look at the whole issue of the tenure of graves. The Office of Australian War Graves made a submission and appeared be-fore the committee. It requested that Com-monwealth war dead be excluded from laws relating to tenure. However, the report tabled on 24 November 2003 by the select commit-tee did not address this issue. This issue has


CHAMBER

been raised with me by veterans groups, con-tinuing from 2002 to the present day.

In response to some of the pressure, yes-terday the South Australian state government announced that they would be saving the expired leases with a $75,000 maintenance deal for two cemeteries, Centennial Park in my electorate and Enfield Cemetery in the north of Adelaide. The problem with this is it does not address the wider issue. What is actually required is a change in South Aus-tralian law allowing for Commonwealth war graves to have tenure in perpetuity. I under-stand the South Australian Attorney-General is opposed to this on the basis that it means less money for the different cemetery trusts. But the relative number of veterans’ graves is not so large that it would have a significant impact on cemeteries. I also note that the shadow Attorney-General, the Hon. Robert Lawson, has announced that it will be the Liberal opposition’s policy to have perpetual leases for all war veterans, to rest in peace. This is the solution that is required. It does require a change in South Australian legisla-tion, and I will be fighting to ensure that the graves of all veterans are held in perpetuity and do not come up every 50 years.

Bushfires Ms KING (Ballarat) (7.39 pm)—On Aus-

tralia Day, while many Victorians were with their families enjoying a barbecue and watching the cricket, thousands of Country Fire Authority firefighters and support staff were fighting in blistering heat the bushfires that overtook much of Victoria. The member for Wannon, who as the Speaker does not have the same opportunity as I do to speak in this place, and I would like to offer our per-sonal thanks for their extraordinary effort. To give you some idea of the enormity of the Grampians bushfires, 50 per cent of the Grampians National Park and a total of 34,250 hectares of farming land have been

wiped out. In Anakie 100,000 hectares were scorched, with three homes, a community hall, sheds and vehicles being destroyed. It is estimated that the Anakie fire alone has caused $20 million worth of damage. Wil-laura and Moyston have been ravaged, with some 60,000 sheep lost, while many alterna-tive farming enterprises producing crops such as olives, lavender, grapes and cut flowers through the Moyston and Pomonal corridor have been badly affected.

Communities are still counting the costs of the fires. The families of the three people who died—Trevor Day from Campbells Creek CFA and Malcolm and Zeke Wilson—have faced a terrible loss. Many CFA crews within my own electorate left their homes and even today are away supporting these communities. I would like to individually recognise the contributions of CFA crews in my electorate. They are the brigade crews of Bacchus Marsh, Ballan, Ballarat, Ballarat City, Creswick, Coimadai, Daylesford, King-ston, Miners Rest, Napoleons-Enfield, Se-bastopol, Trentham and Wendouree. They fought fires in the Grampians and at Anakie and the fires on our doorstep at Creswick and Mount Misery. Your bravery, selflessness and professionalism is a credit to the CFA and our communities.

The electorate of Wannon, Speaker Hawker’s electorate, and the electorate of Mallee bore much of the brunt of these fires, and I know that the members concerned would like to recognise the hard work of the local CFA crews. I want to name the CFA brigades for the Hansard record: Halls Gap, Amphitheatre, Beaufort, Bochara, Bookaar, Bornes Hill, Buangor and Middle Creek, Buckley Swamp, Bulart, Callawadda, Car-pendeit-South Purrumbete, Carranballac, Cavendish, Chatsworth, Cross Roads, Crow-lands, Croxton East, Cudgee, Dadswells Bridge, Dundonnell, Dunkeld, Duverney, Elmhurst, Glenorchy and Riahella, Glen-


CHAMBER

thompson, Grange, Great Western, Gringe, Hawkesdale, Hensley Park, Hexham, Joel Joel, Karabeal, Kennedy’s Creek, Laang, Lahrum, Langi Logan, Linlithgow, Lubeck, Melville Forest, Minhamite, Mirranatwa, Mortlake, Moyston, Naringal, Narrapumelap South, Natimuk, Nerrin Nerrin, Noorat and District, North Balmoral, North Hamilton, Panmure, Penshurst, Pura Pura, Redbank, Simpson, Smythesdale, Snake Valley and District, Stawell, Stoneleigh, Tarrayoukan, Tarrington, Victoria Valley, Warrak, Warray-ure-Moutajup, Willatook and District, Wil-laura, and Woodford and Woodhouse.

It must be remembered that on the worst day of the fire there were 60 other fires across the state. The CFA had 528 men and women on the Grampians fire front on this day. To all the other members of emergency services and the DSE and private volunteers directly involved in fighting the fires: thank you on a job well done. I would also like to thank the many ancillary personnel who gave freely of their time and expertise in support.

In the member for Wannon’s electorate the four shires affected—Northern Grampians, Ararat Rural City, Southern Grampians and Horsham Rural City—are working together to coordinate a relief appeal. I understand David Hawker is assisting them by seeking tax deductibility status for the appeal through the tax office. Advice from Ararat Rural City is that they expect the appeal to be set up by the end of this week. I encourage Victorian members to donate to that appeal.

The member for Wannon and I would like to thank ABC and ACE Radio network for their regular updates, warnings and excellent coverage of the fires. Thanks also go to the Red Cross and the SES for providing support and food to the volunteers and firefighters. Full credit goes to the DPI for their efforts in the recovery process. Thanks go to local businesses for their support. Baker’s Delight

in Ararat was baking around the clock to keep up bread supplies to the firefighters. Thanks go to the local farmers helping to dispose of the huge numbers of livestock burnt in the fires. So far 110 semitrailer loads of hay have been donated to the affected farms, with this effort being coordinated by the Victorian Farmers Federation. It has been a whole community effort. Whilst the imme-diate danger has passed, we need to recog-nise that the task of rebuilding and restoring the infrastructure will take time. In fact, this recovery effort will take many months and in some cases many years to complete. I and the member for Wannon commend the enor-mous efforts made by local communities in fighting the Victorian bushfires and we offer every assistance in the recovery process.

The SPEAKER—Before calling the next speaker, I commend the member for Ballarat and thank her for what she was saying. I fully endorse what she said.

Religious Cartoons Mr JOHNSON (Ryan) (7.45 pm)—In the

parliament today, I want to take the opportu-nity to place on record very strongly and un-equivocally my personal condemnation of the recent acts of violence that appear to have engulfed many parts of the Muslim world—acts of violence and rage directed at the missions of foreign countries. I do this in my capacity as the federal member for Ryan and in my capacity as a citizen of this coun-try. I want to condemn absolutely the sheer rage, threats of violence and the commission of terrorist acts against Western nations, Western interests and businesses in English-speaking countries.

My understanding is that the violence and threats to commit violence have erupted fol-lowing the publication of cartoons in Danish newspapers that depict the prophet Moham-med in a manner most offensive to Muslims and believers of the Islam faith. Many of my


CHAMBER

constituents have emailed and called me to express their views, which are consistent with my own. I have also had the opportunity of reading in print in newspapers across this country the views of my fellow Australians. My sense is that the overwhelming majority share the view that I state here this evening.

I want to state at the outset that I person-ally reject the judgment of the publishers in their decision to put into the community the cartoons as they were depicted and drawn. It served little purpose and had little value. It is of great and deep regret that the cartoons were published. While I do not condone the cartoons published by Danish newspapers, or other European newspapers equally, I say in the strongest language in the House of Rep-resentatives of the Australian parliament that there can never be any excuse for the extent and nature of the sheer, raw violence and rage we have seen in the last few days, espe-cially in Lebanon.

To hear of Christian churches being stoned and foreign embassies being attacked and set upon physically is very distressing to me as a citizen of this country who shares and holds certain beliefs and who aspires to certain values in this country. To hear of threats by those protesting in sheer rage that the response of the Muslim community will be acts of violence and terror on a scale simi-lar to the 9-11 tragedy is absolutely unac-ceptable. Such sentiment cannot be tolerated in this country or in any like-minded civil community and law-abiding society. Indeed, free speech is a cornerstone of this country; it is a cornerstone of our democratic nation.

The right to protest and to free speech are of equally precious value and must be guarded by all of us with every ounce of en-ergy. We must respect the right to speak freely and to publish freely, as we must re-spect the right to protest peacefully. That is the key point—to protest with absolute con-

viction but, equally, with absolute peace. Raw and uncontrollable violence by anyone is never a legitimate form of protest. I con-demn it here as the member for Ryan; I con-demn it as Michael Johnson, a citizen of this country. It places many people in great dan-ger and those who advocate such acts of vio-lence should not be given any leeway.

The undercurrents that seem to be placing the Muslim world against the Judeo-Christian world are very disturbing to me. Whether or not I am correct, I personally sense a clash of views and beliefs brewing in the world at large—almost a clash of civili-sation, if I can use that phrase, to give cre-dence to the words of Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. More frequently than I would like, there seems to be a report every day and every week of new, real and physical outbreaks of violence or attacks that pit the Muslim world against the non-Muslim world; faith against faith. This is of deep regret to me and I am sure that all members of this parliament would share that deep re-gret.

Alternatively, there seems to be reports that hatred, violence and intolerance are the product of the Muslim world alone. That is not the case. Indeed, the overwhelming number of Muslims that I know personally are not of the view that hatred, violence and intolerance are of their faith. I might be mis-guided, but I suspect that many of my fellow Australians would share the same view. Communities and individuals alike in this country must never permit what we have seen to take root in any enduring manner in this country. (Time expired)

Westralia Airports Corporation Mr WILKIE (Swan) (7.50 pm)—I rise to

tell a story of this government’s compla-cency, ineptitude, arrogance and utter disdain for the welfare of the battling families and small businesses in the city of Belmont in


CHAMBER

my electorate. The facts are simple. In 1996 the federal government privatised Australia’s major airports. That was a good thing, in that it facilitated new investment, infrastructure and better facilities for travellers and local communities and, in so doing, created jobs. Perth Airport was leased to Westralia Air-ports Corporation. The terms of the lease clearly and unambiguously specified that the Westralia Airports Corporation should pay the equivalent of local government rates to the relevant local authority, in this case the City of Belmont. The rationale for this is clear and correct: businesses, whether they exist on federal land or not, should all be subject to the same taxation regime. This principle is known as competitive neutrality and is at the heart of the national competition policy which was introduced by the former Labor government and fully endorsed and embraced by the Howard government.

Since 1996, the City of Belmont has sought payment from the Westralia Airports Corporation of equivalent local government rates. Until this financial year, the Westralia Airports Corporation fully complied with this requirement and made the payments in full. However, about two years ago, despite the lease being clear and unequivocal, the Westralia Airports Corporation started to agitate and informed the City of Belmont that it was paying more than was appropri-ate. On the basis of the City of Belmont’s concerns, in June 2004 I put a question on the Notice Paper seeking federal government confirmation that Westralia Airports Corpo-ration, like all airport corporations around the country, should be paying a fee equiva-lent to local government rates. The then Min-ister for Transport and Regional Services, the member for Gwydir, with typical disdain, failed to respond to my question. He fla-grantly ignored his constitutional require-ments to be accountable to this House.

When Minister Truss assumed the portfo-lio, I resubmitted the questions thinking, perhaps naively, that he would be more as-siduous than his predecessor and that he would be concerned about the principles in-volved in this matter. Of course, I was wrong. There has been not a yelp from this National Party minister. So last month I wrote to the minister seeking his urgent con-firmation that Westralia Airports Corporation should rightly pay its due. Of course, he has not responded again, despite repeated contact from me and my office. I was concerned—and remain so—that the families and small businesses in the Belmont area would end up carrying the can while this multimillion dol-lar business shirked its legitimate responsi-bilities. Sadly, it seems that my concern was well placed. Despite having paid what was due in each and every year since 1996, this financial year Westralia Airports Corporation has refused to pay the City of Belmont al-most $1 million in rates.

Mr Speaker, you may well ask on what basis has the corporation so acted. It seems that, although he refuses to answer my ques-tions on this matter, the Minister for Trans-port and Regional Services has provided written advice to Westralia Airports Corpora-tion that it need not pay its full share. As a result, the city and people of Belmont have been short-changed. The reality is that this cruel and arrogant act has been perpetrated by the minister’s direct complicity.

As I mentioned before, the principle of competitive neutrality is integral to national competition policy and tax policy. National competition policy is overseen by the Na-tional Competition Council, the NCC. The current Acting President of the National Competition Council is Mr David Crawford. Mr Crawford’s professional qualifications make him well suited to this role. But here is the real nub of what is wrong with this arro-gant and complacent government: would you


CHAMBER

believe that Mr David Crawford is the chairman of the very same Westralia Airports Corporation which is acting so blatantly

against the principle of competitive neutral-ity which the National Competition Council is charged with upholding?

Once again, this sorry episode of grossly inappropriate corporate practice can be sheeted home to the man who made the ap-pointment of Mr Crawford to the NCC—of course, I am talking about the Treasurer of Australia. Not content with foisting his Lib-eral Party mate Robert Gerard onto the board of the Reserve Bank in flagrant disregard of Treasury advice, this Treasurer has allowed another business mate to be unambiguously and clearly conflicted. So what should hap-pen now? First, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services must do his job and ensure that the Westralian Airports Corpora-tion pays its equivalent of local government taxes, just like everybody else. Secondly, the Treasurer must act immediately to eliminate this conflict and ask Mr Crawford to remove himself from the National Competition Council. To do anything else would simply prove again to the families and businesses in Belmont that under this inept and compla-cent government there is one rule for big business and another one for everybody else.

Howard Government Mr WAKELIN (Grey) (7.55 pm)—At the

beginning of our parliamentary year in 2006, as we come up to the 10th year of the coali-tion government and the prime ministership of John Howard, it is worth while recalling some of the achievements of this govern-ment. We inherited record debt, high interest rates and high unemployment and many of our welfare benefits—our welfare system—were struggling under the weight of an inef-fective economic system and under ineffec-tive economic management. There will al-ways be those who will want, to put it as

politely as I can, to be distracted from the main game—that is, the best possible interest rates, the lowest possible inflation rate, lower unemployment, encouragement of enterprise, and making sure that our young people are being educated, trained and maximised in apprenticeships and traineeships so that our enterprise system can thrive.

The fact that we had to have a Charter of Budget Honesty when we first came into office was in itself quite an indictment of those who sit in opposition. We were strug-gling internationally with our reputation. We were not maximising our exports. As I said, our welfare, health and education systems were struggling under the weight of ineffi-ciency. Interest rates came down from nine per cent and 10 per cent to six per cent and seven per cent. The inflation rate is well un-der control. The unemployment rate is down from one million unemployed and is heading towards the five per cent rate. Apprentice-ships have trebled. There have been record exports. These are the things on which na-tions are built. That is the legacy of the past 10 years. The fact that we are able to provide one of the most effective welfare, health and education systems in the world is testament to our private enterprise system.

The other thing that the Howard govern-ment has brought to Australia, as I suggested earlier, in the international field is a far greater sense of self-respect. We have be-come much more self-assured as a nation, and so we should have. There will always be work for government to improve what we do—we can never be complacent—but I find respect for Australia around the world. I think those who observe us as a small- to medium-sized country are somewhat in-credulous at what we have been able to achieve over the last couple of hundred years.


CHAMBER

As I said, there are many challenges in front of us. It is important that we respect what these achievements have been built on. I would like to conclude by acknowledging the efforts of all of my colleagues, not just the executive, as we head towards 10 years of coalition government. Those achieve-ments have developed Australia and its peo-ple to the standard, the quality and the spirit that we now enjoy.

The SPEAKER—Order! It being 8.00 pm, the debate is interrupted.

House adjourned at 8.00 pm NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Abbott to move: (1) That standing orders 240 and 241 be

amended to read:

240 Admission of visitors (a) A committee or a subcommittee may admit

visitors when it is examining a witness or gathering information in other proceedings.

(b) All visitors must leave if:

(i) the Chair asks them to;

(ii) the committee or subcommittee resolves that they leave; or

(iii) the committee or subcommittee is delib-erating or hearing witnesses in private.

241 Admission of other Members Other Members, who are not Members of the committee, may be admitted when a committee or subcommittee is examining a witness, or gather-ing information in other proceedings. Other Members must leave when the committee or sub-committee is deliberating, or hearing witnesses in private, or if the committee or subcommittee re-solves that they leave.

(2) That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted to operate for the remainder of 2006:

(A) In standing order 1, Maximum speaking times, the section of the table headed Committee and delegation reports on Mondays be amended to read:

Committee and delegation reports on Mondays in the House Each Member in the Main Committee Each Member

(standing orders 39, 40, 192(b))

10 mins maximum, as allotted

by the Selection Committee

10 mins


CHAMBER

(B) In standing order 1, Maximum speaking times, after the section of the table headed Condo-lence motion, the following new section be inserted:

Dissent motion Whole debate Mover Seconder Member next speaking Any other Member

(standing order 87)

30 mins 10 mins 5 mins

10 mins 5 mins

(C) Standing order 39 be amended to read:

39 Presentation of reports (a) Members can present reports of committees

or delegations:

(i) as agreed by the Selection Committee, following prayers on Mondays; or

(ii) at any time when other business is not before the House.

(b) Members can make statements in relation to these reports:

(i) during the special set period on Mon-days (standing order 34); the Selection Committee shall set time limits for statements, of not more than 10 minutes for each Member; or

(ii) at any other time, by leave of the House.

(c) The Member presenting a report may move without notice, a specific motion in relation to the report. When a report has been pre-sented on Monday under paragraph (a)(i) de-bate on the question shall be adjourned to a later hour and a motion may be moved that the report be referred to the Main Commit-tee. In other cases debate shall be adjourned to a future day.

(D) Standing order 40 be amended to read:

40 Resumption of debate on reports (a) After presentation of reports on Mondays

proceedings may be resumed on motions in relation to committee and delegation reports moved on an earlier day.

(b) For debate in accordance with paragraph (a) the Selection Committee shall set:

(i) the order in which motions are to be considered;

(ii) time limits for the whole debate; and

(iii) time limits for each Member speaking, of not more than 10 minutes.

(c) During the period provided by standing or-der 192 proceedings may be resumed in the Main Committee on motions in relation to committee and delegation reports referred that day or on an earlier day.

(E) Standing order 187 be amended to read:

187 Maintenance of order (a) In the Main Committee the Deputy Speaker

has the same responsibility for the preserva-tion of order as the Speaker has in the House.

(b) If disorder occurs in the Committee, the Deputy Speaker:

(i) may direct the Member or Members concerned to leave the room for a period of 15 minutes [standing order 94(e) (ex-clusion from Chamber, etc.) does not apply]; or

(ii) may, or on motion moved without notice by any Member must, suspend or ad-journ the sitting. If the sitting is ad-journed, any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the ad-journment shall be set down on the No-tice Paper for the next sitting.

(c) Following a suspension or adjournment of the Committee or a refusal of a Member to leave when so directed under paragraph (b), the Deputy Speaker must report the disorder to the House.

(d) The Deputy Speaker may report the conduct of a Member whether or not action has been taken under paragraph (b).


CHAMBER

(e) Any subsequent action against a Member under standing order 94 (sanctions against disorderly conduct) may only be taken in the House.

(F) Standing order 190 be amended to read:

190 General rules for suspensions and ad-journments of the Main Committee

The following general rules apply to meetings of the Main Committee:

(a) The Deputy Speaker must suspend proceed-ings in the Committee to enable Members to attend divisions in the House.

(b) If a quorum is not present the Deputy Speaker must immediately suspend proceed-ings until a stated time, or adjourn the Com-mittee.

(c) If the House adjourns, the Deputy Speaker must interrupt the business before the Com-mittee and immediately adjourn the Commit-tee.

(d) The Committee need not adjourn between items of business, nor during a suspension of the House.

(e) The Committee shall stand adjourned at 6 pm, unless otherwise ordered, when the committee meets on Mondays in accordance with standing order 192(b), or on completion of all matters referred to it, or may be ad-journed on motion moved without notice by any Member—

That the Committee do now adjourn.

(f) No amendment may be moved to the ques-tion.

(G) Standing order 192 be amended to read:

192 Main Committee’s order of business (a) If the Committee meets on a Wednesday or

Thursday the normal order of business is set out in figure 4.

(b) On sitting Mondays the Committee shall meet from 4 pm to 6 pm if required to con-sider orders of the day relating to committee and delegation reports in accordance with standing order 40 (resumption of debate on reports).

Figure 4 Main Committee order of business MONDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY 9.30 am 3 min statements 9.30 am 3 min statements approx 10.00 am approx 10.00 am Government Government business and/or business and/or committee and committee and delegation

4.00 pm delegation reports reports Committee and delegation reports 12.30 pm Adjournment

debate approx 6.00 pm 1.00 pm approx 1.00 pm

The sitting times of the Main Committee are set by the Deputy Speaker and are subject to change. Additional sittings may be scheduled if required. Adjournment debates can occur on days other than Thursdays by agreement between the whips.


CHAMBER

(H) Standing order 193 be amended to read:

193 Members’ three minute statements If the Main Committee meets before 10 am the first item of business shall be statements by Members. The Deputy Speaker may call a Mem-ber, including a Parliamentary Secretary but not a Minister, to make a statement for no longer than three minutes. The period for Members’ state-ments may continue for 30 minutes, irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House.

Ms Burke to move: That this House:

(1) notes that there has been an increased global trend for companies to relocate various parts of their operations to locations outside of the country where the service is being deliv-ered—a practice often referred to as off-shoring;

(2) notes that the practice of off-shoring has seen jobs and skills lost from the IT and finance sectors in Australia and that Deloitte Re-search predicts that 15% of all financial sec-tor jobs will be moved off-shore by 2008;

(3) recognises that participating in the global economy may deliver lower costs for local consumers and companies, however it must be done in a transparent and equitable man-ner; and

(4) calls on the Government to act now, before the flood of jobs offshore sees Australia los-ing out, by:

(a) ensuring privacy protection for consum-ers;

(b) providing consumers with a ‘right to know’ so that service providers disclose the country of origin which provides their services, equivalent to country of origin product labelling;

(c) developing a national skills base that is suited to the changing needs of the economy;

(d) providing assistance in reskilling dis-placed workers; and

(e) ensuring employees of the country where the jobs are relocated are also

protected by ILO Labour Standards. (Notice given 8 February 2006.)

Mr Hartsuyker to move: That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) that the Pacific Highway is a State road designed, built, owned, and maintained by the New South Wales State Govern-ment;

(b) that there have been unacceptable delays and substantial cost over-runs in the up-grade of the Pacific Highway to dual carriageway standard from Hexham to the Queensland border;

(c) notwithstanding that the Pacific High-way is a state road, the Australian Gov-ernment has made a substantial com-mitment to the upgrade under the Pacific Highway Reconstruction Program Agreement and Auslink;

(d) that there have been unacceptable delays to the commencement of work on by-passing population centres along the highway;

(e) tenders have been received for the con-struction of the Bonville Deviation and the State Minister for Roads, Mr Tri-podi, plans to delay commencement of works until mid 2006; and

(f) the public consultation process has failed to achieve route outcomes which are acceptable to communities along the highway; and

(2) calls on the New South Wales Labor Gov-ernment to:

(a) exercise more stringent cost and project management control over the highway upgrade; and

(b) accelerate progress on this upgrade with a view to completing a dual carriageway between Hexham and the Queensland border by 2016. (Notice given 8 February 2006.)


CHAMBER

Ms Hall to move: That this House:

(1) recognises that Commonwealth base funding for the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program in New South Wales remains static (apart from indexation) for the five year term of the agreement;

(2) notes that the existing budget for the Sup-ported Accommodation Assistance Program is not large compared to many other govern-ment programs with the allocation for NSW in 2005-2006 being $111.2 million shared be-tween the NSW and Commonwealth Gov-ernments;

(3) calls on the Australian Government and this Parliament to allocate additional funding re-sources for New South Wales Supported Ac-commodation Assistance to ensure the sus-tainability of a program that is vital to the health and wellbeing of Australian commu-nity life;

(4) recognises that the funding required is ex-tremely modest at a time when the Com-monwealth Budget is in record surplus; and

(5) notes that as the homeless service system struggles to keep services operating on an ever diminishing funding pool, grave fears are held for the future for homeless people seeking assistance. (Notice given 8 February 2006.)

Ms Hall to move: That this House condemns the Federal Gov-

ernment for:

(1) failing to adequately fund healthcare in Aus-tralia;

(2) its role in causing the current doctor and nurse shortage in Australia; and

(3) failing to adequately address this shortage. (Notice given 8 February 2006.)

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS

Regional Partnerships Mr McGAURAN (Gippsland—Minister

for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry)—In answer to a question from the member for

Corio on 10 November 2005, (Hansard, page 104) on the subject of the oil for food pro-gram, I referred to advice provided by Mr Tim Besley, Chairman of the Wheat Export Authority, to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee of 1 No-vember 2005. Mr Besley has since written to the Chairman of the Committee, indicating that his answer was ‘factually incomplete’ and provided additional information.

The letter is reproduced below to supple-ment the answer of 10 November 2005.

7 February 2006

Senator Bill Heffernan

Chairman

Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and

Transport Committee

Department of the Senate

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Senator Heffernan

At the Committee Additional Estimates hear-ings on 1 November 2005 and in the context of a discussion around the Wheat Export Authority’s (WEA) review of AWB(I) contracts I was asked the following question by Senator Siewert:

“were you aware that the AWB had entered into commercial arrangements with the Jordanian trucking company?”

To which at the time I replied “No”.

And subsequently in the context of the same question I replied:

“there was no indication of it at all on the documents we saw”.

Having considered my responses to the com-mittee I have since conducted a further review and I would like to inform the committee that my answer was factually incomplete. The WEA was made aware in mid 2004 from material in its pos-session that AWB(I) was supplying wheat into Iraq under an arrangement that included over land transport by a Jordanian trucking company.

Consistent with its function of reporting on the outcomes of the export performance of the na-


CHAMBER

tional pool and in response to public allegations of AWB(I)/AWB Ltd paying “kick backs” in Iraq the WEA undertook to address the issue in its 2004 performance monitoring activities,

AWB(I) provided WEA access to a sample of 17 contracts for wheat sales to Iraq under the UN oil for food program. WEA staff reviewed these contracts to verify whether the pool FOB data provided to WEA was consistent with those con-tracts. The details of the contracts were consistent with data provided by AWB(I) to WEA.

When questioned specifically by WEA staff over the provision of “kickbacks” in Iraq AWB(I) denied any wrong. AWB(I) staff pointed to the unique circumstances of Iraq sales (eg: that sales were to include delivery of wheat over land and payment is not made until the wheat is delivered) to explain why it was necessary to pay a Jorda-nian trucking company and why prices may ap-pear above global benchmarks.

Part of the WEA’s 2004 performance monitor-ing activity included examination of the Corpo-rate Governance procedures within AWB(I) in-cluding a review of the AWB(I) Corporate Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct Policy that had been approved by its Board. This policy dealt with agency facilitation payments. WEA’s review found that there were no payments recorded for Iraq wheat sales.

WEA’s performance monitoring activities are undertaken from the perspective that WEA is not a regulator of AWB(I)’s performance. Responsi-bility for the manner in which AWB(I) conducts its business resides with the Board which is gov-erned by a constitution and established corporate governance framework.

The WEA’s role is to report retrospectively on the outcomes of AWB(I)’s management of the national pool and the resulting benefits to grow-ers. This is generally a high level assessment un-dertaken by WEA on an annual basis.

I regret that my answer was not complete.

Yours sincerely

MA (Tim) Besley

Chairman


MAIN COMMITTEE

Wednesday, 8 February 2006

—————

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) took the chair at 9.30 am.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Mr Terry Raper

Mr MELHAM (Banks) (9.30 am)—I rise today to acknowledge the passing of my friend Terry Raper on 19 January this year. Terry was the second oldest of the nine Raper boys. He is survived by his wife, Jean, and his sons, Andrew, David and Grant, their wives and his five grandchildren. He cherished his large extended family, including his brothers and sisters-in-law. One of his brothers commented that the family had lost a brother, a friend, a lovable bloke and a lovable father. The booklet produced for the requiem mass for Terry has a photo on the front, also used by the local paper. That photo encapsulates Terry: warm, outgoing, gregarious and giving.

Terry was a much loved and respected member of the community. Much more than that, he was a genuine and committed man, who continued until the last months of his life to serve that community. He often visited my electorate office and had a joke to share with us, more often than not a little blue. He did have a wicked sense of humour, which only he could get away with.

Terry worked hard all his life. He worked at the Bankstown Torch and then successfully ran his own safety training company business. His commitment to work was only outmatched by his commitment to his family. He was a tireless voluntary worker and a dyed-in-the-wool member of the Labor Party. The Revesby branch relied on him to organise all the polling booths in the area as well as working one of the booths during the day. Revesby will not be the same without him when the next election is called.

When Terry was diagnosed with melanoma he was not given a long time to survive. Terry exceeded that time by many months. Terry redefined the word ‘fighter’. He was passionately committed to the game of rugby league and, according to his brother, Johnny, loved the St George jumper. On the front of the requiem mass booklet the family had the following words included: Some people come into our lives and quietly go.

Some leave a footprint on our hearts and we are never the same.

Terry Raper has left a footprint on many hearts in his community, and we will never be the same. He has left a wonderful legacy in his children and his grandchildren. We will all re-member and celebrate the life of Terry Raper.

More than 1,000 people attended the church service and over 400 people attended the wake at Revesby Workers Club. Those sorts of numbers were testimony to the life that Terry lived. He was very well regarded in his local community, to which he contributed a lot. I have been to a lot of funerals over the years, but very few funerals have matched that amount of people, both at church service and at wake. A lot more would have come had time allowed. My con-dolences to his wife and to his family.


MAIN COMMITTEE

Australian Transplant Cricket Team Mrs MAY (McPherson) (9.33 am)—The Australian transplant cricket team is heading off

to England in July to compete in a three-week cricket tour. The tour comprises two test matches and three one-day cricket internationals for the David Hookes memorial shield. The squad includes liver, heart, bone marrow, lung and no fewer than 11 kidney transplant recipi-ents from all over Australia. Who else could boast a team full of legitimate steroid users? At least half of the team have used the high-performance drug known as EPO—legally, of course—for treatment of chronic kidney disease.

The team’s aim is to raise public awareness of the benefits of and need for organ and tissue donation. With that in mind, arrangements are currently being made for our team to attend certain public functions, including a formal introduction to members of the UK parliament, who will then escort the team members on a tour of the houses of parliament.

Following the death of David Hookes, there was a spike in organ donor registrations when it emerged that David and his family had agreed to donate his organs. Nevertheless, Australia has one of the lowest organ donation rates per capita of any country in the Western world. Mr Deputy Speaker, I repeat: the tour is to raise awareness of organ donation. With Australian Organ Donor Awareness Week running from 17 to 25 February, I urge Australians to sign onto the register and to let their families know of their wishes.

I will be watching the David Hookes memorial shield closely, as we on the Gold Coast are immensely proud to be having one of our own playing in the series. Chris Wills, from the Gold Coast’s beautiful hinterland, received his heart and lungs last year. Chris, an all-rounder, is right up there in his grade for batting and bowling. After Australia losing the Ashes in both men’s and women’s to the pesky English, he is keen to get things back on track. I have no doubt that we will retain the David Hookes memorial shield, and Chris is emphatic that he will not be returning to Australia without it. I wish the team all the very best on their upcom-ing tour.

Adelaide Electorate: General Practitioners Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (9.35 am)—Yesterday, during question time, the Minister for

Health and Ageing was asked a question relating to the current doctor shortage that Australia faces. This brought me to once again reflect on the situation in my own electorate.

Last November, I addressed this parliament on the current medical crisis caused by the shortage of GPs. I spoke about how this shortage was having a detrimental impact on the health of communities within Adelaide. I particularly spoke about the Nailsworth surgery, which, in 2003, lost two practising GPs and has been unable to attract replacement practitio-ners due to the shortage.

After years of unsuccessfully searching for replacement doctors, the Nailsworth surgery fi-nally sourced a doctor who was willing and enthusiastic to join the surgery. I outlined how the surgery, desperate and overworked, was denied the opportunity of employing this doctor un-der the government’s Health Insurance Act, as the doctor in question, Dr Tedders, was trained overseas and had completed only six years of rural service and was therefore unable to attract the necessary provider number.

In recognising the surgery’s plight, I supported their application for an exemption under section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act to allow the doctor to join the surgery. I personally


MAIN COMMITTEE

wrote to the minister for health, appealing for an exemption to be granted, and in parliament I called on Minister Abbott to grant an exemption to a surgery that is facing possible closure. Unfortunately, just like the pleas and petitions this government received from the communi-ties in and around Nailsworth, my pleas have also fallen on deaf ears. It is just not good enough. The people of Adelaide want to know when the government will be willing to work on serious, long-term solutions designed to address the shortage of GPs and ease the pressure.

Currently, we have a government whose medical policies and guidelines simply do not match what is happening in our communities. Whilst Nailsworth is repeatedly told that it is not ‘an area of shortage’, it has currently reached full capacity and can no longer accept new patients. The two remaining doctors face immense pressure, as they are left to service ap-proximately 7,000 to 8,000 patients and can rarely take holidays due to the problems of locat-ing replacement GPs.

Early cuts to medical training places have led to a situation where we are not self-sufficient in supplying the demand for health professionals. We are relying on overseas trained doctors who are only able to access provider numbers in restricted areas and at restricted times. Per-plexingly, Dr Tedders has been granted a provider number to work after hours and in two lo-cal nursing homes, but this alone does not meet the needs of the communities surrounding Nailsworth.

There is a serious shortage of GPs, and our inner and outer metropolitan communities are also feeling it. Nailsworth is just one of many surgeries experiencing the problems caused by a short-sighted government. The government should have our country’s health high on its list of priorities. Instead, it is happy to deny Australians access to adequate GP services. I again call on the government and the minister for health to act for the Nailsworth surgery and for the people in the communities in my electorate of Adelaide.

Gilmore Electorate: Charity Fundraising Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (9.38 am)—Today I rise to pay tribute to a worthy benefactor and

local business that has jumped in to assist two local charities for cancer patients. The generos-ity of their gesture needs to be acknowledged, and what better way than by recording the fact in Hansard? But, first, I have some background. The two Shoalhaven charities are the com-mittee raising funds to have a linear accelerator installed in the Shoalhaven Hospital to assist South Coast cancer patients and the Milton cancer outpatients appeal committee, raising funds for an outpatients wing at the Milton Hospital.

Both these committees have had their fundraising boosted through the generosity of Corban, Nowra, who donated a new car to be used especially to assist the effort. The car will be raffled and the proceeds distributed between the two charities. The car will be drawn at a ball at the end of March or at the beginning of April. The principals of Corban, Nowra, Cam-eron Blake and Alan Pace, were approached by a number of people seeking a significant do-nation. But, as Alan Pace explains it, Corban was not prepared to come to the party unless the community benefited. Both Cameron and he came from Sydney, and as he said to me, ‘City people don’t appreciate how well off they are, because country people do it tough.’ So they resolved to assist in this way, and I want to reinforce their generosity by saying that these are the types of businesses I want to support.


MAIN COMMITTEE

They were approached by Mrs Betty Berg OAM, who has done a lot of fundraising locally and who is a well-known local identity. She negotiated with Corban, and they agreed to help. They supported the community by donating a Suzuki vehicle, and all they ask is that the community in turn support them to some degree. You cannot ask for more than that. Their generosity stands as a reminder that local businesses are as much part of the community as are other organisations. They rely on the community for their living, and it is only right that they participate equally as responsible corporate citizens.

Corban, Nowra, is to be congratulated on its generosity of spirit and its involvement in the social issues of the Shoalhaven. I would like to lay down a challenge to the other car dealers in town to match what Corban has done: rise to the challenge and help the community that puts money in your pockets. Whilst many of our businesses are very active in fundraising, particularly in local events, there is always more that can be done by both businesses and, in return, the community.

I would also like to also mention that Jim and Niki Kladis of Kladis Winery at Wandandian, just up the road, have donated a 22 carat gold ruby necklace and matching earrings as second prize. I would love to go on and thank everyone who has contributed so far, but that is for an-other day when both facilities are realised. For now, may I extend on behalf of the Shoalhaven area our utmost gratitude for Corban’s compassionate and generous gesture. These are the types of businesses that are welcome in the Shoalhaven.

Ballarat Electorate: Prisoner of War Memorial Ms KING (Ballarat) (9.40 am)—On Sunday it was my honour to attend a service that

marked the second anniversary of the Australian ex-prisoner of war memorial, where 269 ad-ditional names were added to the granite wall. The memorial pays tribute to over 35,000 Aus-tralian ex-POWs, 8,000 of whom died overseas whilst in captivity—the remainder came home bearing the scars of their experiences. One of the names on the memorial wall is the man that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Foreign Affairs paid their respects to yesterday: the Hon. Sir Reginald Swartz, a former member of this place and a former POW. Peter Blizzard OAM, who has recently received his OAM, largely for his work on the memorial, designed the wonderful granite wall that contains over 35,000 names.

It is important to note that the Australian ex-POW memorial, whilst it is located in Ballarat, is of national significance. It contains all 35,000 names. A large amount of research was un-dertaken to get all the names. The current Changi Chapel, which exists within the parliamen-tary precinct, is unfortunately the only place that is recognised as a national memorial for ex-POWs. Whilst I do not want to detract from the significance of the Changi Chapel, it really is not the national ex-POW memorial. The government has failed to recognise that, despite the fact that the memorial in Ballarat has not been funded solely by the Commonwealth govern-ment—it has been funded by state, private enterprise and the efforts of many ex-POWs—it speaks to many POWs and their families far more than the Changi Chapel. I have called pre-viously, and will be calling again, on the new Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to recognise the national significance of the Australian ex-POW memorial in Ballarat, because it contains 35,000 names.

On any weekend you can see the masses of poppies along the wall. Families are visiting from all across Australia to see their family member’s name on the wall. It is a memorial of national significance. It does not require any legislative change in order to be recognised as


MAIN COMMITTEE

such; it requires the will of the government to recognise that this memorial has emerged from the Australian ex-POW community. It speaks far more as a national memorial than any of the memorials the government has so far endorsed. I again call on the government to recognise that the Australian ex-prisoner of war memorial in Ballarat is one of national significance.

Fisher Electorate: Australia Day Awards Mr SLIPPER (Fisher) (9.43 am)—Every year since 2000 I have hosted the Fisher com-

munity Australia Day awards. On 26 January this year some 35 local citizens who dedicated time and effort for the benefit of the local community were recognised at a ceremony attended by approximately 300 people. The individual award recipients are: Mrs Jane Bright for her contribution to the protection of abandoned dogs and cats; Mr Gary Phillips for services to the Sunshine Coast war veterans and the Sunshine Coast Concert Band, particularly for the work he did with respect to Victory in the Pacific Day; Mrs Laurel Asimus for ongoing volunteering efforts in the community, particularly in relation to seniors and Lifeline; Mr Frank Beattie OAM for dedicated community service to the hinterland, particularly the Maleny RSL; Mrs Patricia Blake for more than 20 years of voluntary charity work, including work for the St Vincent de Paul Society; Mr Bill Close for assistance to struggling rural and outback families and Christian support through his Care Outreach organisation; Allan Lawley and Hendrik ‘Hank’ Drent for dedicated fundraising activities in support of the hinterland’s elderly resi-dents; Mr John Edwards for services to education, particularly school based sport; Mrs Gwen Greenwood for services to the community through the Lionesses clubs of both Buderim and Mooloolaba; Mrs Lorrie Housman for more than 20 years of local charity work, including work with the St Vincent de Paul Society; Mr Edward ‘Ted’ Hyde for dedicated fundraising on the Sunshine Coast for cancer research; Mrs Sheree Lyons for her hard work and dedica-tion to the Sippy Downs community—in particular, she is now president of the community association; Mrs Adele MacDonald for dedicated service to the sport of lawn bowls on the Sunshine Coast; Mr Casey McGuire for services to the community through sport; Mr James ‘Jim’ McBrien for his long-term dedication as a Lifeline volunteer; Mrs Gloria McEwan for services to the community—she has been involved in Inner Wheel, QCWA, Legacy and Friendship Force; Mr Cec Munns AM for services to education; Mrs Janet Scott for services to the community; Mrs Rita Rynne for dedicated services to various Sunshine Coast commu-nity support organisations, including work for leukaemia and also the Association of Inde-pendent Retirees; Mr Hans Van Roy for services to the Buderim community—he has been president of the chamber of commerce; Ms Lucy Cradduck for services to the community, in particular the Buderim War Memorial Community Association; Mr Peter Shadforth for ser-vices to sporting clubs and community organisations; Mr Bill and Mrs Margot Lind-Hansen for services to the Kawana Ambulance Committee; and Mrs Nancy Moule for her contribu-tion to the arts.

There was also a highly commended award given to the Suncoast Social Dancers. The community service award went to Telstra Country Wide. Also, there were awards to Mr Des Dwyer, former Caloundra mayor; Councillor Andrew Champion; and Mr Steve and Mrs Terri Irwin. The Des Scanlon Shield was given to Angel Flight, a wonderful organisation that helps so many people in need. I thank the House. (Time expired)


MAIN COMMITTEE

Occupational Health and Safety Mr PRICE (Chifley) (9.46 am)—Honourable members may be aware that a young 16-

year-old, Joel Exner, who lived in my electorate was killed on a building site last year. Sadly, not in my electorate but in the city of Blacktown, Paul Hughes, 41, a father of a young family of three, died falling from a building site. I congratulate Andrew Ferguson, the secretary of the relevant union; the board of management; and all the members of that union for the way they supported the family in such a tragedy and brought down Paul’s mum and dad from Queensland so that they could visit the site of his death and be at his funeral. You would ex-pect nothing less, I guess, of the union, but again I record my appreciation for it.

I thought I should quote to the House some of the thoughts of Paul’s father. He said: Every man’s birthright is to come home from his job.

and, I might add, to his family— Paul did not deserve to die like this, and there is nothing worse for us than knowing we outlived our

son because our government has not made workplace safety enough of a priority.

I agree with that very much. I say to all honourable members that it is an issue that we need to take up. People should have the right to go to work and earn a fair day’s pay but, most impor-tantly, come home to their families of an evening.

The issue of criminal negligence in relation to workplace sites has been frustrating in the sense that there has been so little progress, in my mind, about protecting workers from unfor-tunate death during work. I disagree with Louise Markus when she says that occupational health and safety is a state matter. In fact it is very hard, with the new industrial legislation that has passed through the House, to work out just what role the Commonwealth now plays—it did not play a very big part previously, I must admit—in occupational health and safety matters. But we must have a system, and we must allow trade unions to inspect sites—as they have so rigorously done previously—to oversee those sites and to ensure proper safety measures are taken with no short cuts and no money saved at the cost of the lives of workers. Tragically, under the new industrial legislation this is not possible. (Time expired)

Cowper Electorate: Pacific Highway Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (9.49 am)—In the House today I raise a matter of great

concern in my electorate—that is, the Bonville Deviation, a stretch of the Pacific Highway running through the area of Pine Creek. It has been the scene of no fewer than 13 deaths since 2001. The Pacific Highway, of course, is a New South Wales state government road, designed, built, owned and maintained by the New South Wales government. It does receive substantial funding under AusLink, and I was delighted to be able to announce, with the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, that some $960 million is to be spent on the Pacific Highway for the years 2006-09. But we have been waiting many years for work to begin in Pine Creek.

As long ago as 1998, the state government announced that it would fully fund the im-provement of the Bonville Deviation through Pine Creek, with a completion date of 2003. We are still waiting for work to commence. The state government also withdrew its commitment to fully fund the scheme. As recently as 13 July 2004, Bob Carr was on the radio decrying the fact that the reason the Bonville Deviation had not commenced was a lack of federal govern-ment funding. Later that day, on ABC radio, I pointed out to the listeners that the RTA’s own website noted the fact that the Pine Creek deviation was to be fully funded by the New South


MAIN COMMITTEE

Wales state government. What happened? The website, all of a sudden, moments later, disap-peared. It disappeared from view and reappeared later in the afternoon with a revised wording that removed the fact that the New South Wales state government was responsible for the Bonville Deviation. The new wording basically indicated that the state government was only responsible for planning.

We have finally advanced beyond that. We have seen tenders called for the project. Tender-ers were given 13 weeks to place their tenders. But regrettably the delays still continue. Mr Joe Tripodi, the state Minister for Roads, the minister for excuses, is still allowing his depart-ment some six months to assess tenders, when the tenderers were only given 13 weeks to put in their tenders. We have named Mr Tripodi ‘Slow Joe’, and the message coming from my electorate is: ‘Slow Joe must go.’

It is time for Morris Iemma to show some leadership and get rid of Slow Joe, the minister who would rather whinge than work, the minister who carries with him a grab bag of excuses. It is time for Slow Joe to pick up his swag and move on. We want to see a minister committed to the Pacific Highway. We want to see a minister committed to making things happen—not just whingeing. Slow Joe must go. It is time for Iemma to act, not react—he doesn’t act too often; he reacts quite a bit. It is time for Iemma to act. It is time for the Bonville Deviation to start now. (Time expired)

Lunar New Year Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (9.53 am)—The Australian Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean

communities are celebrating lunar new year at the moment, between 23 January and 12 Feb-ruary. Lunar new year, for one quarter of the world’s population, is the most important holiday of the year. This year it marks the end of the Year of the Rooster and the beginning of the Year of the Dog. In this last week, I have celebrated with Australian Chinese Buddhists at the Nan Tien Temple in Parramatta, with the wider Chinese community in Parramatta Chinatown and with the Australian Vietnamese community at the Tet Festival at Warwick Farm, an event that attracts around 60,000 people each year and is organised by an organisation representing the Vietnamese community in Australia at large.

I have great affection for these communities and, more than that, I am amazed by them. They are so strongly Australian—and proudly so—and such extraordinary contributors to the Australia that is common to us all, yet they have also retained such a strong cultural base and maintained that base through generations of Australians. How privileged we are in this place to be invited, as representatives of the people, into these little slices of Australia and to be given a front row seat to see the lion and dragon dances, to hear the music and the language, to eat the food and to catch a glimpse of other philosophies, other religions and other belief systems that flourish so well within the Australian context.

It was also a privilege for me to hear the wisdom of the Abbess of the Fo Guang Shan Nan Tien Temple, the Venerable Man Chien, a woman of extraordinary wisdom and grace. She was kind enough give the politicians at the Buddhist ceremony last week crystal lotus flowers to remind us, in the Buddhist way, that even though lotus flowers grow in the mud they retain their beauty and purity—a fitting metaphor, she thought, for politicians. Several of us are car-rying them around with us in our handbags as a reminder. It is quite a beautiful concept.


MAIN COMMITTEE

As we celebrate with these three successful communities we should remind ourselves that we did not always open our arms to these new arrivals. At times we were quite tough, particu-larly on our Chinese and Vietnamese Australians, but how lucky we are as a nation that we do not just have the world at our door to experience it from afar but have it within us, in our own population. The traditional lunar new year wish is for health, wealth and prosperity, and these three communities have given those things to us. It is fitting at this most important time of the year for them that we wish them the same—health, wealth and prosperity and a happy lunar new year and Year of the Dog.

Queensland Health Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (9.55 am)—I rise today to talk about the ongoing problems with

Queensland Health. I rise to be an advocate for those constituents in my community who have been so adversely affected by the intransigence, the lack of action and the bumbling of the Beattie state Labor government in Queensland. I rise because those MPs who are charged with the responsibility of representing the people of the Gold Coast in Queensland’s state par-liament, the parliament that is accountable for the lack of action when it comes to Queensland Health, have remained eerily silent. My concern is that Gold Coasters are forced to accept suboptimal outcomes when it comes to their health because the Queensland state Labor Pre-mier, Peter Beattie, and the Queensland state Labor government seem unable or unwilling to do anything to fix the health crisis in Queensland.

Over the course of the past week we have seen on the Gold Coast a complete blow-out in waiting lists for operations at our public hospitals. This blow-out is all the more concerning when you consider that for a patient to be eligible to have an operation in Queensland there is a secret waiting list to get onto the waiting list. So there is a blow-out in the official waiting lists, and I can only shudder to think what the lead time just to get on the waiting list is for those constituents who are on the secret waiting list. That the Labor premier says this is all a consequence of federal government policy just highlights the fact that the Queensland state Labor government has become so arrogant and out of touch that the people of Queensland are ready to take the baton to it. We saw that in two by-elections.

I stand in this parliament to say that the Howard government will continue to channel re-cord amounts of money into the Queensland state Labor government’s coffers in an attempt to play a meaningful role when it comes to addressing the issues of Queensland Health. Over $11 billion per annum is flowing to the Queensland state Labor government through GST and financial assistance grants. As part of this as well, the Howard government contributed $8 billion to Queensland Health over five years. That funds 50 per cent of the hospital system. Despite this, Peter Beattie and his state Labor members are contributing a miserly $440 per head of population to public hospitals. This is less than any other state government contributes to its public hospital system. It is an indictment of the Labor government in Queensland, and the fact that the Labor MPs from that state have been silent on this is completely unaccept-able.

I will continue to highlight the inaction of the state Labor government, I will continue to highlight the way in which the Commonwealth government is pouring record amounts of money into Queensland and I will continue to ask, ‘Why?’ (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! In accordance with sessional order 193 the time for members’ statements has concluded.


MAIN COMMITTEE

AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY BILL 2005 Cognate bill:

AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2005

Second Reading Debate resumed from 7 December 2005, on motion by Mr Andrews: That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (9.59 am)—I rise to speak on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2005. The Australian Labor Party are proud to have introduced the original antidoping legislation in 1990, which resulted in the Australian Sports Drug Agency. We are equally proud that even from opposition Labor have been able to bring to account the Howard government and ensure Australia continues to build on a drug-free sport-ing legacy.

Labor’s goal in establishing ASDA was to ensure that Australian athletes were able to per-form and compete in an environment untainted by banned substances. This goal was met, with ongoing revision and adaptation of our antidoping legislation. To move forward in antidoping in Australia, it is essential that there be a platform for national and international collaboration, regulation and development. Australia’s antidoping systems are robust and thorough and are managed by an authority that can adapt to ever-changing doping technologies and that has fair and transparent measures in place to investigate allegations of antidoping violations.

The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 establishes the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. Australia is internationally renowned as one of the leaders in antidop-ing. Drug testing programs commenced in Australia in the early 1980s. In 1989, the Council of Europe Anti-Doping Convention was signed, in recognition of sports organisations devel-oping an internationally coordinated approach to drugs in sport. It took effect in Australia in 1994.

The World Anti-Doping Agency was established in 1999, with the aim of continuing to co-ordinate and harmonise antidoping efforts across sport at an international level. In March 2003, WADA released the World Anti-Doping Code. The WADA code provides a framework for international and national sporting organisations and public authorities to establish anti-doping policies, rules and regulations. This code has been accepted by all Olympic commit-tees and Commonwealth Games associations, 68 national antidoping organisations, 159 of the 161 national paralympic committees, 10 major games associations, all Australian national sporting organisations—through government funding obligations, and other international sporting organisations.

Australia’s commitment to the international antidoping effort was ratified most recently in October 2005, when UNESCO adopted the International Convention Against Doping in Sport, a binding agreement to implement the WADA code. Australia is a signatory to this con-vention, which will take effect once 30 member nations sign on to the treaty.

While Australia has a strong reputation for its antidoping efforts, gaps in the current ASDA powers were exposed during the handling of an alleged doping violation in December 2003. A


MAIN COMMITTEE

plastic bucket of syringes, vitamin B and C vials, Equigen vials, other injecting material and an empty box of Testicomp were found in the room of cyclist Mark French at the Australian Institute of Sport facility in Del Monte in South Australia. A preliminary investigation took place. Allegations were made that there was a clandestine drug culture among elite cyclists and that the AIS was turning a blind eye to the drugs culture at the AIS facility at Del Monte. Following this preliminary investigation, the Australian Sports Commission and Cycling Aus-tralia instigated an independent investigation of the incident. Allegations were again made that there was drug use by unknown members of the AIS cycling team and that there was a culture of permissiveness in respect of doping at the Del Monte facility. In May 2004, in evi-dence to the court, Mr French named five other cyclists who had allegedly participated in group injecting sessions at the Del Monte facility. The court found Mr French guilty of anti-doping offences. Mr French was banned from competition for two years and fined $1,000. There was no further investigation into the allegations surrounding the five named cyclists.

On 18 June 2004, it was the Labor opposition that raised this issue in parliament. Senator John Faulkner criticised the government for the mismanagement of investigations into allega-tions of antidoping violations. Senator Faulkner called for the establishment of an investiga-tion and determination process independent of the Australian Sports Commission. Senator Faulkner also highlighted concerns that there had been no further investigation of the other named alleged offenders involved in the case. This case was of utmost sensitivity given that some of the alleged offenders were considered potential gold medallists at the upcoming Ath-ens Olympics.

After Labor raised these concerns, the Hon. Robert Anderson QC was appointed by the Australian Sports Commission and Cycling Australia to investigate the alleged claims of dop-ing within the AIS track sprint cycling program and to assess the effectiveness of actions taken by the ASC and Cycling Australia following the discovery of injecting material. From this inquiry Justice Anderson made a number of observations. In short: the preliminary inves-tigation tried to do too much, given its objective was only to determine whether Mr French’s scholarship should be suspended; the follow-up investigation was conducted with due expedi-ence; the case should have been taken to the ASC as urgent, given that Mr French may have had a case to answer and that the further allegations may have impacted on Olympic selec-tions, which were only a few months away; and Cycling Australia and the ASC should have instructed their solicitors to proceed with the case more urgently.

The key recommendation that Anderson made from the inquiry was that there should be a body—a body which is quite independent of the AIS, the Australian Sports Commission and the sporting bodies themselves—with the power and duty to investigate suspected infractions, such as substance abuse, and to carry the prosecution of persons against whom evidence is obtained. Throughout the French track cycling case, ASDA did not have the power to investi-gate, present the case or intervene in any way. The ASDA Act was amended in 2004 in order to comply with the WADA code. However, while the responsibilities are mapped out for the sporting body and athletes in the WADA code, ASDA currently does not have the power to examine all antidoping rule violations in the code.

This legislation provides two additional powers: the power to investigate doping allega-tions and the power to present antidoping violation cases of hearings of CAS or other sports tribunals. Sporting bodies who made submissions to the Senate inquiry into the legislation


MAIN COMMITTEE

concurred that this type of body was required. These additional powers will enable ASADA to examine all eight antidoping violations contained in the WADA code—namely, the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s body or specimen; use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method; refusing or failing, without compelling justification, to submit to sample collection after notification, as authorised in the applicable antidoping rules, or otherwise evading sample collection; violation of applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for out-of-competition testing, including failure to provide required whereabouts information and having missed tests, which are declared based on reasonable rules; tampering or attempting to tamper with any part of doping control; pos-session of prohibited substance and methods; trafficking in any prohibited substance or pro-hibited method; administration or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or pro-hibited method to any athlete; and assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an antidoping rule violation or any attempted violation.

ASADA will maintain the existing drug testing, education and advocacy functions of ASDA and will also carry out additional functions in relation to the investigation of potential additional sports doping violations; the presentation at hearings conducted by the Interna-tional Court of Arbitration for Sport and other sports tribunals of cases against an athlete or support person alleged to have committed an antidoping rule violation; determining manda-tory antidoping rules to be included in ASC funding agreements with sports; and advising the ASC of the performance of sports in observing these requirements.

ASADA will carry out these functions within the context of the National Anti-Doping Scheme, or NAD Scheme, which is also established by the ASADA Bill. Detailed protocols and procedures for the exercise of ASADA’s functions will be contained in the NAD Scheme, which will be a legislative instrument, developed alongside the ASADA Bill, to be tabled in parliament. The National Anti-Doping Scheme will be consistent with the mandatory provi-sions of the World Anti-Doping Code and will implement the UNESCO convention, once rati-fied. The bill acts as the broad legislative umbrella for ASADA, and the NAD Scheme will contain much of the detail that will directly affect the athletes and sporting bodies.

The Senate committee inquiry into this bill has been told that the NAD Scheme will con-tain antidoping rules applicable to athletes and support personnel, including details of anti-doping rule violations and the consequences of infractions; protocols for ASADA drug-testing procedures; protocols and procedures governing ASADA investigations; protocols for ASADA to establish a register of its findings and to advise sporting organisations and athletes of its findings; and protocols for ASADA’s presentation of doping cases at sports tribunal hearings. Under the scheme, it is the responsibility of Australia’s sporting organisations to promote athlete compliance with the scheme, refer violations of the scheme to ASADA, assist ASADA in the course of its investigations and take action in response to ASADA finding that a violation has occurred. The scheme also authorises ASADA to monitor the compliance of sports and sports administration bodies, including the ASC, with these obligations; notify the Australian Sports Commission in regard to such compliance; and publish reports about the extent of compliance.

The NAD Scheme has not yet been produced. This is a key concern of Labor along with sporting bodies and players’ groups. National sporting bodies, athletes and players, not to mention the parliamentarians, have to trust this government that the regulations attached to


MAIN COMMITTEE

this bill are consistent with the WADA code and UNESCO convention. They have to trust this government that the NAD Scheme regulations do not contain provisions that will affect them in a negative way. There are also valid concerns, both from Labor’s point of view and that of the sporting bodies, with regard to delays that would be caused by the need to disallow the regulations. While amendments to the NAD Scheme are required to go through a public con-sultation process, this is not the case for the initial regulations. This is certainly not ideal.

In the Senate committee hearings on this bill the government gave a guarantee that all in-terested sporting and players associations would be contacted and consulted regarding the detail of the NAD Scheme. Australian sport has a lot riding on the proper establishment of effective antidoping regulations. This consultation is vital. The Australian Olympic Commit-tee characterised some additional concerns in relation to these bills. They argued that the ASADA Bill does not separate the ASADA functions and powers relating to policy making, administration, investigation and prosecution; does not outline the reasons for or status of the register of findings; does not provide ASADA with the necessary and appropriate powers of investigation; and has adopted definitions at variance with those in the World Anti-Doping Code and the UNESCO antidoping convention. These are all valid concerns. The management of ASDA believes that the powers will be separated through good management practices. This remains to be seen. Without seeing the actual NAD Scheme it is difficult to look any further into their concerns.

Labor, as they have done throughout their term in opposition, will hold the government to account on their commitment to the national sporting bodies and their commitment to athletes to ensure that this legislation will offer positive benefits to sport and not incur any additional cost or risk associated with the NAD Scheme.

I should also note before I close that the rush we are in to get this legislation through par-liament is not really acceptable. While not wanting to hold this legislation up any longer—it has been on the government’s agenda since mid last year—the government should have had this legislation on the table long before now. We should have seen the regulations before now. This would have allowed the parliament to assess the real impact and would have allowed for an efficient and effective antidoping body with additional powers to be well and truly in place by the Commonwealth Games.

Labor has always been committed to, and the leaders in, Australia’s push to eradicate drugs in sport. Labor created ASDA in 1990 and it was Labor who pushed for the Anderson inquiry, which recommended this legislation. Labor supports the passage of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005. Whilst we have several concerns with this legislation, they are not significant enough to amend the bill. As such, the government should accept this as an act of good faith on behalf of the Labor Party and the opposition will closely monitor its im-plementation. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr BAIRD (Cook) (10.12 am)—I am very pleased to support the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 and to commend the minister, Senator Rod Kemp, who is doing an outstanding job as Minister for the Arts and Sport, and his officers and members of the Sports Commission. I think all of us are very proud of Australia’s sporting achievements, in-cluding at the Olympic level. When we think of the outstanding performance of the Australian team at the last Olympics, in Athens, which I had the good fortune to attend, it is something of which we are very proud. We had a record haul of medals. We are very proud of the way in


MAIN COMMITTEE

which women have come to the fore, particularly in swimming, achieving incredible results, breaking world records.

I think we can look forward to the Commonwealth Games as a time at which we will again see an incredible result for Australian athletes. I do not think any of us will be surprised if we end up with the largest share of medals at the forthcoming games in Melbourne. This prom-ises to be a wonderful games, and Melbourne has done an outstanding job in this area.

There is no doubt that, essential to ensuring Australia’s image as a great sporting nation is that we not only take great results from the likes of the Ian Thorpes of the world but also prove to the world that our athletes are drug free, that we run a clean environment in the train-ing of our athletes and that we do not have any high-profile scandals.

I remember the great tragedy for the Greeks when two of their top athletes were caught with drugs. They were devastated by it. I personally believe one of the reasons why the atten-dance numbers in the first week of the Athens Olympic Games were down was that they were so shocked by those results. So it is important to national pride that we do address the ques-tions of drugs, and this is what this bill is all about.

The ASADA Bill creates the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. We have taken a balanced Tough on Drugs in Sport approach which is appropriate and which is achieving re-sults. It is about having a fair treatment system ensuring that athletes’ rights are protected, because that is also essential. Last year, Minister Rod Kemp announced that the government would establish a new Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority to take on the advocacy func-tions of the Australian Sports Drug Agency.

The ASADA Bill will allow the organisation to investigate all antidoping outlined in the World Anti-Doping Code. Specifically the bill provides for ASADA to undertake antidoping testing, determine mandatory antidoping provisions and advise the Australian Sports Com-mission of progress on the work being carried out. It provides for education for Australian athletes and support personnel. I am sure that is going to be an absolute key. I am sure young people are often tempted to take supplements to lift their performance just a notch higher. It encourages antidoping initiatives by the states and territories, provides antidoping and other services under contract and makes resources available to the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee for the performance of its functions.

In the event of serious allegations of doping infractions, Australia will have in place an in-tegrated system—from collecting, preserving and analysis of evidence to making educated recommendations on its findings and carrying a case to a tribunal if required. This is going to enhance our compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code and will also implement the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport, once ratified by Australia.

The ASADA Bill sets out the broad requirements under which ASADA will operate. The National Anti-Doping Scheme will reflect the provisions of the two major international in-struments that I have mentioned. The scheme will contain antidoping rules, protocols for ASADA drug-testing procedures, protocols for establishing a register of its findings and pro-tocols for presentation of doping cases at sporting tribunals. The scheme will set out obliga-tions for Australian sporting organisations such as promoting athlete compliance, referring violations to ASADA, assisting ASADA in the course of its investigations, taking action in response to ASADA finding that a violation has occurred and assisting in hearings. The


MAIN COMMITTEE

scheme will authorise ASADA to monitor the compliance of sports and sports administration bodies, notify the Australian Sports Commission in regard to such compliance and publish reports about the extent of compliance.

There is obviously a whole laundry list of things that they are responsible for, but it is a practical way for an antidoping authority to be involved in all the machinations—from first apprehensions, through all the procedures when somebody is caught to assisting with cases et cetera. They will be involved in the transfer of information to the Australian Federal Police. The bill will also contain the rights of the athlete, which I think is important.

The ASADA Bill attaches strict conditions to receipt and disclosure of sensitive informa-tion from Customs, the Australian Federal Police and other law enforcement bodies. For ex-ample, disclosure must not contravene the terms of Customs initial disclosure to ASADA, and sports in receipt of such information must give an undertaking that any use of the information on its part must be for antidoping purposes and will not occur in a way prejudicial to the sub-ject of the information. Athletes will have access to established external review mechanisms in relation to ASADA investigation, including the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Adminis-trative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

All that is important because we have had quite a lot of controversy—for example, in the use of coffee, coffee supplements and NoDoz tablets, which I was familiar with as a student but have not used in the sporting field. It is unlikely: I had no great sporting field in which to test it. When some of our young athletes have been accused of a case—you can just imag-ine—it has been referred to the Australian Federal Police and then gone out to the media. We saw that occur in the cycling area, where information was suddenly broadcast to the media. The devastation in and impact on young athletes of such a provision is unconscionable. By all means, if they are found to be guilty of infractions and have been taking illegal supplements, additives or drugs of any form, they should be held accountable not only by the legal process but also in the court of opinion. If they are using unfair means to gain advantage to win med-als, it is against the whole Australian ideal of the athlete and the Australian ideal of a fair go. We want a fair go: if they have achieved the best result they should not have someone else take the medal away from them because that person has been into drugs or supplements. We all want to support that. I am very pleased to see that the rights of the individual are going to be preserved.

The establishment of ASADA represents a significant enhancement to the Tough on Drugs strategy, which is already a world leader. We within government are very proud of that. ASADA will ensure that Australia remains the leader in the international fight against drugs in sport. Mr Deputy Speaker Barresi, I know that you personally will be very interested, coming from the city that is very proud to be hosting the Commonwealth Games, which will put us at the forefront of international sport. We can expect to see many world records broken at this event. We want to ensure that we have not only the finest athletes who do their best and per-form to their ultimate but also drug testing done on a fair and appropriate basis, that any cheats are weeded out, appropriate testing is carried out, appropriate procedures are followed and that the athletes’ rights are protected.

I commend the minister, his staff and the Sports Commission. Bringing this bill forward is an important step forward. I believe it is going to add to Australia’s reputation in producing


MAIN COMMITTEE

not only fine sportsmen but also a drug-free sport environment. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JOHNSON (Ryan) (10.23 am)—I am pleased to speak on the important Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 in the parliament of Australia. I am particularly pleased—indeed honoured—to speak after my good friend and senior colleague in the parlia-ment the member for Cook, who I know has a very strong interest and reputation in the world of sport. He played a very significant role in the very successful Sydney Olympic Games of 2000. This bill is important for our sporting community and for the overall reputation of the Australian nation.

We all know what illicit and unprescribed drugs can do to people’s health and wellbeing. When an Australian athlete in particular takes drugs that are illegal or illicit and unprescribed by medical professionals, the cost is very significant. It costs athletes their health, with the side effects of performance-enhancing drugs very well documented. It costs the Australian sporting fraternity its international reputation as an honest and fair competitor. It costs the faith of the Australian public, who have continually ranked sport as something special and unique to the Australian character—something which defines Australianness. In fact, 62 per cent of the adult population of this country do participate in some kind of physical activity for recreation each year, and over half of those do so through organised community sporting as-sociations, clubs and the like.

There is also an economic cost to Australian businesses. Successful sporting events attract businesspeople from around the world and create a wealth of opportunities for Australian businesses and industries. One such example is Austrade’s Business Club of Australia. This has come to be an important mechanism for Australian businesses to piggy-back off major competition in Australia and to network with significant corporate and business figures from around the world who come to Australia, not only to enjoy high-level sporting competition but also to do business. Bolstered by $800,000 in funding from the Howard government in 2004-05, the Business Club of Australia is set to hold more than 25 business networking events across the 12 days of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games. Previous networking events held by the club during the Sydney Olympics and during the Rugby World Cup in 2003 are widely seen as having been very successful, netting this country’s businesses hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business transactions. Over 190 Australian businesses have achieved an international sale as a direct result of the club’s activities during these major sporting events.

Why is this important? Because of the place that sport has in the fabric of Australian soci-ety, we can leverage off sport to further our country’s economic success. Therefore, the use of drugs by Australian elite athletes does have an economic impact. It directly impacts on busi-nesses and mars their opportunity to leverage off major sporting events, and it tarnishes the profile of Australia as a clean and fair sporting country.

Despite all these costs, some athletes nevertheless continue to bow to the pressures placed on them by their coaches and by the public for them to do well and, in particular, to the pres-sure they place on themselves and turn to performance-enhancing and recreational drugs. Australia has a reputation for placing enormous pressure on its elite athletes to perform at their very best. We idolise our sporting heroes—the Bradmans, and the Pat Rafters and Ian Thorpes of today’s world. Successful sportsmen are beacons to the 1.6 million young Austra-


MAIN COMMITTEE

lians aged between five and 14 who participate in organised sports every year. At the same time, the Bradmans, the Rafters and the Thorpes stand as shining examples of sportsmanship and of Australians who have performed at an elite level and have become the best in the world without taking drugs or performance-enhancing substances. So it can be done. It is important to portray the message to young Australians who might see themselves as having great poten-tial in the sporting arena that they can be the very best in the world, that they can be champi-ons, without taking performance-enhancing drugs.

On behalf of the people of Ryan, whom I have the great privilege of representing in this parliament, and as a member of the government who supports this bill very strongly let me make it clear that the use of drugs in sports by a small minority of sportspeople sullies our image. Unfortunately, the fact that drugs are used by only a minority of sportspeople does not take away the fact that the impact of their use is substantial indeed.

I want to comment on the matter of obesity. An estimated 1.5 million people under the age of 18 are overweight or obese. One in 10 children under 16 is obese. One in five children un-der 15 is categorised as being fat or overweight. These figures are too high for us to accept as a nation. One way to try to make an impact on these figures and reduce the level of obesity is through sport. Successful sporting figures figure strongly in this country as role models. There is a role here for our sports men and women. Young Australians look up to our elite athletes as role models. If they see the reputations of their role models being tarnished in the community and in the media, if they see their role models being criticised by public figures for taking performance-enhancing drugs, that is not going to do them any good whatsoever. Kids who are overweight should be encouraged to take up sport as a way of reducing their weight. I want to say very strongly in the parliament today that what this bill is trying to do is very im-portant. It tries to address the issue of the use of drugs and illegal substances in sport at the elite level.

As we all know, the Howard government is very committed to ensuring a level playing field for all athletes and to upholding the good name of the Australian sporting fraternity by eliminating drugs from sport. In order to achieve this, the government has introduced the Aus-tralian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005. In formulating this bill, the government has taken into account its obligations under international treaties and conventions, as well as the recommendations of the 2004 Anderson inquiry. The government has delivered a scheme which is tough on drug cheats but respectful of the rights of athletes.

In 1999, in an effort to coordinate and harmonise antidoping efforts across the globe, the World Anti-Doping Agency, known as WADA, was established. Subsequently, in 2003, WADA released the World Anti-Doping Code. The code is a benchmark for international anti-doping authorities and sets out eight doping violations. WADA is also responsible for the creation and revision of a list of prohibited substances, the use of any of which qualifies as a doping offence. In the 2004 election campaign, subsequent to the release of the code, the gov-ernment committed to ensuring that sport in Australia was as drug free as humanly possible. As part of this commitment, the government now requires all of Australia’s sporting codes to enact antidoping regulations in line with the WADA code. As of July 2005, all major Austra-lian sporting organisations are code compliant.

The government also amended the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act in 2004 in order that it comply with the code. However, the structure of ASDA meant that amendments alone could


MAIN COMMITTEE

not bring it fully in line with the code. The government acknowledges that ASDA was created by the Labor Party when it was in office in 1989, under former Prime Minister Hawke—a good example of the Labor Party doing something right, which is more the exception than the rule. However, this meant that antidoping investigations lacked both independence and neu-trality—a situation that was highlighted in the 2004 investigation into Australian Olympic cyclist Mark French and in the subsequent 2004 Anderson report. In that case there was a concern that issues raised by Mr French, including claims that there was a systemic culture of doping among his fellow cyclists within the Australian Institute of Sport, were not appropri-ately investigated.

An inquiry, chaired by Mr Robert Anderson QC and commissioned by the Australian Sports Commission and Cycling Australia, investigated the effectiveness of their investiga-tions into Mr French’s claims. In his recommendations, Mr Anderson QC called for an inde-pendent body with the power to investigate and carry out prosecutions of persons suspected of infractions of the antidoping code. In October 2005, Australia adopted the International Con-vention Against Doping in Sport, which was put forward by UNESCO. As a signatory to this agreement, Australia entered into a binding agreement to implement the WADA code. Follow-ing Australia’s formal and binding agreement to implement the WADA code, and in recogni-tion of the findings of Mr Anderson QC, this bill will create a new authority, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, ASADA, and a new scheme, the National Anti-Doping Scheme.

In the time I have remaining, I will make some brief comments on ASADA. ASADA will assume the functions of ASDA, including retaining the role of the Australian Sports Medical Advisory Committee, created by ASDA, to provide expert medical advice. Along with its in-ability to investigate doping allegations, ASDA also suffered under definitions which were imposed by the Labor government, forcing it to have even more unnecessary constraints on its functions. Specifically, the ASDA Act defined ‘competitor’ as ‘any international and national athletes, or younger athletes who may become international or national level athletes’. The ASADA Bill will replace references to ‘competitor’ with the word ‘athlete’, defined as ‘any participant in sporting activity’. This gives ASADA jurisdiction over all levels of sport in Aus-tralia, to aid it in the goal of ensuring Australian sport is completely drug free. In other words, this provides more of a blanket coverage. This piece of legislation provides a wider net and brings into it Australian sports men and women across the country, which is a very important distinction.

While the ASDA Act recognised the role of persons other than competitors in the use of drugs in sport, the ASADA Bill specifically gives the power to enforce antidoping provisions against a new category of people, in addition to athletes. This new category is classified as ‘support people’. Support people are defined as being the coaches, the trainers, the managers, the agents, the team staff members, the officials and the medical or paramedical practitio-ners—a group of people who might place undue pressure on a young athlete. This extension of powers is designed to address the kind of systemic doping culture identified in the case of Mark French, which I touched on earlier.

ASADA’s primary functions will relate to sports drugs and safety matters. These include advising the Australian Sports Commission on sports drugs and on safety matters to be in-cluded in funding agreements with sporting organisations. It will include promoting the edu-


MAIN COMMITTEE

cation of sports men and women and support personnel about sports drugs and safety matters. It also has an important role to play in the area of general support and encouragement, of course, as well as in conducting research. ASADA will also carry out the functions conferred on it and authorised by the NAD Scheme. The ASADA Bill ensures that it has the correct bal-ance of powers to ensure that it can perform its duties without becoming a coercive body against the primary interest of athletes and support personnel—which is, of course, that ath-letes perform at their peak in the sporting arena.

The only limitations on the powers of ASADA are as follows: it cannot acquire or hold real property and it cannot enter into contracts or transactions or lease land and/or buildings and other like infrastructure. ASADA is also prevented from coercing any athlete or any support person into giving testimony. Although the government has been criticised by some for not giving ASADA the power to compel testimony, the government believes that this is an impor-tant limitation to ensure that athletes see ASADA not as a witch-hunting body intent on drag-ging the good name of athletes through unwarranted investigations but as an organisation that is there to help them—to benefit their interests by ensuring that drugs do not become rife within their sport.

We in the parliament know that when our name is put in print or in the media in a very negative way it does leave a connotation which is quite unhelpful, even though it might be completely unjustified. This also applies to athletes. When their names are on television sets in living rooms across the country, there is a connotation and an inference that they might have done something wrong, when in fact they may have done nothing wrong at all. That is a very important constraint that this bill imports into this organisation.

There is of course much more that I could say when talking about a piece of legislation in-troduced by the Howard government—all very positive stuff and, in this case, all in the inter-ests of the Australian sporting fraternity—but I will conclude with some general remarks about Australia’s reputation in the sporting world. We are known around the world as a great sporting nation. We compete with the very best. Indeed, we punch well above our weight as a small nation of some 20 million people. We win world titles and Olympic gold medals in the spirit of fair competition and high sportsmanship. Equally, we lead the world in antidoping administration technology and in our very strong moral commitment to taking drugs and ille-gal substances out of sports and competition.

Our efforts are second to none. For the first time at an Olympic Games athletes competing in Sydney in 2000 were not just tested after their events; they were also subject to pre-Olympic and out-of-competition testing. This, combined with a new test for the previously undetectable performance-enhancing drug Erythropoietin, made the Sydney Olympics one of the most drug free Olympics ever—and a triumph for Australia in promoting our commitment to drug-free sporting events. In the weeks ahead Melbourne, the capital of Victoria, will host the Commonwealth Games. This will no doubt showcase Melbourne to the world, and it will also showcase Australia. It will showcase the very best of Australian sporting success. As well, it will showcase how very strong this country’s commitment is to fair competition and strong sportsmanship.

As the member for Ryan, and as someone who played a little bit of sport in my younger days, I hope very much that I can continue my good work in the local Ryan community, to interact with young people, with the sporting kids at the various schools in my wonderful


MAIN COMMITTEE

electorate, and to convey to them the very strong and important message that there is abso-lutely no place in sport—or, indeed, in their lives—for drugs. Drugs damage lives and damage circles of friendships. They are no good whatsoever to sporting kids. I will take this opportu-nity to say that I want to continue to encourage the educators, the parents and those who hold public positions in the Ryan community—and the wider circle of friends and relatives of young people—to continue to speak very strongly about health issues with kids and grandkids and to speak very strongly about living a very healthy lifestyle, being active and saying abso-lutely no, no, no to drugs. Drugs are not something that we want to see infecting or contami-nating the young lives of Australians in this wonderful country.

Mr HENRY (Hasluck) (10.42 am)—I am proud and pleased today to speak in support of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2005. These bills signal a new era in Australia’s already strong commitment to eliminating performance-enhancing drugs in all forms and at all levels of sport. Australia has long been recognised as a world leader and as a nation with firm principles on drugs in sport. The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games brought with them some of the toughest antidoping measures ever adopted. The previous speaker, the member for Ryan, said the conduct of the Sydney Olympics was a triumph for Australia not just in competition on the field but because of our tough antidoping measures. I endorse all of what he had to say.

I have a keen interest in these antidoping bills, having been involved in competitive sport of one form or another for most of my life—including swimming, running, triathlons and rugby. Indeed, for me over many years rugby union was a way of life. Rugby union, as they say, is the sport played in heaven. It starts this Friday night, in Western Australia, when the Western Force take on the Brumbies in the new Super 14 format. Rugby, like many other sports, is a sport built on the principles of honour, fairness, sacrifice, discipline and sports-manship. These same principles have been the backbone of Australian sport of all kinds for generations. The use of performance-enhancing drugs—indeed, any drugs—flies in the face of these principles, undermining everything which makes sport such an important part of the social fabric of this country.

On any weekend across the country we see hundreds of thousands of young Australian kids, youths and adults playing sport of one kind or another. We need to encourage and in-crease this level of participation in all our communities and promote our ideals of sportsman-ship. It is this interaction, this social fabric in our communities, that is important and, coupled with the admiration we have for our sporting stars, it makes it so vital that the issue of drugs in sport be treated seriously.

I noted with interest the comments in yesterday’s Australian newspaper regarding this very issue. It seems that the National Rugby League is unhappy that the Howard government is taking a strong stance against the use of so-called recreational drugs by our sports men and women. Their argument, which is flimsy at best, is that the proposed ASADA should focus only on performance-enhancing drugs and that the use of other drugs should be dealt with by the various sporting bodies such as the NRL. This is, frankly, a nonsensical position for any-one to take. While Mr Gallop, the head of the NRL, says that the rationale for the introduction of ASADA is to stop cheating, I believe, and I think most Australians would agree, that ASADA has a wider role—that is, to set standards with respect to all drug use in sport. Surely


MAIN COMMITTEE

the use by athletes of illegal drugs, whether or not we call them recreational, is just as damag-ing to them, their sport and our country’s reputation as the use of performance-enhancing drugs. All sports men and women and their sporting organisations must take a strong leader-ship role in this.

In Australia, our young people hold their sporting heroes in awe. The example set by ath-letes has a profound effect on the youth of our nation. I for one am pleased that ASADA will be taking an active role in ensuring that athletes using illegal drugs will be shown to be a poor example for our children. I am surprised that the NRL has not welcomed the Howard govern-ment’s move to eliminate the use of all illegal drugs in sport. I am also surprised and disap-pointed that the NRL, amongst others, believes that the proposed ASADA has too much power to investigate and prosecute drug use in sport. Mr Gallop’s suggestion that the NRL tribunal should continue to investigate and prosecute drug cheats seems to ignore the princi-ples of arms-length investigation and fails to recognise the need for stringent, consistent, na-tionwide standards with regard to drug use in sport.

The Howard government recognises the importance of sport in Australia and the need for Australian sports men and women to compete fairly in domestic and international sporting competitions. The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill provides for the creation of a body—the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority—which will replace the current Austra-lian Sports Drug Agency. The new ASADA will perform all the functions of the old ASDA in relation to drug testing, education and advocacy. But it will also carry out important additional functions, such as investigating potential sports doping violations; presenting cases against an athlete or support person alleged to have committed an antidoping rule violation, at hearings conducted by the international Court of Arbitration for Sport and other sports tribunals; de-termining mandatory antidoping rules to be included in Australian Sports Commission fund-ing agreements with sports; and advising the Australian Sports Commission of the perform-ance of sports in observing these requirements.

ASADA will also incorporate the current Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Com-mittee. ASADA will be governed by a board consisting of a chair, a deputy chair and from one to five members. A quorum will consist of the chair and two other members. The chair is the head of the agency and will exercise some of the corporate governance functions inde-pendently of the board. The board will have a decision making role in relation to ASADA’s regulatory function—it will decide on matters regarding ASADA’s testing investigations and hearings functions. ASADA will be responsible for overseeing the National Anti-Doping Scheme, which will initially be outlined in regulations developed alongside the ASADA Bill. The National Anti-Doping Scheme will thereafter be further developed and refined by ASADA in consultation with stakeholders in the sporting community.

The National Anti-Doping Scheme will set out the specific processes and protocols to be employed in implementing the World Anti-Doping Code and the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport. ASADA will be responsible for monitoring the compli-ance of sports bodies and sports administration bodies with their obligations under the NAD scheme. ASADA will notify the Australian Sports Commission of the extent of compliance by sports bodies and will publish reports on the same. Failure to comply is not dealt with in the ASADA Bill but, rather, will be set out in the Australian Sports Commission funding agree-ments.


MAIN COMMITTEE

ASADA will also have access to Customs information in certain prescribed circumstances. This is similar to previous amendments to the Australian Sports Commission Act 1989. ASADA may also authorise the disclosure of that information to sporting organisations, under a prescribed set of circumstances. The ASADA Bill specifies permitted antidoping purposes for which disclosures may occur. The disclosures must be in the course of investigating possi-ble doping breaches; determining whether to take action over such breaches, and the conse-quences of such breaches; or taking action, or participating in proceedings, in response to such breaches.

The ASADA Bill specifies trusted persons, generally ASADA members and staff and des-ignated associates, who may receive information. It also specifies penalties of up to two years imprisonment for the improper disclosure of protected information.

The ASADA Bill also allows ASADA to disclose information to the Australian Federal Po-lice under appropriate circumstances. The Australian Federal Police disclosure to ASADA is facilitated through its own act, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

The ASADA Bill contains specific and detailed provisions protecting athlete’s rights and carries over existing safeguards under the ASDA Act. It provides for appeals by athletes to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and for complaints by athletes to be brought to the attention of the Ombudsman.

Importantly, there is strong support among sporting organisations for the creation of ASADA. This was emphasised in submissions to the government’s discussion paper. I repeat: the issue of drugs in sport must be treated seriously, given the public recognition, admiration and community profile many of our sporting stars receive. Indeed, many of our top-flight sporting stars are hero-worshipped by the young and the youth of our great country. They must comply with society’s expectation of our sporting elite.

Within the electorate of Hasluck, I think it is very important that we set the benchmarks and appreciate the need to encourage and support young people in sport in our schools and through our different sporting associations, whatever that sport may be—whether it be rugby union, Australian rules football, hockey, tennis, athletics, swimming, netball or basketball. We must not be seen to be supporting the use of drugs. Illegal drugs in any form are just not ac-ceptable, and performance-enhancing drugs are not fair in competition. We must ensure we continue to recognise those issues in our sporting endeavours.

Sport is built on the principles of honour, fairness, sacrifice, discipline and sportsmanship, as I said earlier. Those principles must be fundamental to the way we encourage our young people into sporting activities and commitment to those sports. In a competitive environment the challenge is for people who are highly motivated and wish to win. We must make sure that that is balanced with the need for them to be fit and committed to the healthy pursuit of their sport in an appropriate way and not encourage—and make sure we are not seen to be encour-aging—people to take performance-enhancing drugs or any other drugs to improve perform-ance. The use of performance-enhancing drugs, indeed any drugs, flies in the face of these principles and is totally unacceptable.

These bills, and the Howard government’s policy on doping in sport, have been developed with the full involvement of sporting organisations and athletes in Australia. The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority bills reflect the Howard government’s commitment, domesti-


MAIN COMMITTEE

cally and internationally, to eliminating doping and drug use in sport. I commend the bills to the House.

Ms LEY (Farrer—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (10.54 am)—On behalf of the Minister for Arts and Sport I thank those who have contributed to the debate on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2005—the members for Bruce, for Cook, for Ryan and, most recently, for Hasluck.

These bills establish the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority as the single organisa-tional focal point for Australia’s antidoping activities. Testing, investigation, research and education functions will reinforce each other in presenting a unified, integrated response to doping in sport. The creation of ASADA balances a tough on drugs approach, ensuring that all athletes are treated fairly and that athletes’ rights are protected. The bills before the House enhance an Australian antidoping framework that is already world leading. They add more robust arrangements for the investigation and hearing of antidoping violations to the govern-ment’s existing drug testing, education and advocacy activities.

The creation of ASADA represents a comprehensive response to Australia’s obligations under the WADA code and the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport. ASADA will enhance Australia’s compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code and will stra-tegically implement the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport, to be ratified by Australia, once it enters into force.

There is strong support among sporting organisations for the creation of ASADA, which was emphasised in submissions to the government’s 2004 discussion paper on the proposed creation of a sports doping investigations board. The establishment of ASADA will mean that sports, athletes and the public can have complete confidence that doping allegations will be investigated and pursued in an independent, robust and transparent way. It represents a tough response to doping in sport and a response that treats all athletes fairly.

The ASADA bill sets out the broad requirements under which ASADA will exercise its functions. Detailed protocols and procedures for the exercise of ASADA’s functions will be contained in the National Anti-Doping Scheme, which will be a legislative instrument to be tabled in parliament. The scheme will contain the core functions of ASADA to enable the new authority to operate efficiently and effectively from commencement. It will also carry over and consolidate into a single document the existing regulations and orders relating to ASADA’s current testing functions.

As a condition of any funding from the government, sports will be required to adopt the scheme as part of their antidoping policies, which will include submitting to the antidoping jurisdiction of ASADA. As a condition of the scheme, sports will be required to ensure that their athletes and support personnel cooperate with ASADA officials in carrying out its test-ing, investigations and presentations at hearings functions. Sports will also be required to ac-cept any findings by ASADA that an individual has committed a doping offence, and issue appropriate infraction notices to athletes.

The bill also contains specific and detailed provisions protecting athletes’ rights and carries over existing safeguards under the ASDA Act. The bill includes provisions facilitating the exchange of sensitive information between ASADA, the Australian Customs Service and the


MAIN COMMITTEE

Australian Federal Police in regard to the use and importation of prohibited substances. These provisions, along with the obligations imposed on sports through the contractual arrangements with the government, will put in place a system that will provide ASADA with the powers and ability to carry out its functions effectively and systematically.

The World Anti-Doping Agency, the body responsible for coordinating the international ef-fort against doping in sport, has welcomed the entry of ASADA as the new linchpin in Austra-lia’s antidoping framework. Australia, as host of the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne next month, now has an opportunity, through the creation of ASADA, to underscore to the international sporting community its absolute commitment to fighting against drugs in any sport.

Question agreed to.


Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.

AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2005

Second Reading Debate resumed from 7 December 2005, on motion by Mr Andrews: That this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.


Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.

COMMITTEES Transport and Regional Services Committee

Reports: Government Responses

Debate resumed from 7 December 2005, on motion by Mr Abbott: That the House take note of the documents.

Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (11.01 am)—I want to make a few brief comments on these two par-ticular reports: National road safety—Eyes on the road ahead and Train illumination: inquiry into some measures proposed to improve train visibility and reduce level crossing accidents. Firstly, I want to deal with Train illumination. This report was presented to the House in June 2004. The government’s response was tabled in the House in December the following year. I will not go into all the detail, but I want to briefly say that the committee reported with only five recommendations but they were good ones. The government supported one recommenda-tion in full, one recommendation in part and one recommendation in principle and did not support two of the recommendations.

The report focuses on a very narrow aspect—as you would expect with only five recom-mendations—of community safety at level crossings. It is very specific and something that I am sure is a concern to all members. I am pleased the government supported at least some recommendations, particularly the adoption of a scoring system which is similar to that which is in place in Queensland. This will provide uniformity across the country. I am also pleased


MAIN COMMITTEE

that the government will undertake further studies to ensure maximum safety for the public at level crossings to make sure that is achieved.

I want to highlight, for the benefit of the House, members and the public, that fatalities at level crossings are a serious matter. While they have decreased over recent years, which indi-cates that there has been an improvement in safety standards and illumination and a whole range of other issues about visibility, there are still too many people who die at our rail cross-ings each year and there is always more that we can do. I do not think any of us lives in a per-fect world, a perfect system, where we expect there to be no fatalities, but I strongly believe that governments should continue to work harder together—particularly in areas where the federal and state governments can work together to bring about uniform signage and uniform policies and procedures across what are national issues. I just wanted to make those com-ments in relation to the Train illumination report.

I want to also make some brief comments on the national road safety report called Eyes on the road ahead. This report was also presented to the House in June 2004, and the govern-ment’s response was tabled in the House in December the following year. The committee re-ported with 38 recommendations. The government supported only three of those in full. It supported 13 recommendations in principle and noted one, but it did not support 21 of those recommendations. Obviously there is an extensive number of recommendations because of the scope of the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services and the importance of national road safety. Just as important as safety at rail crossings is national road safety.

This is a national issue and one where the federal government could do more work on bet-ter partnering with the states, not saying, as is the case in the government’s response that was tabled in December 2005, that many of these issues were out of the scope of the federal gov-ernment. In fact, the principal reason the government did not support the recommendations of the committee is that the federal government believed that many of the recommendations were overreaching the federal government’s responsibilities. That may be the case, but where that is the case there is scope for the government and the minister to pay particular attention to working with the state authorities and using good recommendations, not just rejecting them out of hand.

Such safety recommendations may be out of the scope of the federal government, but it should work with the states in trying to put them in place. It seems obvious to me, as I am sure it would to ordinary people out on the street, that if you have a good recommendation, a good policy—something that could be done to save lives—you will do everything you can to enact it, if you have the power to do so. To simply say, ‘Well, it’s not my responsibility; I’ll just let somebody else worry about it,’ I do not think is a good enough response.

I also want to mention that I think, while some were very good, some of the committee’s recommendations were not so very good. Committees, in themselves, are not infallible. They do make recommendations that I do not always agree with. I want to note one in particular. The committee recommended some absurd special licensing category for four-wheel drive owners. While this debate rears its ugly head from time to time, I think it is just as silly as anything could possibly be. The government rejected it—and I am glad that it did. I am sure that this debate will pop up again and I will not go into the detail of why I believe this is a silly approach to licensing or safety. If we really want to look at road safety, before moving on


MAIN COMMITTEE

to any sort of licensing there are many things that the federal and state governments could do simply about the condition of our roads, to start with. Very rarely with somebody’s death is it a case of just a licence issue. It is usually a combination of two, three or four things, not the least being poor road conditions. Often it is people speeding or being under the influence of some drug. Just with those few comments, I note both of those reports.

Mr LLOYD (Robertson—Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) (11.06 am)—I rise to take this opportunity to comment on what I believe is a very important report, National road safety—Eyes on the road ahead, and the government’s response to it. First, I thank the chairman, Paul Neville, and all the members of the committee for the work they put into this important report. The government does take it seriously; it certainly has supported a number of the recommendations. As the previous speaker said, many of the 21 recommenda-tions that were not supported do not come under the jurisdiction of the Australian govern-ment, and we must continue to work very closely with the state and territory governments on this very complex issue. Road safety is important to all of us in Australia. Every single Aus-tralian would love to see the death toll and accident trauma on our roads reduced, and we are making significant progress in that area.

In 1995, there were 2,017 deaths on Australian roads and the population fatality rate stood at 11.2 deaths per 100,000 people. In the following 10 years, we saw a substantial improve-ment in national road safety. Statistically, the annual fatality numbers have decreased by 19 per cent and the rate per population has dropped by 28 per cent. The Australian government has contributed to this achievement through its ongoing work on improved vehicle safety standards and our strategic investment in the nation’s roads, particularly with the new $12.7 billion AusLink program and our continuing commitment to the highly successful national black spot program. Under that program, each year from 2005 to 2008, a total of $45 million will be spent on the AusLink black spot program, which will fund work on addressing some 370 dangerous black spots throughout Australia.

In the late 1990s, we led the development of the current 10-year National Road Safety Strategy, which has a very ambitious target of a 40 per cent reduction in the population road fatality rate by the year 2010. That strategy was formally endorsed by all ministers of the Aus-tralian Transport Council in November 2000. Up until the end of 2004, Australia was well on track to achieving that 2010 fatality reduction target. However, sadly, 2005 was a disappoint-ing year for road safety, with 1,635 people being killed on our nation’s roads. That is an in-crease of 52 on the previous year’s figure for fatalities, and it was the first time the annual road toll had increased since the year 2000.

Road safety is a collective responsibility involving all governments at all levels, industry groups, community organisations and each and every one of us as individuals. The Australian government will continue to work closely with these groups to find new solutions that can drastically cut the trauma on our roads. But, ultimately, no matter how much you spend on roads, no matter how much you upgrade the roads and no matter how much you improve the technology of the vehicles, road safety depends on the actions of individuals—each and every one of us who uses the roads, and that is virtually everyone in Australia, whether as a driver, a rider or a pedestrian.

I was extremely disappointed at the significant increase in the Christmas-New Year holiday toll recently. I was reflecting the other day on the fact that I had put forward a road safety


MAIN COMMITTEE

message prior to the Christmas-New Year holiday period. That was broadcast widely around Australia, and I wondered how many of the 78 people who died on our roads over the Christ-mas-New Year period actually heard my message about being safe on our roads over Christ-mas and, like all of us, thought, ‘Yeah, that’s right; we’ll be safe, and it won’t happen to us,’ when in fact it did happen to those 78 people.

While significant progress has been made in reducing our road toll, that rate of reduction has slowed. Many experts have tried to single out one specific cause for the increase. I guess that is one of the difficulties with road safety—we are all experts, because we are all users, we are all consumers, of road safety in one form or another, so we all have an opinion and we all think we know what the answer is. The preliminary analysis of these deaths that occurred over Christmas showed that most of these tragedies occurred on country roads, and involved mo-torists losing control, hitting trees, overturning or crossing into the path of oncoming traffic.

Reducing the deaths and injuries on our roads certainly remains my highest priority as min-ister for roads and, I know, the Australian government’s highest priority, because every single death on our roads is a tragedy for the families, for the communities and for the friends, and it is a national tragedy. The potential that we lose on our roads every year is something that we should all be very concerned about.

I am positive that with better roads, safer cars and better drivers we can all work together to keep this road toll as low as possible. One of the important initiatives that the Australian gov-ernment has implemented is the novice driver education program. Whilst driving training and licensing in Australia is primarily a state and territory responsibility, the Australian govern-ment is particularly concerned about the vulnerability of young, newly licensed and inexperi-enced drivers. We are currently working with the states and territories to introduce a national, compulsory education scheme for all provisional licence holders. But in the first instance it is important that we have a trial of an innovative driver education program in New South Wales and Victoria, which I hope will commence later this year. This will be delivered to novice drivers, aged 17 to 21 in New South Wales and 18 to 22 in Victoria, when they first obtain their provisional licence. The program is based on learning methods that will help young driv-ers gain true insight into their own limitations and the risks they face on the roads, leading to safer and better driver behaviour.

This Young Driver Safety Forum was announced in December 2004. It was sponsored by the Australian government and chaired by former minister and Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, who I would like to pay tribute to because he was very much a driving force in establishing the Young Driver Safety Forum.

The initial cost of this novice driver education scheme was estimated at around $5 million, but this has substantially increased in the light of detailed development of the curriculum and expert advice on the methodology aspects of the trial, particularly relating to the potential course dropout rates. The budget has now been estimated and actually capped at $10 million.

I am pleased to say that we have confirmed funding contributions currently that amount to $8.6 million. The Australian government has increased its offer from $1 million to $3 million. We have $1 million from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries; $2.5 million from the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority, basically the New South Wales govern-ment; half a million dollars from IAG, the Insurance Australia Group; $1.4 million from the Victorian government; $1 million from VicRoads; $0.4 million from the Transport Accident


MAIN COMMITTEE

Commission; and $0.2 million from the RACV. We are still waiting for an increased offer from the Victorian government, and they have agreed to provide an additional $1.4 million, subject to certain conditions. We are still discussing those conditions with the Victorian gov-ernment. I certainly urge Minister Batchelor to look very favourably on our request for an increased contribution from the Victorian government, so that this trial can get under way as quickly as possible.

It is important that we have this trial, because we want to ensure that any novice driver training scheme is not something that encourages young drivers to think—even more than they do now—that they are bulletproof, that they have been trained as expert drivers. In fact, it may increase the potential for speeding or accidents for young drivers, so it is very impor-tant that we get this trial right and ensure that it is an effective prototype before we start dis-cussing the roll-out of a compulsory driver training scheme with the states and territories. So I look forward to that happening later this year. I will continue to push forward, working with my senior minister, Warren Truss, on this novice driver training trial.

The Australian government is not just working on increased driver education. As I said, we are building better and safer roads around Australia. I am very pleased to be able to work with my senior minister in implementing the AusLink program over the next five years. It is an innovative and significant step forward in road funding in Australia—some $12.7 billion, the vast majority of that going on road construction. It includes $1.2 billion in Roads to Recovery money, which goes directly to councils. Many of our accidents happen in country areas, on roads that are controlled by local councils. Local councils struggle to maintain their roads and the safety aspect of many of their roads. This is new money. It is additional money, and I know that it is extremely welcomed by local councils throughout Australia.

In addition to that, we provide $1.6 billion every single year to councils right around Aus-tralia, directly from the Australian government. That is money that they can also use on their roads to upgrade the condition and improve the safety of those roads. We have $250 million in the Roads to Recovery strategic fund. That is an important addition to the Roads to Recovery program. I am very pleased that I was recently able to secure an additional $100 million for that fund from cabinet. That again will increase the safety of many of our local roads.

Overall there is $178 million in black spot funding. As I mentioned earlier, that is a very important program which specifically targets areas with high rates of accident or injury or high death tolls. It has been a magnificent program, which the Australian government reintro-duced when it came to government 10 years ago in 1996.

All the states and territories around Australia are receiving significant increases, despite some of the claims by some of the state and territory roads ministers that their funding has actually been cut. Nothing could be further from the truth. Under AusLink, New South Wales is receiving $3,778.6 million. That is a 77.7 per cent increase in construction funding. Victoria is receiving $2,374.2 million, a 105 per cent increase over the previous five years construction funding; Queensland is receiving $2,734.4 million, an increase of 87.1 per cent; Western Aus-tralia is receiving $1,306.2 million, an increase of 110 per cent on the previous five years con-struction funding; South Australia is receiving $793.6 million, a massive increase of 111.8 per cent; Tasmania is receiving $372.2 million, an increase of 52.9 per cent; the Northern Terri-tory is receiving $264.5 million, an increase of 47.4 per cent; and the ACT is receiving $113.4 million.


MAIN COMMITTEE

You can see that every state and territory in Australia is receiving a significant increase in their construction funding for roads. We have expanded the network. The AusLink network now takes in many more roads than the national highway network did, and we are working in partnership with the states and territories. I think that is an important point to make. The Aus-tralian government do not actually build roads. We do not have the legislative authority to move the services, to resume the land or to provide the EIS studies that are necessary for ma-jor road construction. We fund the New South Wales and other state governments, we fund the territories and we fund the councils, but we need to rely on them to work in partnership. I would encourage the states to continue to work with the Australian government in partnership so that we can roll out a better and safer road network around Australia.

One project we are working on at the moment is the Pacific Highway. That is probably one of the most high-profile roads in Australia. Far too many people have died on the Pacific Highway. But over the past 10 years the Australian government have contributed some $656 million to that road. We will have duplicated some 44 per cent once we finish the projects that are under construction at the moment. We are making significant progress. We are providing another $160 million per year over the next three years, working in conjunction with the New South Wales government. We have the F3 Freeway widening. In Victoria we have made a commitment to duplicate the Hume Highway by 2012. We have added additional resources to the Deer Park section and the Goulburn Valley Highway and $107 million to the Calder Highway. In Queensland we have committed $120 million to the Tugun bypass and $556 mil-lion to the Ipswich Motorway. So you can see that all around Australia we are committed to better and safer roads. We are committed to reducing the road toll. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to put forward what the Australian government is doing to reduce death and injury on our roads. Again, I thank the committee for their work on the report.

Debate (on motion by Mr Georgiou) adjourned. Main Committee adjourned at 11.22 am


QUESTIONS IN WRITING


Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Question No. 113)

Mr Jenkins asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 17 November 2004: (1) How many Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) prescriptions were filled for

DVA treatment card holders during (a) 2003-2004, and (b) 2004-2005 in (i) Victoria, and (ii) the electoral division of Scullin.

(2) How many RPBS prescriptions were filled for DVA treatment card holders during (a) 2003-2004, and (b) 2004-2005 in the postcode area (i) 3074, (ii) 3075, (iii) 3076, (iv) 3082, (v) 3083, (vi) 3087, (vii) 3088, (viii) 3089, (ix) 3090, (x) 3091, and (xi) 3752.

Mrs De-Anne Kelly—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)

2003-04 2004-05 (i) Victoria 3,391,639 3,398,373 (ii) Electoral Division of Scullin 75,369 78,158

(2)

2003-04 2004-05 (i) 3074 3,317 3,558 (ii) 3075 6,393 6,856 (iii) 3076 3,975 4,347 (iv) 3082 5,249 5,010 (v) 3083 16,262 16,976 (vi) 3087 12,748 13,030 (vii) 3088 19,391 20,112 (viii) 3089 4,831 4,912 (ix) 3090 525 365 (x) 3091 309 361 (xi) 3752 2,369 2,631

Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Question No. 236)

Mr Beazley asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 1 December 2004: (1) How many Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) prescriptions were filled for

DVA treatment card holders during (a) 2003-2004, and (b) 2004-2005 in (i) Western Australia, and (ii) the electoral division of Brand.

(2) How many RPBS prescriptions were filled for DVA treatment card holders during (a) 2003-2004, and (b) 2004-2005 in postcode area (i) 6165, (ii) 6167, (iii) 6168, (iv) 6169, (v) 6170, (vi) 6171, (vii) 6172, (viii) 6173, (ix) 6174, (x) 6175, (xi) 6176, and (xii) 6210.

Mrs De-Anne Kelly—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) The number of Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) prescriptions filled for DVA

treatment card holders during (a) 2003-2004, and (b) 2004-2005 in (i) Western Australia, and (ii) the electoral division of Brand are as follows:



(a) 2003-2004* (b) 2004-2005* (i) Western Australia 1,157,061 1,177,728 (ii) Electoral Division of Brand 134,164 140,056 * RPBS Prescription items dispensed for DVA treatment card Holders of the re-quested geographical area

(2) The number of RPBS prescriptions filled for DVA treatment card holders during (a) 2003-2004,

and (b) 2004-2005 in postcode area (i) 6165, (ii) 6167, (iii) 6168, (iv) 6169, (v) 6170, (vi) 6171, (vii) 6172, (viii) 6173, (ix) 6174, (x) 6175, (xi) 6176, and (xii) 6210 are as follows:

(a) 2003-2004* (b) 2004-2005* (i) 6165 85 83 (ii) 6167 8,270 8,688 (iii) 6168 26,062 26,276 (iv) 6169 22,873 23,811 (v) 6170 722 832 (vi) 6171 467 661 (vii) 6172 2,205 2,456 (viii) 6173 470 645 (ix) 6174 668 519 (x) 6175 547 509 (xi) 6176 124 31 (xii) 6210 71,671 75,545 * RPBS Prescription items dispensed for DVA treatment card Holders of the requested geographical area

Recruitment Agencies (Question No. 1120)

Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 10 May 2005: (1) What sum was spent on recruitment agencies in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, and (d) 2004 by each

department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio.

(2) Will the Minister provide a list of the recruitment agencies which are used by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio.

Mrs De-Anne Kelly—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) (a) $ 688,718

(b) $1,779,113

(c) $1,664,247

(d) $1,701,622

The above amounts exclude Goods & Services Tax.

(2) Adecco

Allstaff Australia Pty Ltd

Black Range Developments Pty Ltd

Burmax Consulting

Candle Australia Ltd

Capacity Reporting Services Pty Ltd



Careers Unlimited

Castelain Pty Ltd

Corinella Services Pty Ltd

CPIC.COM.AU Pty Ltd

Cytech Intersearch Pty Ltd

Design Emergency

DFP Recruitment Services Pty Ltd

Drake

Effective People Pty Ltd

Entity

Finzac Pty Ltd

Frontiergroup Australia Pty Ltd

Fujitsu Australia Ltd

Gillian Beaumont

Hobotech Pty Ltd

Hugo Personnel Pty Ltd

Icon Recruitment Pty Ltd

IT Matters Recruitment Services Pty Ltd

Jet Personnel & Recruitment

Julia Ross

Julia Ross Hot

Kelly Services

Locher Human Resources

Management Projects

Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Ltd

Maxima Group Inc

MJL People Dynamics Pty Ltd

Mobipro Asia Pacific Pty Ltd

OASIS Solutions Pty Ltd

Paxus Australia Pty Ltd

Peoplebank Australia Pty Ltd

Premium Group

R&D Professional IT Services Pty Ltd

Recruitment Management Company Pty Ltd

Reitan Holdings Pty Ltd

Select Australia Pty Ltd

Skilled Group Limited

Spherion Recruitment Solutions Pty Ltd

Srigo Pty Ltd



Technocratics Pty Ltd

The Green & Green Group Pty Ltd

The One Umbrella

TMP Worldwide

Westaff (Australia) Pty Ltd

Wizard

Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd

Wizard Personnel & Office Services Pty Ltd

Work Directions Australia Pty Ltd

Wylken Pty Ltd

ZTREM Pty Ltd

Foreign Affairs: Grants (Question No. 1473 supplementary)

Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 25 May 2005: (1) Has the Minister’s department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio made any grants for any

purpose to the national or state or territory branches of (a) the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, (b) the Australian Industry Group, (c) the National Farmers Federation, (d) the Busi-ness Council of Australia, (e) the Motor Traders Association of Australia, (f) Employers First, (g) Australian Business Limited, (h) the National Retailers Association, (i) the Australian Liquor Association, (j) the National Electrical Contractors Association, (k) the State Chamber of Com-merce (NSW), and (l) the Housing Industry Association in (i) 2003-2004, (ii) 2004-2005, and (iii) 2005-2006.

(2) What was the purpose and amount of each grant and on what date was each grant awarded.

Mr Downer—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: [Note: Following information is in addition to original response tabled on 10/10/2005.]

AusAID (1) (a) and (b) No.

(c) (i) AusAID awarded a grant to the National Farmers Federation in 2003-04.

(d) to (l) No

(2) The grant to the National Farmers Federation was awarded on 21 August 2003, for the amount of $26,327.88. The purpose of the grant was for travel assistance (cost of flight and accommodation) for leaders of national farming peak bodies from Uganda to actively participate in key agricultural trade meetings at the 5th WTO Ministerial Meeting in Cancun, Mexico 7-14 September 2003.

Overseas Travel (Question No. 1599)

Mr Bowen asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 31 May 2005: In respect of his travel to the United States of America in April 2004, (a) what sum was the total cost of travel and accommodation for him and his party, (b) what sum was spent on airline travel (i) in total and (ii) for his personal staff, (c) how many personal staff accompanied him, (d) what class of travel was used by (i) his personal staff and (ii) departmental staff, (e) what sum was spent on ground transport, (f) what modes of ground transport were used, (g) how many hotel rooms were booked for him and his staff, and (h) what standard of room was booked for (i) him and (ii) staff.



Mr Costello—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (a) The total cost for travel and accommodation was $99,256.36

(b) The sum spent on airline travel:

(i) In total was $77,444.43

(ii) for my personal staff the sum was $35,818.72

(c) I was accompanied by two of my personal staff

(d) The class of air travel was -

(i) first class for my personal staff in accordance with the terms and conditions as determined un-der the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 and (ii) first class for the Secretary to the Treasury, Dr Henry and business class for another Treasury official.

(e) The amount spent on ground transport was $3,552.05

(f) A chauffer driven hire car service was used for ground transport.

(g) Three hotel rooms were booked for myself and staff.

(h) The standard of hotel room booked was -

(i) a suite for myself and (ii) standard room for my staff.

Veterans’ Affairs: Staffing (Question No. 1625)

Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 31 May 2005: (1) How many persons were employed by the Minister’s department in (a) 1996-1997, (b) 1997-1998,

(c) 1998-1999, (d) 1999-2000, (e) 2000-2001, (f) 2001-2002, (g) 2002-2003, (h) 2003-2004, (i) 2004-2005.

(2) What was the rate of staff turnover in the Minister’s department in (a) 1996-1997, (b) 1997-1998, (c) 1998-1999, (d) 1999-2000, (e) 2000-2001, (f) 2001-2002, (g) 2002-2003, (h) 2003-2004, (i) 2004-2005.

Mrs De-Anne Kelly—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) Ongoing and non-ongoing staff employed under the Public Service Act 1999 as at 30 June each

year were.

(a) 2,820 (b) 2,417 (c) 2,497 (d) 2,465 (e) 2,428 (f) 2,520 (g) 2,521 (h) 2,564 (i) 2,599

(2) The rate of turnover covers ongoing employees only and is calculated as:

ongoing cessations during the year divided by the total number of ongoing employees at the start of the year.

(a) not available (b) not available



(c) not available (d) 11.9 per cent (e) 10.6 per cent (f) 7.6 per cent (g) 6.3 per cent (h) 5.8 per cent (i) 7.0 per cent

Veterans’ Affairs: Staffing (Question No. 1642)

Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 31 May 2005: (1) How many of the Minister’s department’s staff were employed at the Senior Executive Band 1

level in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000, (f) 2001, (g) 2002, (h) 2003, (i) 2004, and (j) 2005.

(2) How many of the Minister’s department’s staff were paid at the Senior Executive Band 1 level in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000, (f) 2001, (g) 2002, (h) 2003, (i) 2004, and (j) 2005.

(3) How many of the Minister’s department’s staff were employed at the Senior Executive Band 2 level in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000, (f) 2001, (g) 2002, (h) 2003, (i) 2004, and (j) 2005.


(5) How many of the Minister’s department’s staff were employed at the Senior Executive Band 3 level in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000, (f) 2001, (g) 2002, (h) 2003, (i) 2004, and (j) 2005.


Mrs De-Anne Kelly—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) (a) 21, (b) 21, (c) 21, (d) 25, (e) 22, (f) 23, (g) 23, (h) 23, (i) 23, (j) 29

(2) (a) 24, (b) 24, (c) 23, (d) 26, (e) 25, (f) 24, (g) 24, (h) 25, (i) 29, (j) 31

(3) (a) 7, (b) 7, (c) 7, (d) 7, (e) 7, (f) 7, (g) 7, (h) 7, (i) 8, (j) 7

(4) (a) 7, (b) 8, (c) 7, (d) 6, (e) 7, (f) 8, (g) 7, (h) 7, (i) 9, (j) 8

(5) (a) 0, (b) 0, (c) 0, (d) 0, (e) 0, (f) 0, (g) 0, (h) 0, (i) 0, (j) 0

(6) (a) 0, (b) 0, (c) 0, (d) 0, (e) 0, (f) 0, (g) 0, (h) 0, (i) 0, (j) 0

Advertising Agencies (Question No. 1793)

Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 23 June 2005: (1) Will the Minister provide a list of advertising agencies which are used by the department and the

agencies in the Minister’s portfolio.

(2) What sum was paid to each advertising agency used by the department and agencies in the Minis-ter’s portfolio in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005.

Mr Costello—The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following an-swer to the honourable member’s question:



Department of Finance and Administration (1) and (2) Nil response

Australian Electoral Commission (1) Yes. The AEC has a contract with BMF Advertising Pty Ltd. Prior to February 2005 the AEC’s

contract was with Whybin/TWBA Pty Ltd.

(2) (a) Financial Year 2003-2004: Whybin/TWBA Pty Ltd $299,395.28 (exc. GST). (b) Financial Year 2004-2005: Whybin/TWBA Pty Ltd $722,017.03 (exc. GST).

Medical Board of Inquiry (Question No. 1877)

Mr Bevis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 23 June 2005: (1) Further to the answer to question No 615 (Official Hansard, 23 May 2005, page 167) and answers

supplied in Senate estimates hearings on 31 May 2005, did the Lieutenant-Commander’s parents formally notify the Australian Defence Force of the alleged incident at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) on 11 December 2000.

(2) Was RADM Hancock, who on 11 December 2000 was chief of staff to the then chief of Navy, pre-sent at a meeting with the Lieutenant-Commander’s parents when her treatment at the Academy was raised.

(3) Did the ADF refer the matter to the Australian Federal Police for investigation on 5 April 2001; if so, why did the Minister say at the Senate estimates on 31 May that “the alleged incident was not reported to Defence, even at a late stage, but rather reported to the police”.

(4) Did the Government pay $377,221.28 for the legal fees of Dr McKenzie, whom the West Austra-lian Medical Board found guilty on 22 charges relating to improper conduct, misconduct and gross carelessness or incompetency in respect of his conduct as a naval doctor in a case involving the female Lieutenant-Commander.

(5) In respect of Rear Admiral Hancock’s statement at the Senate Estimates on 31 May 2005 that the Medical Board’s decision “allowed us to move the negotiations with this member forward and try to work out what is needed to get an acceptable settlement”, did the offer for an “acceptable settle-ment” at the time this statement was made amount to $15,000 and has the offer now been with-drawn.

(6) Was a member of the law firm Phillips Fox present at the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) mediation session at which “an acceptable settlement” was discussed; if so, (a) what were the costs to Defence to date for the services of Phillips Fox at the HREOC meetings and in dealing with HREOC on this complaint, (b) was Phillips Fox the firm which provided legal services for Dr McKenzie at the W.A. Medical Board, (c) did the W.A. Medical Board give serious consideration to suspending Dr McKenzie’s registration for a period of time, (d) did the Board ac-cept arguments put by Phillips Fox or a barrister instructed by Phillips Fox that suspending Dr McKenzie would “cause him financial hardship”, if so, did Phillips Fox or a barrister instructed by Phillips Fox argue that “the Practitioner will be liable for a substantial sum in the form of costs of the Inquiry. He will need to borrow money to pay those costs. If ordered to pay a fine, he would need to borrow additional money to pay it”, (e) did the ADF’s Director of Litigation, Mr Miller, recommend that the Commonwealth pay any damages or costs arising from the Medical Board hearing; if so, did Mr Miller make that recommendation before the Medical Board’s penalty hear-ing on 19 August 2004.

(7) Did the total legal assistance provided by Defence to the Lieutenant-Commander amount to one hour of legal advice from a Reserve legal Officer on 20 October 2000; if so, (a) do Reserve Legal



Officers receive a given daily rate dependent on rank and (b) was the Reserve Legal Officer a lieu-tenant at the time.

(8) At the Senate Estimates on 31 May 2005 did Mr Cunliffe say in response to a question on billable hours or costs of services given to the Lieutenant-Commander say: “I would be surprised if at this point it was possible to reduce it to a figure. I do not believe it would have been expressed in those terms at the time it was provided”.

(9) Were other Naval Officers who gave evidence at the Medical Board hearing provided legal assis-tance by the ADF; if so by whom was this assistance provided and at what cost.

(10) Did Dr McKenzie have professional indemnity insurance when the complaint against him was made to the W.A. Medical Board in 2001.

(11) Was Dr McKenzie initially represented at the Medical Board by another law firm other than Phil-lips Fox; if so, (a) was this law firm appointed by Dr McKenzie’s civilian medical defence organi-sation, (b) at what point in the proceedings before the W.A. Medical Board hearings did Phillips Fox take over representation of Dr McKenzie, (c) did the ADF’s Director of Litigation approve le-gal assistance at Commonwealth expense to Dr McKenzie when his legal defence was already cov-ered by this professional indemnity insurance, and (d) what factors caused the transfer or represen-tation to take place.

(12) Was the Lieutenant-Commander forced to use Freedom of Information to obtain documents from her own personal file in order to progress her complaint; if so, (a) has she received all of the docu-ments requested and if she has not, why not, and (b) was the Lieutenant-Commander forced to use Freedom of Information to obtain documents from other ADF files in order to progress her com-plaint; if so, has she received all of the documents requested and if she has not, why not.

(13) Did Dr McKenzie have full and unfettered access to the female officer’s (a) medical records and (b) personal records after her complaint had been lodged with the Medical Board.

(14) Did the Commanding Officer of HMAS Stirling have unfettered access to the female officer’s per-sonal file after a complaint against him was lodged; if so, why.

(15) Was the female officer given access to the personal files or either (a) Dr McKenzie and (b) the Commanding Officer of HMAS Stirling.

Mrs De-Anne Kelly—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) The Lieutenant-Commander’s parents referred to the incident in their letter of that date, which cov-

ered a range of issues including reference to the alleged rape.

(2) On 11 December 2000, Rear Admiral Hancock held the rank of Captain, and the position of Senior Staff Officer to the Chief of Navy. In that role, and at about that date, he met the parents of the Lieutenant-Commander. The subject of the meeting is not recalled.

(3) Defence did refer the rape allegation to the AFP. Defence has not located any formal report and is not aware of any formal report concerning the alleged incident ever being made by the Lieutenant-Commander. It was on this basis that the Minister was advised that the alleged incident was not re-ported to Defence. Correspondence from her parents to the then Chief of Navy in late 2000 identi-fied that the alleged incident, as well as a number of other matters “…occurred during the 1st se-mester of 1986”. Subsequent correspondence between Navy and the Lieutenant-Commander and her parents was unable to elicit a report by the Lieutenant-Commander on this incident, but did cause Defence to decide that the AFP should be advised of the matter and this step was taken by letter dated 5 April 2001. The Minister regrets if there was any confusion arising out of his answer.

(4) Defence paid an amount of $384,320.86 for legal and related costs associated with Dr McKenzie.



(5) The HREOC conciliation proceedings were confidential; it is not appropriate to refer to what was or was not proposed by anyone present.

(6) Yes.

(a) The costs of Phillips Fox attendance at the meeting were $1,380.

(b) Yes.

(c) That is not a matter known to Defence.

(d) Defence was not a party at the hearings and is not aware of what submissions were put on Dr McKenzie’s behalf, or the effect on the Board of any submissions.

(e) Defence’s Director of Litigation determined that a portion of the Board’s legal costs should be met, in accordance with the Legal Service Directions.

(7) A civilian lawyer, who is a Navy Reserve Legal Officer, provided legal assistance to the Lieuten-ant-Commander. The duration of the assistance was in excess of an hour. Defence has made no payment to that lawyer for that service.

(a) Navy Reserve Legal Officers are paid according to the form of their particular engagement and their rank, as stipulated in the Defence Determinations made pursuant to Defence Act 1903, section 58B.

(b) Yes.

(8) Yes.

(9) No.

(10) Yes; but it was not applicable in the circumstances.

(11) Yes.

(a) The basis of the firm’s engagement is not known to Defence.

(b) Phillips Fox acted for Dr McKenzie after he received the Board’s initial notice dated June 2002 and before the matter was called on before the Board.

(c) No.

(d) There was no decision to transfer.

(12) The Lieutenant-Commander made an FOI application on 8 December 2003 for her personal file. A full disclosure was made on 7 April 2004.

(13) No. Access to a member’s personal record and his/her medical record is not unfettered but is sub-ject to the person seeking access having appropriate authority and a relevant need for access. Dr McKenzie did not have right of access to the Lieutenant-Commander’s personal file.

(14) It is not clear from the question what “complaint” is referred to, or with whom it was lodged. Ac-cess to a member’s personal record and his/her medical record is not unfettered but is subject to the person seeking access having appropriate authority and a relevant need for access. The Command-ing Officer of HMAS Stirling was entitled to have access to the personal file of the Lieutenant-Commander in his role as her commanding officer.

(15) Access to a member’s personal record and his/her medical record is not unfettered but is subject to the person seeking access having appropriate authority and a relevant need for access. The Lieuten-ant-Commander as Executive Officer did not have authority to have access to the personal file of the Commanding Officer of HMAS Stirling. The personal file of Dr McKenzie who was a Reserve member, was not held at HMAS Stirling.



Religious Organisations: Funding (Question No. 1898)

Dr Lawrence asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 9 August 2005: (1) Is the Minister’s department providing any funds to organisations which require their employees to

meet certain religious requirements (eg membership of a particular church or religious group) as a condition of their employment; if so, will the Minister identify the organisations.

(2) Does the Minister’s department provide funds to any organisations for programs which include religious instructions, or faith-based counselling; if so, will the Minister identify the organisations.

(3) Does the Minister’s department place any requirements on church and charitable organisations which receive funds from the department that the funds not be used for religious or evangelical purposes; if so, what are the guidelines or requirements.

(4) How does the Minister’s department ensure that services and programs funded by the Government and delivered by church and charitable organisations are not used for religious or evangelical pur-poses.

Mr Ruddock—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) My Department provides funding to a wide variety of organisations and some of these organisa-

tions are faith-based. As part of the conditions of funding set out in funding agreements, all funded organisations are required to comply with all relevant legislation, which would include employ-ment legislation and regulation.

(2) No.

(3) Programs funded through my Department have specific guidelines and/or performance require-ments. The funding agreements between organisations and the Department require organisations to only expend funds for the purposes for which they have been given. Organisations are funded to undertake specific projects, meet specific outcomes, milestones and/or deliver specific services, also set out in the funding agreement. The purpose of the funding is also set out in the program guidelines for individual programs.

(4) Organisations funded are required to acquit funding and report on outcomes or milestones achieved or the specific services delivered as part of their funding agreement with the Department. They are also required to provide evidence, by way of independently audited financial statements, that the funding has been spent for the purposes set down in the funding agreement. Any funds expended for purposes other than those covered by the funding agreement must be refunded by the organisa-tion.

Borneo (Question No. 1922)

Mr Gibbons asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 9 August 2005: (1) How were the 11 nominees for the trip to Borneo in June this year chosen.

(2) How were those who served in Borneo notified of the trip if they were not associated with any of the RSLs.

(3) Can she explain how those who did not know about the trip or who were not given the chance to nominate, or be nominated, were not discriminated against.

Mrs De-Anne Kelly—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) The Repatriation Commissioner wrote on my behalf in February 2005 to 240 ex-service organisa-

tions seeking nominations. The number of places on each mission party is limited and I seek to en-sure, as far as practicable, representation from each State and Territory and each Service. My inten-



tion is to include as wide a representation of the units and formations involved in the campaigns as possible, and to reflect the rank structure and different experiences of individuals. Each nomination is carefully considered by the Department, taking account of service records, health and fitness to travel and the broad selection criteria and recommendations made to me for final decision.

(2) The Repatriation Commissioner wrote to some 240 relevant ex-service organisations of which nine were RSLs.

(3) The Department does not have a record of surviving veterans of the Borneo campaigns so it is not possible to ensure that every veteran is aware of the commemorative mission. It writes to relevant ex-service organisations that disseminate the information. Where veterans are aware of missions and nominate themselves, the nomination is considered together with ex-service organisation nominations.

Adelaide Airport (Question No. 1928)

Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 9 August 2005: (1) Can he confirm whether Air Traffic Control for Adelaide Approach has been or is going to be

moved to operate from another Australian city?

(2) Was there an agreement in 2002 that Air Traffic Control would remain Adelaide-based for at least five years?

(3) What are the financial savings from relocating Air Traffic Control from Adelaide?

(4) How do other Air Traffic Control services compare to that provided at Adelaide in terms of safety and efficiency for light aircraft owners?

Mr Truss—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) The Board of Airservices Australia considered the issue of consolidation of the Adelaide approach

Terminal Control Unit (TCU) with the Melbourne air traffic control centre in August 2003. The Board further considered the matter at its November and December 2005 meetings and resolved to delay making a final decision on the TCU integration proposal for up to 12 months. The Board has indicated it needs more time to adequately examine detailed information about the rationale for the proposed integration and options in lieu of the integration proposal, as well as the potential impact on the feasibility and benefits of the integration proposal in the light of recent developments in the relationship between Airservices and the Department of Defence.

(2) The Board’s 2003 decision stated that if there is to be any relocation, it would not occur before 1 September 2008.

(3) Airservices Australia has assessed the potential financial savings from relocating Air Traffic Con-trol from Adelaide to Melbourne at $3.0 million Net Present Value over 13 years.

(4) In locations where remote TCU services have previously been relocated to a major centre, there has been no impact on safety. For example, Canberra relocated to Melbourne in 1995 and Coolangatta relocated to Brisbane in 1999. Airservices Australia advises that integration of both the Canberra and Coolangatta operations within the major centres has improved the capability to optimise the use of systems, staff resources and provided for better supervision of operations which delivers benefits to all sectors of the industry. However, Airservices recognises that technology advance-ments and the dynamism of the aviation environment may present options in lieu of TCU integra-tion and will keep the matter under active consideration pending a final decision by the Board.



F3 Freeway-New England Highway Link (Question No. 2034)

Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 11 August 2005: (1) Did the Government identify $253 million in the AusLink plan for the highway link between the F3

Freeway and the New England Highway; if so, what sum was allocated for this purpose in (a) 2005-2006, (b) 2006-2007, (c) 2007-2008, and (d) 2008-2009; if no money was allocated in the forward estimates, can he explain why not.

(2) Can he confirm that the cost of the project is being reviewed and substantial cost increases are ex-pected; if so, who is undertaking the review and when will it be completed.

(3) Is the Australian Government prepared to consider a larger commitment than $253 million; if not, can he say where the additional funding will come from.

(4) Can he advise on the progress of negotiations between the Commonwealth and NSW on the Aus-Link plan.

Mr Truss—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) Yes. In the AusLink Investment Programme provided to the New South Wales Government on 10

May 2005, funding allocations were: $14 million in 2005-06, $25 million in 2006-07, $40 million in 2007-08 and $162.7 million in 2008-09.

(2) The New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) undertook a review of the cost of the project, and produced a revised cost estimate of $765 million.

(3) The AusLink White Paper released on 7 June 2004, stated that “Further funding for the F3 to Branxton project will be sought in future budgets subject to an agreement being reached with the New South Wales Government on funding shares as part of the state funding agreement.” However, speculation about the final Australian Government contribution to the project would be premature. The RTA is currently reviewing the project in conjunction with the Department of Transport and Regional Services. This will be the subject of further advice to the New South Wales and Austra-lian Governments.

(4) The NSW Government signed the AusLink bilateral agreement on 29 September 2005.

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

(Question Nos 2169 and 2189) Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural

and Indigenous Affairs and the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 18 August 2005: (1) Has the Minister received any training, coaching or assistance in public speaking or voice projec-

tion at public expense since the Minister took office; if so, what was the cost of this training.

(2) What is the name and postal address of the individual or organisation(s) which provided the train-ing.

Mr John Cobb—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) No.

(2) Not applicable.



Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Question No. 2187)

Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 18 August 2005: (1) Has the Minister received any training, coaching or assistance in public speaking or voice projec-

tion at public expense since the Minister took office; if so, what was the cost of this training.

(2) What is the name and postal address of the individual or organisation(s) which provided the train-ing.

Mrs De-Anne Kelly—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) No

(2) Not applicable

Commonwealth Departments: Programs and Grants (Question Nos 2283 to 2301)

Mr Hayes asked all portfolio ministers, in writing, on 6 September 2005: (1) In respect of each program administered by the Minister’s department which provides Common-

wealth funding to private organisations, what is (a) its name (b) its purpose, and (c) the maximum sum available to individual organisations.

(2) Which programs identified in part (1) require the recipient to offer Australian Workplace Agree-ments as a condition of funding.

Mr Andrews—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) This information is available in a range of publicly available documents, including budget docu-

ments and annual reports.

(2) Funding programs which include the condition that employees be given the option of the offer of an Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) are:

• higher education providers under the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs). Institutions are required to offer AWAs to all new employees employed after 29 April 2005 and to all other employees by 31 August 2006. Until 30 June 2006, institutions are exempt from offering AWAs to casual employees engaged for a period of less than one month. The HEWRRs are provided for in the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Workplace Re-lations Requirements) Act 2005 and the relevant guidelines;

• Australian Technical Colleges under the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act 2005; and

• TAFE institutions —the Skilling Australia’s Workforce Act 2005 provides for financial assis-tance to the States and to other persons for vocational education and training. In order to be eli-gible for funding, States must implement workplace reforms in the vocational education and training sector, including ensuring that TAFE institutions introduce more flexible employment arrangements by offering AWAs to staff, except where making such agreements under the Work-place. Relations Act 1996 is not possible because of the corporate status of the TAFE institution, in which case other individual agreements should be offered.

I am not aware of any other funding agreements which require applicants to offer AWAs.



Commemorative Mission to Papua New Guinea (Question No. 2339)

Ms Burke asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 12 September 2005: (1) What are the names, titles and military backgrounds of all those (a) invited to, and (b) travelling on,

the commemorative mission to Papua New Guinea in September 2005.

(2) What were the criteria used to select those who were invited to the commemorative mission.

(3) How many (a) ministerial and (b) departmental staff will be travelling to PNG for, or in association with, the commemorative mission.

(4) What actions were taken to alert surviving members, or relatives of non-surviving members, of the 2/22nd Battalion Lark Force who defended New Britain during World War II, of the commemora-tive mission.

(5) What contact, if any, was made with the 2/22nd Battalion Lark Force Association in relation to the commemorative mission.

(6) Did her (a) department and (b) office act to alert Members and Senators to the commemorative mission; if so, how and when was it taken; if not, why not.

(7) How many surviving members of the 2/22nd Battalion Lark Force were invited to be a part of commemorative mission.

Mrs De-Anne Kelly—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) The ten veterans invited all took part in the commemorative mission.

Mr Hurbert (Harry) Bell 2/9 Australian Commando Squadron Mr Arthur (John) Blenkin Coast Watchers - M Special Unit Mrs Joan Farrell 2/8th Australian General Hospital

Australian Army Medical Women’s Service Mr Mervyn (Laurie) Hill 26th Battalion AIF Mr John (Jack) Holder 6 Australian Army Troops Coy, RAE Mr Eric Isaacs 61st Battalion AIF Mrs Lucy Lane Medical Air Evacuation Transport Unit RAAFNS Mr Desmond Meagher 2/4th Australian Armoured Regiment Mr Grant Watson 15 Squadron RAAF Aircrew Mr Bertram (Bert) Woodhouse 2/1st Pioneer Battalion, 2/11th Australian Infantry Battalion

(2) The veterans selected had served in the final campaigns from October 1944 to August 1945 in Papua New Guinea. The other criteria were:

• representatives, as far as possible, from each of the units and formations involved in these cam-paigns and each Service;

• representatives, as far as possible, from each State and Territory;

• a balance of officers and other ranks;

• a range of different individual experiences and wartime service;

• no previous participation in an Australian Government commemorative mission; and

• medically fit to travel.

(3) (a) Nil. (b) Seven.

(4) Nominations were sought from approximately 240 ex-service organisations for commemorative missions in 2005 to Borneo, Hawaii and Papua New Guinea. Over 300 nominations were received



from these organisations. There were no nominations from anyone who served in the 2/22nd Bat-talion Lark Force.

(5) Lark Force was involved in actions against the Japanese in January 1942. Nominations were sought from veterans of the campaigns from October 1944 to August 1945, so nominations were not sought directly from 2/22nd Battalion Lark Force Association.

(6) (a) No. (b) I wrote to Members and Senators on 16 May 2005 announcing the Australian Gov-ernment’s 2005 commemorations program to mark the 90th anniversary of the Gallipoli campaign and the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. The letter included reference to commemora-tive missions being conducted to commemorate the 90th anniversary Anzac Day ceremonies at Gallipoli, Victory in Europe (VE) Day in May 2005, the signing of the Japanese surrender in Ha-waii in September and commemorative missions to Borneo and Papua New Guinea to mark the last World War II battles in those countries. On 7 September 2005, a media release was issued announc-ing the commemorative mission to PNG.

(7) Nil.

Family Tax Benefit (Question No. 2402)

Ms Grierson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Ser-vices, in writing, on 10 October 2005: (1) For the electoral division of Newcastle and for each year of operation of the Family Tax Benefit

(FTB), how many families and/or individuals, (a) in total and (b) as a proportion of all FTB recipi-ents have an outstanding debt to the Commonwealth due to an overpayment of the FTB.

(2) For the electoral division of Newcastle and for each year of operation of the FTB, what is the (a) sum of FTB debt, (b) average FTB debt per family, and (c) average income of the families and/or individuals who have incurred a debt.

(3) For the electoral division of Newcastle and for each year of operation of the FTB, how many FTB debts (a) have been referred to debt collectors and (b) are currently with debt collectors.

(4) What was the most common method of payment for FTB debts of the families and individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle.

(5) For the electoral division of Newcastle and for each year of the FTB operation, how many families and individuals with an FTB debt had part or all of their tax refund withheld to repay the debt.

Mr Hockey—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the follow-ing answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) The total number of customers in the electoral division of Newcastle who have an outstanding debt

to the Commonwealth due to a reconciliation overpayment of FTB for the 2000-01 to 2004-05 fi-nancial years (a) in total and (b) as a proportion of all reconciled FTB recipients in Newcastle for that financial year, as at 30 September 2005, is given in the table below:

Financial Year No of Customers with Outstanding Debt

Proportion of FTB Reconciled Cus-tomers with Outstanding Debt (%)

2000-01 48 0.39 2001-02 200 1.59 2002-03 412 3.21 2003-04 435 3.48 2004-05 162 2.14



(2) For the electoral division of Newcastle and for each year of operation of the FTB, the (a) sum of FTB debt, (b) average FTB debt per family, and (c) average income of the families and/or indi-viduals who have incurred a debt is given in the table below:

Financial Year

Sum of FTB Debt

Average FTB Debt per Family

Average Actual Family Adjusted Taxable Income

2000-01 $3.34m $777 $42,127 2001-02 $3.16m $789 $46,461 2002-03 $2.90m $819 $51,065 2003-04 $1.30m $1,085 $77,142 2004-05 $321,000 $875 $73,702

(3) For the electoral division of Newcastle and for each year of operation of the FTB, the number of

FTB debts that (a) have been referred to debt collectors and (b) are currently with debt collectors is given in the table below:

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Referred to Mercantile Agent 55 181 145 53 0 With Mercantile Agent 1 13 16 11 0

(4) The most common method of payment for FTB debts of the families and individuals in the elec-

toral division of Newcastle for the 2000-01 to 2004-05 was by withholding an amount from future FTB Payments.

(5) For the electoral division of Newcastle and for each year of the FTB operation, the number of fami-lies and individuals with an FTB debt who had part or all of their tax refund withheld to repay the debt is given in the table below.

2000-01 No of Debts

2001-02 No of Debts

2002-03 No of Debts

2003-04 No of Debts

2004-05 N o of Debts

Tax refund withheld partly or fully to repay debt

0 1,354 1,307 371 195

Child Care (Question No. 2404)

Ms Grierson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Ser-vices, in writing, on 10 October 2005: (1) How many (a) community-based and (b) private child care centres are located in the electoral divi-

sion of Newcastle and what is the name and address of each centre.

(2) In respect of each centre, what sum did the Commonwealth provide for the year (a) 2000-2001, (b) 2001-2002, (c) 2002-2003, (d) 2003-2004, and (e) 2004-2005.

(3) In respect of each centre, what sum was paid as (a) an operational subsidy, (b) a special needs sub-sidy, (c) an establishment grant, and (d) block grant assistance (transitional assistance).

(4) For the year (a) 2000-2001, (b) 2001-2002, (c) 2002-2003, (d) 2003-2004, and (e) 2004-2005, which Commonwealth-funded child care centres located in the electoral division of Newcastle were overpaid and what sum has or will each centre be asked to repay.

(5) How many children in the electoral division of Newcastle are catered for in (a) community-based and (b) private child care centres.



(6) How many children in the electoral division of Newcastle are (a) under two years of age and (b) under two years of age and enrolled in (i) community-based and (ii) private child care centres.

(7) How many Commonwealth funded places for (a) before school, (b) after school, and (c) vacation care are there in the electoral division of Newcastle.

Mr Hockey—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the follow-ing answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) (a) There were 46 community based child care services located in the electoral division of New-

castle at 5 October 2005. The name and address of each child care service is as follows:

Service Address ADAMSTOWN AFTER SCHOOL CARE ADAMSTOWN PUBLIC SCHOOL, BRYANT ST,

ADAMSTOWN, 2289, NSW ADAMSTOWN BEFORE SCHOOL CARE ADAMSTOWN PUBLIC SCHOOL, BRYANT ST,

ADAMSTOWN, 2289, NSW ADAMSTOWN CHILD CARE CENTRE CNR GOSFORD ST AND GLEBE RD, ADAMS-

TOWN, 2289, NSW ADAMSTOWN VACATION CARE ADAMSTOWN PUBLIC SCHOOL, BRYANT ST,

ADAMSTOWN, 2289, NSW AWABAKAL MACS CHILD CARE CENTRE 5 GREY STREET, WICKHAM, 2293, NSW BELAIR COMMUNITY AFTER SCHOOL HOURS CARE CENTRE (ADAMSTOWN)

BELAIR PUBLIC SCHOOL, 36 CAROLYN ST, ADAMSTOWN, 2289, NSW

BELAIR COMMUNITY BEFORE SCHOOL HOURS CARE CENTRE (ADAMSTOWN)

BELAIR PUBLIC SCHOOL, 36 CAROLYN ST, ADAMSTOWN, 2289, NSW

BELAIR VACATION CARE BELAIR PUBLIC SCHOOL_RM 21 & 22, TERRENCE ST, ADAMSTOWN, 2289, NSW

CARINYA CHILDRENS SERVICES CENTRE - NEWCASTLE TAFE

HUNTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MAIT-LAND RD, TIGHES HILL, 2297, NSW

GLENDORE CHILD CARE CENTRE 4-8 GLENDORE PDE, MARYLAND, 2287, NSW HAMILTON CHILD CARE CENTRE 207 DENISON ST, HAMILTON, 2303, NSW HAMILTON SOUTH COMBINED OSHC HAMILTON STH PRIMARY SCHOOL, JENNER PDE,

MEREWETHER, 2291, NSW JESMOND EARLY EDUCATION CENTRE INC 56 MORDUE PDE, JESMOND, 2299, NSW KINTAIBA COMMUNITY CHILD CARE CEN-TRE

UNIVERSITY DR, CALLAGHAN, 2308, NSW

KOOINDA WORKBASED CHILD CARE CEN-TRE

UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE, UNIVERSITY DR, CALLAGHAN, 2308, NSW

KOTARA SOUTH AFTER SCHOOL CARE KOTARA SOUTH PUBLIC SCHOOL, RAE CRES, KOTARA, 2289, NSW

KOTARA SOUTH BEFORE SCHOOL CARE KOTARA SOUTH PUBLIC SCHOOL, RAE CRES, KOTARA, 2289, NSW

MARYLAND CHILD CARE CENTRE 34-36 BOUNDARY RD, MARYLAND, 2287, NSW MARYLAND COMBINED OSHC MARYLAND PUBLIC SCHOOL, JOHN T BELL DR,

MARYLAND, 2287, NSW MARYLAND VACATION CARE MARYLAND PUBLIC SCHOOL, JOHN T BELL DR,

MARYLAND, 2287, NSW MAYFIELD WEST COMBINED OSHC MAYFIELD WEST SCHOOL, GREGSON AVE, MAY-

FIELD, 2304, NSW MEREWETHER ASC MEREWETHER PUBLIC SCHOOL, HENRY ST,

MEREWETHER, 2291, NSW MEREWETHER BEACH COMMUNITY ASC HOLY FAMILY PRIMARY SCHOOL, RIDGE ST,

MEREWETHER, 2291, NSW MERINDAH CHILDREN’S CENTRE 28 BUNN ST, WALLSEND, 2287, NSW



Service Address MERINDAH CHILDREN’S CENTRE - LONG DAY CARE COMPONENT

28 BUNN ST, WALLSEND, 2287, NSW

NEW LAMBTON DISTRICT COMBINED OOSH INC

NEW LAMBTON SOUTH PS, CNR ST JAMES RD & FAIRFIELD AV, NEW LAMBTON, 2305, NSW

NEWCASTLE EAST AFTER SCHOOL CARE 1 TYRRELL ST, NEWCASTLE, 2300, NSW NEWCASTLE EAST BEFORE SCHOOL CARE 1 TYRRELL ST, NEWCASTLE, 2300, NSW NEWCASTLE EAST VC NEWCASTLE EAST PRIMARY SCHOOL, 1 TYR-

RELL ST, NEWCASTLE, 2300, NSW NEWCASTLE FAMILY DAY CARE CIVIC WEST CARPARK OFFICES, KING ST, NEW-

CASTLE, 2300, NSW POSSUM PLACE CHILD CARE CENTRE (NEW LAMBTON)

JOHN HUNTER HOSPITAL CAMPUS, LOOKOUT RD, NEW LAMBTON, 2305, NSW

POSSUM PLACE VACATION CARE CENTRE JOHN HUNTER HOSPITAL SOCIAL/C, LOOKOUT RD, NEW LAMBTON, 2305, NSW

SAMARITANS COMMUNITY CHILD CARE CENTRE_LONG DAY CARE COMPONENT

41 DARBY ST, NEWCASTLE, 2300, NSW

SAMARITANS COMMUNITY CHILD CARE CENTRE_OCCASIONAL CARE COMPONENT

41 DARBY ST, NEWCASTLE, 2300, NSW

SIX HATS EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICE CNR INDUSTRIAL DVE AND AVON ST, MAY-FIELD, 2304, NSW

STOCKTON SCHOOL KIDS FUN CLUB COM-BINED OSHC

STOCKTON PUBLIC SCHOOL, MONMOUTH ST, STOCKTON, 2295, NSW

STOCKTON SCHOOL KIDS FUN CLUB VC STOCKTON PUBLIC SCHOOL, CLYDE ST, STOCK-TON, 2295, NSW

THE JUNCTION BEFORE SCHOOL CARE JUNCTION PUBLIC SCHOOL, UNION ST, MERE-WETHER, 2291, NSW

THE JUNCTION COMMUNITY AFTER SCHOOL CARE CENTRE

ASSEMBLY HALL, PUBLIC SCHOOL, UNION ST, THE JUNCTION, 2291, NSW

WARATAH AFTER SCHOOL CARE INC ST. PHILLIPS HALL, BRIDGE ST, WARATAH, 2298, NSW

WARATAH CHILD CARE CENTRE AFTER SCHOOL CARE

37 QUEEN ST, WARATAH, 2298, NSW

WARATAH CHILD CARE CENTRE BEFORE SCHOOL CARE

37 QUEEN ST, WARATAH, 2298, NSW

WARATAH CHILD CARE VACATION CARE 37 QUEEN ST, WARATAH, 2298, NSW WESTERN NEWCASTLE FAMILY DAY CARE JESMOND N/HOOD CENTRE, 44 MORDUE PDE,

JESMOND, 2299, NSW WONNAYBA CHILD CARE CENTRE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE, CALLAGHAN,

2308, NSW YWCA OF NEWCASTLE INC 24 DAWSON ST, COOKS HILL, 2300, NSW

Note:

(1) The services listed in this table are approved child care services with the exception of the Awabakal MACS child care centre. This centre is a Multifunctional Aboriginal Children’s Service. The table excludes registered care providers.

(2) An approved child care service, as defined in the table, refers to a unique service reference number with a status of ‘Active’ on Centrelink’s Childcare Operator System at 5 October 2005.

(3) Includes the following types of child care services: after & before school hours care, vaca-tion care, family day care, long day care, occasional care and Multifunctional Aboriginal Chil-dren’s Service.



(4) Based on address information made available to the Department of Family and Community Services via Centrelink’s Childcare Operator System (COS). Inaccurate address information, as provided in COS, may result in the incorrect identification of a childcare service’s elector-ate.

Source: Centrelink Administrative Data and NSW State Office.

(b) There were 22 private child care services located in the electoral division of Newcastle at 5 October 2005. The name and address of each child care service is as follows:

Service Address ADAMSTOWN KINDA KAPERS LONG DAY CARE

5 BUXTON ST, ADAMSTOWN, 2289, NSW

AGJ BUSINESSES CHILD CARE AGENT 18 WILLIAM ST, MAYFIELD, 2304, NSW BLINKY BABIES 5A HAWKINS ST, NEW LAMBTON, 2305, NSW BLINKY BILL CHILD CARE CENTRE 5 HAWKIN ST, NEW LAMBTON, 2305, NSW BROADMEADOW MONTESSORI CHIL-DRENS HOUSE

138 BROADMEADOW RD, BROADMEADOW, 2292, NSW

ELDER STREET EARLY CHILDHOOD CEN-TRE

136 ELDER ST, LAMBTON, 2299, NSW

FROG STOMP PRE-SCHOOL 80A JENNER PDE, HAMILTON, 2303, NSW LARISSA STREET BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL CARE COMBINED

MEREWETHER HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL, CE-DAR CRES, MEREWETHER HEIGHTS, 2291, NSW

LARISSA STREET VACATION CARE MEREWETHER HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL, CE-DAR CRES, MEREWETHER HEIGHTS, 2291, NSW

MARYLAND DRIVE PRESCHOOL (EX-TENDED HOURS)

179 MARYLAND DR, MARYLAND, 2287, NSW

MAYFIELD EARLY LEARNING CENTRE 55 DORA ST, MAYFIELD, 2304, NSW MAYFIELD EAST BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL CARE COMBINED OSHC

MAYFIELD EAST PUBLIC SCHOOL, CREBERT ST, MAYFIELD, 2304, NSW

MAYFIELD VACATION CARE MAYFIELD EAST PUBLIC SCHOOL, CREBERT ST, MAYFIELD, 2304, NSW

MY KINDY SHORTLAND PRESCHOOL 360 SANDGATE RD, SHORTLAND, 2307, NSW NEWCASTLE MONTESSORI CHILDREN’S CENTRE

19 JOANNE ST, KOTARA, 2289, NSW

QUALITY CARING 77 NAUGHTON AVE, BIRMINGHAM GARDENS, 2287, NSW

RIVERVIEW EARLY LEARNING CENTRE 32 MURRAY DWYER CCT, MAYFIELD WEST, 2304, NSW

RUBY’S PLACE NEW LAMBTON CHIL-DREN’S EARLY EDUCATION CENTRE

199 LAMBTON RD, NEW LAMBTON, 2305, NSW

STOCKTON CHILD CARE CENTRE 2 BARRIE CRES, STOCKTON, 2295, NSW THE HOUSE AT POOH CORNER CNR PLATT ST & STATION ST, WARATAH, 2298,

NSW THE LITTLE UNICORN LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

78-82 BRUNKER RD, BROADMEADOW, 2292, NSW

THE MEADOWS CHILD CARE CENTRE 142 BROADMEADOW RD, BROADMEADOW, 2292, NSW

Note:

(1) The services listed in this table are approved child care services. The table excludes regis-tered care providers.

(2) An approved child care service, as defined in the table, refers to a unique service reference number with a status of ‘Active’ on Centrelink’s Childcare Operator System at 5 October 2005.



(3) Includes the following types of child care services: after & before school hours care, vaca-tion care, in-home care and long day care.


Source: Centrelink Administrative Data and NSW State Office.

(2) In respect of each centre, the Commonwealth provided the following amounts during the years (a) 2000-2001, (b) 2001-2002, (c) 2002-2003, (d) 2003-2004, and (e) 2004-2005.

Service 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 ADAMSTOWN AFTER SCHOOL CARE

0 0 0 3,198 17,641

ADAMSTOWN BEFORE SCHOOL CARE

0 0 0 0 500

ADAMSTOWN CHILD CARE CEN-TRE

4,854 15,943 34,668 11,924 0

ADAMSTOWN KINDA KAPERS LONG DAY CARE

0 0 0 0 1,394

ADAMSTOWN VACATION CARE 6,155 0 3,302 5,759 8,809 AGJ BUSINESSES CHILD CARE AGENT

16,742 36,049 54,731 87,863 88,260

AWABAKAL MACS CHILD CARE CENTRE.

417,640 407,268 407,007 420,822 417,547

BELAIR COMMUNITY AFTER SCHOOL HOURS CARE CENTRE (ADAMSTOWN)

677 105 0 0 500

BELAIR COMMUNITY BEFORE SCHOOL HOURS CARE CENTRE (ADAMSTOWN)

0 0 0 0 500

BELAIR VACATION CARE 2,396 0 0 0 500 BLINKY BABIES 0 0 0 0 0 BLINKY BILL CHILD CARE CEN-TRE

2,516 1,152 601 194 1,092

BROADMEADOW MONTESSORI CHILDRENS HOUSE

1,500 0 0 0 1,452

CARINYA CHILDRENS SERVICES CENTRE - NEWCASTLE TAFE

4,521 28,657 7,759 0 909

ELDER STREET EARLY CHILD-HOOD CENTRE

0 0 1,653 9,587 5,062

FROG STOMP PRE-SCHOOL 1,500 0 0 0 0 GLENDORE CHILD CARE CENTRE 595 5,525 4,160 1,687 9,151 HAMILTON CHILD CARE CENTRE 1,500 4,715 4,355 9,749 2,389 HAMILTON SOUTH COMBINED OSHC

8,874 7,456 2,815 2,522 13,800

JESMOND EARLY EDUCATION CENTRE INC

500 1,000 1,725 3,099 20,149

KINTAIBA COMMUNITY CHILD CARE CENTRE

24,014 37,966 10,645 48,605 54,230

KOOINDA WORKBASED CHILD CARE CENTRE

10,799 23,256 4,073 6,130 3,351

KOTARA SOUTH AFTER SCHOOL CARE

798 0 0 0 500



Service 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 KOTARA SOUTH BEFORE SCHOOL CARE

783 0 0 0 500

LARISSA STREET BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL CARE COMBINED

0 0 0 0 500

LARISSA STREET VACATION CARE

0 0 0 0 0

MARYLAND CHILD CARE CEN-TRE

10,299 16,865 17,727 10,731 45,155

MARYLAND COMBINED OSHC 0 5,139 5,322 5,439 6,526 MARYLAND DRIVE PRESCHOOL (EXTENDED HOURS)

3,545 1,235 2,439 5,382 1,070

MARYLAND VACATION CARE 0 0 0 0 500 MAYFIELD EARLY LEARNING CENTRE

12,162 11,895 937 4,020 17,969

MAYFIELD EAST BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL CARE COMBINED OSHC

0 0 0 0 13,750

MAYFIELD VACATION CARE 0 0 0 0 500 MAYFIELD WEST COMBINED OSHC

500 0 0 208 1,154

MEREWETHER ASC 0 716 0 0 500 MEREWETHER BEACH COMMU-NITY ASC

777 0 0 0 500

MERINDAH CHILDREN’S CENTRE 20,032 20,662 21,983 10,335 6,604 MERINDAH CHILDREN’S CENTRE - LONG DAY CARE COMPONENT

4,214 242 586 19,640 0

MY KINDY SHORTLAND PRE-SCHOOL

25,905 34,917 23,597 17,456 9,142

NEW LAMBTON DISTRICT COM-BINED OOSH INC

4,101 1,315 0 0 1,000

NEWCASTLE EAST AFTER SCHOOL CARE

0 5,994 4,368 234 500

NEWCASTLE EAST BEFORE SCHOOL CARE

0 0 0 0 500

NEWCASTLE EAST VC 0 624 4,056 2,808 4,675 NEWCASTLE FAMILY DAY CARE 162,427 157,801 165,574 162,441 145,832 NEWCASTLE MONTESSORI CHIL-DREN’S CENTRE

2,478 0 295 1,357 1,391

POSSUM PLACE CHILD CARE CENTRE (NEW LAMBTON)

4,028 11,400 24,310 11,960 39,403

POSSUM PLACE VACATION CARE CENTRE

4,291 1,000 0 1,144 3,290

QUALITY CARING 0 0 0 0 21,013 RIVERVIEW EARLY LEARNING CENTRE

0 0 0 0 0

RUBY’S PLACE NEW LAMBTON CHILDREN’S EARLY EDUCATION CENTRE

6,576 2,409 643 0 628


3,723 1,000 13,962 7,475 8,691



Service 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 SAMARITANS COMMUNITY CHILD CARE CEN-TRE_OCCASIONAL CARE COM-PONENT

53,930 52,086 49,967 50,950 65,889

SIX HATS EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICE

28,098 23,887 38,035 22,989 44,433

STOCKTON CHILD CARE CENTRE 855 1,296 1,232 5,964 7,839 STOCKTON SCHOOL KIDS FUN CLUB COMBINED OSHC

13,265 12,845 11,063 7,728 8,826

STOCKTON SCHOOL KIDS FUN CLUB VC

5,723 6,118 7,866 9,141 4,554

THE HOUSE AT POOH CORNER 4,103 627 1,220 5,363 6,190 THE JUNCTION BEFORE SCHOOL CARE

0 0 0 0 500

THE JUNCTION COMMUNITY AF-TER SCHOOL CARE CENTRE

500 0 0 0 500

THE LITTLE UNICORN LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

1,131 0 243 3,625 3,372

THE MEADOWS CHILD CARE CENTRE

0 0 0 0 454

WARATAH AFTER SCHOOL CARE INC

60 0 0 0 500

WARATAH CHILD CARE CENTRE AFTER SCHOOL CARE

2,802 0 0 0 0

WARATAH CHILD CARE CENTRE BEFORE SCHOOL CARE

2,087 0 0 0 0

WARATAH CHILD CARE VACA-TION CARE

1,944 0 0 0 0

WESTERN NEWCASTLE FAMILY DAY CARE

177,019 169,833 179,906 185,275 186,135

WONNAYBA CHILD CARE CEN-TRE

17,439 17,021 16,808 47,957 64,789

YWCA OF NEWCASTLE INC 208 3,671 1,872 0 500

Note:

(1) Excludes Child Care Benefit funding paid to services by the Australian Government.

(2) Excludes funding, provided during the period 2000-2001 to 2004-2005, for services that ceased operations prior to 5 October 2005. However, for cases where a child care service commenced op-erations as a result of a transfer of ownership, funding data attributable to the previous (transferred) service is included within the amount provided for the new service, if the new service operated from the same location as the transferred service.

(3) Excludes registered care providers.

(4) Based on address information made available to the Department of Family and Community Services via Centrelink’s Childcare Operator System (COS). Inaccurate address information, as provided in COS, may result in the incorrect identification of a childcare service’s electorate.

Source: NSW FaCS State Office and Centrelink Administrative Data.



(3) (a) In respect of each centre, the following amount was paid as an operational subsidy, during the years 2000-2001 to 2004-2005:


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0

ADAMSTOWN CHILD CARE CENTRE

0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0

ADAMSTOWN VACATION CARE

0 0 0 0 0

AGJ BUSINESSES CHILD CARE AGENT

11,196 30,108 46,800 83,691 85,108


47,719 159,228 163,856 166,786 168,307

BELAIR COMMUNITY AFTER SCHOOL HOURS CARE CEN-TRE (ADAMSTOWN)

0 0 0 0 0

BELAIR COMMUNITY BEFORE SCHOOL HOURS CARE CEN-TRE (ADAMSTOWN)

0 0 0 0 0

BELAIR VACATION CARE 0 0 0 0 0 BLINKY BABIES 0 0 0 0 0 BLINKY BILL CHILD CARE CENTRE

0 0 0 0 0

BROADMEADOW MONTES-SORI CHILDRENS HOUSE

0 0 0 0 0

CARINYA CHILDRENS SER-VICES CENTRE - NEWCASTLE TAFE

0 0 0 0 0

ELDER STREET EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTRE

0 0 0 0 0

FROG STOMP PRE-SCHOOL 0 0 0 0 0 GLENDORE CHILD CARE CENTRE

0 0 0 0 0

HAMILTON CHILD CARE CENTRE

0 0 0 0 0

HAMILTON SOUTH COM-BINED OSHC

0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0

KOTARA SOUTH BEFORE SCHOOL CARE

0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0



Service 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 LARISSA STREET VACATION CARE

0 0 0 0 0

MARYLAND CHILD CARE CENTRE

0 0 0 0 0

MARYLAND COMBINED OSHC 0 0 0 0 0 MARYLAND DRIVE PRE-SCHOOL (EXTENDED HOURS)

0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0

MEREWETHER ASC 0 0 0 0 0 MEREWETHER BEACH COM-MUNITY ASC

0 0 0 0 0

MERINDAH CHILDREN’S CENTRE

20,032 20,662 21,316 10,335 6,604

MERINDAH CHILDREN’S CENTRE - LONG DAY CARE COMPONENT

0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0

NEWCASTLE EAST VC 0 0 0 0 0 NEWCASTLE FAMILY DAY CARE

154,885 157,801 165,574 162,169 145,832

NEWCASTLE MONTESSORI CHILDREN’S CENTRE

0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0

QUALITY CARING 0 0 0 0 9,013 RIVERVIEW EARLY LEARN-ING CENTRE

0 0 0 0 0

RUBY’S PLACE NEW LAMB-TON CHILDREN’S EARLY EDUCATION CENTRE

0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0



Service 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 SAMARITANS COMMUNITY CHILD CARE CEN-TRE_OCCASIONAL CARE COMPONENT

37,673 38,657 39,967 40,950 41,605


0 0 0 0 0

STOCKTON CHILD CARE CENTRE

0 0 0 0 0

STOCKTON SCHOOL KIDS FUN CLUB COMBINED OSHC

0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0

THE HOUSE AT POOH COR-NER

0 0 0 0 0

THE JUNCTION BEFORE SCHOOL CARE

0 0 0 0 0

THE JUNCTION COMMUNITY AFTER SCHOOL CARE CEN-TRE

0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0

WARATAH CHILD CARE CEN-TRE AFTER SCHOOL CARE

0 0 0 0 0

WARATAH CHILD CARE CEN-TRE BEFORE SCHOOL CARE

0 0 0 0 0

WARATAH CHILD CARE VA-CATION CARE

0 0 0 0 0

WESTERN NEWCASTLE FAM-ILY DAY CARE

163,723 165,578 171,600 175,461 178,464

WONNAYBA CHILD CARE CENTRE

0 0 0 0 0

YWCA OF NEWCASTLE INC 0 0 0 0 0

Note:

(1) Excludes funding, provided during the period 2000-2001 to 2004-2005, for services that ceased operations prior to 5 October 2005. However, for cases where a child care service commenced operations as a result of a transfer of ownership, funding data attributable to the previous (transferred) service is included within the amount provided for the new service, if the new service operated from the same location as the transferred service.






(b) In respect of each centre, the following amount was paid as a special needs subsidy, during the years 2000-2001 to 2004-2005:


0 0 0 3,198 17,141


0 0 0 0 0


1,169 9,750 14,040 11,505 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 3,302 5,759 8,309


0 0 0 0 0


3,185 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 1,495 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 5,525 4,160 1,687 9,151


0 4,615 4,355 2,470 1,566


7,156 6,793 2,815 2,522 12,683


0 0 0 0 3,915


5,675 13,195 260 0 4,513


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0




0 0 0 0 0


5,688 14,560 10,270 8,879 6,773


0 1,235 2,210 4,420 0


10,662 11,895 0 2,925 16,475


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 957


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


23,377 33,917 23,400 12,506 3,113


0 0 0 0 0


0 4,056 4,368 234 0


0 0 0 0 0

NEWCASTLE EAST VC 0 624 4,056 2,808 4,175 NEWCASTLE FAMILY DAY CARE

0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


3,508 10,400 24,310 11,960 39,403


0 0 0 1,144 2,790

QUALITY CARING 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERVIEW EARLY LEARN-ING CENTRE

0 0 0 0 0


1,591 1,970 0 0 0


0 0 6,955 4,290 4,398




0 0 0 0 0


6,890 9,516 15,730 16,978 12,699


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


974 2,672 1,918 1,846 848


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 390 2,990 2,925 5,823

YWCA OF NEWCASTLE INC 0 2,171 1,872 0 0

Note:







(c) In respect of each centre, the following amount was paid as an establishment grant, during the years 2000-2001 to 2004-2005:


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


1,432 1,178 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0




0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


3,791 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0




0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


4,818 0 0 0 0


3,018 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


1,735 0 0 0 0


1,735 0 0 0 0


1,810 0 0 0 0


287 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


Note:







(d) In respect of each centre, the following amount was paid as block grant assistance (transitional assistance), during the years 2000-2001 to 2004-2005:


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


348,977 234,240 234,240 234,240 234,240


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0




0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0




0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


Note:







(4) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Child Care Benefit is paid in advance to services on behalf of eligible customers to enable services to reduce the child care fees to those customers. Child Care Benefit is paid on an ongoing advance/acquit basis. No debts or overpayments are raised as part of this ongoing process.

(5) (a) (b) The number of children using services approved for Child Care Benefit in the electorate of Newcastle during the March 2005 quarter is as follows:

Sector Children (all ages) COMMUNITY 3,500 PRIVATE 1,800 TOTAL 5,100

Note:

(1) The sum of components does not add to the total amount as some children used services in more than one sector during the quarter.

(2) Includes long day care, family day care, in-home care, after & before school hours care, occa-sional care and vacation care services approved for Child Care Benefit. Excludes registered care providers and Multifunctional Aboriginal Children’s Services.

(3) State-Territory weighted data.

(4) Children using child care services located in the electorate of Newcastle may not reside in the electorate of Newcastle.

(5) Quarter Date Range: 3 January 2005 to 3 April 2005.


Source: Centrelink Administrative Data.

(6) (a) It is estimated that at 30 June, 2003, about 2,900 children aged under 2 years resided in the electorate of Newcastle.

(b) (i) (ii) The number of children aged less than two years using services approved for Child Care Benefit in the electorate of Newcastle during the March 2005 quarter is as follows:

Sector Children (under 2 years of age)

COMMUNITY 500 PRIVATE 400 TOTAL 800

Notes:

(1) The sum of components does not add to the total amount as some children used services in more than one sector during the quarter.

(2) Includes long day care, family day care, in-home care and occasional care services ap-proved for Child Care Benefit. Excludes registered care providers and Multifunctional Abo-riginal Children’s Services.

(3) State-Territory weighted data.

(4) Children using child care services located in the electorate of Newcastle may not reside in the electorate of Newcastle.

(5) Children under 2 years defined as children under 2 years at any time during the quarter.

(6) Quarter Date Range: 3 January 2005 to 3 April 2005.





(7) Since 2001, Centrelink has been combining co-located and co-managed After School and Before School Hours Care services as a single administered Outside School Hours Care service.

The number of Commonwealth funded Child Care Benefit approved places for (a) outside school hours care, and (b) vacation care in the electoral division of Newcastle, at September 2004 is as follows:

Service type Operational and approved Child Care Benefit places

Outside school hours care 1,185 Vacation care 395

Note:



Veterans’ Affairs: Benefits (Question No. 2409)

Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 10 October 2005: (1) Is she aware that a person’s marital status affects a number of entitlements under the Veterans Af-

fairs Act.

(2) Do the affected entitlements include maximum basic pension and allowance rates, and rates for other payments, eg, rent assistance, pharmaceutical allowance, remote area allowance and tele-phone allowance.

(3) Can she provide details on all the circumstances in which a married person or member of a couple receives a smaller benefit than a single person and the nature of that reduced benefit.

(4) Is she aware of concerns that the reduced benefits operate as a disincentive to marriage.

(5) Has her department costed removing the disincentives by paying a member of a married couple the same rate of benefit as a single person; if so, can she say what sum this would cost; if not, will she undertake to cost the abolition of reduced payments to members of a couple.

Mrs De-Anne Kelly—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) Yes.

(2) Yes, with the exception of telephone allowance, which is paid on the basis of one telephone sub-scriber per household, pharmaceutical allowance, which is paid on a family basis and utilities al-lowance, which is paid on a household basis.

(3) The individual partnered pension rate is 83 per cent of the single rate. Additional allowances are paid on a household basis. Rent assistance has been structured so that a single person or a family pays on average the same percentage of the household income in rent.

(4) The pension structure does not provide a disincentive to marriage because a couple who live in a marriage-like relationship are treated in the same way as a married couple.



(5) No, as it is appropriate that the individual partnered rate is less than the single rate. Members of a couple enjoy economies in their domestic circumstances.

Pensions and Allowances (Question No. 2410)

Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Com-munity Services, in writing, on 10 October 2005: (1) Is the Minister aware that a person’s marital status affects a number of entitlements under the So-

cial Security Act.

(2) Do the affected entitlements include maximum basic pension and allowance rates, and rates for other payments, eg, rent assistance, pharmaceutical allowance, remote area allowance and tele-phone allowance.

(3) Can the Minister provide details on all the circumstances in which a married person or member of a couple receives a smaller benefit than a single person and the nature of that reduced benefit.

(4) Is the Minister aware of concerns that the reduced benefits operate as a disincentive to marriage.

(5) Has the Minister’s department costed removing the disincentives by paying a member of a married couple the same rate of benefit as a single person; if so, can the Minister say what sum this would cost; if not, will the Minister undertake to cost the abolition of reduced payments to members of a couple.

Mr Hockey—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the follow-ing answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) Yes. The Social Security Act 1991(the Act) requires the Secretary (or Delegate) to determine

whether a person is single or a member of a couple in order to calculate the rate of pension or al-lowance that is payable. A person who is in a marriage-like relationship is treated the same as a person who is legally married.

(2) and (3) The social security system recognises that single people need more income to have a simi-lar standard of living to couples. The rates of pension, allowance, rent assistance, pharmaceutical allowance, remote area allowance and telephone allowance are all affected by a person’s status as a single person or as a member of a couple.

(4) Under the Social Security Act 1991, the existence of a marriage-like relationship (whether a couple is legally married or not) is considered in determining whether a person is a member of a couple. There is no disincentive to marriage.

(5) See (4). There is no disincentive to marriage.

Refugees (Question No. 2420)

Mr Gibbons asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicul-tural and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 10 October 2005: (1) Is the Minister aware that the Rural Australians for Refugees, who have been corresponding with

individuals on Nauru, are concerned for the welfare of the remaining refugees.

(2) Would the Minister advise what will happen to those refugees who remain on Nauru.

(3) Can the Minister explain why some refugees have been granted TPVs and others have not.

Mr John Cobb—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) Yes.



(2) Of the 27 remaining persons in the Offshore Processing Centre on Nauru 25 were brought to Aus-tralia on 1 November 2005. The long term situation of the two persons remaining on Nauru will be resolved from Nauru.

(3) All persons processed at the Nauru OPC, who were brought to Australia, received temporary visas. Those who were determined to be refugees received secondary movement (temporary) visas and those who were found not to be refugees received temporary (humanitarian concern) visas.

Asylum Seekers (Question No. 2422)

Mrs Irwin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 5 October 2005: (1) Is the minister aware of the recent statement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refu-

gees (UNHCR) urging countries not to send Iraqi asylum seekers home, saying Iraq was too dan-gerous except in parts of the North.

(2) How many Iraqi asylum seekers in Australia face possible repatriation to Iraq.

(3) What steps are being taken in view of the UNHCR’s advice.

Mr John Cobb—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) I am aware of the September 2005 statement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refu-

gees (UNHCR) regarding the return of persons to Iraq. The Commissioner has requested that States continue to postpone schemes to promote or induce returns for persons originating from Southern or Central Iraq but has said that the voluntary return of Iraqis originating from the three Northern Governorates could be considered, provided they have family and community links that can ensure their access to protection, housing and other basic services.

(2) and (3) Because of the ongoing situation in Iraq, and the advice of UNHCR, the Government is not enforcing returns to Iraq. This includes not promoting voluntary reintegration assistance packages to Iraqis, although these are available on request by individuals who wish to voluntarily return. If a person requests Australia’s assistance to return to Iraq they are given a copy of the latest UNHCR advice so that they can make an informed decision.

Defence Medal (Question No. 2423)

Mr Edwards asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 10 Oc-tober 2005: (1) Does she recall the Government’s commitment in June 2004 to provide a new Defence Medal and

to have application forms for the medal ready by the end of last year and the medal available by the middle of this year.

(2) Can she provide details on the progress of the establishment of the medal.

(3) Can she explain why the Government has not honoured its commitment to thousands of members of the Australian Defence Forces who have served since WWII and who are still waiting for the medal.

Mrs De-Anne Kelly—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) Yes, though the commitment was made on 11 July 2004; not in June 2004.

(2) Creating a new medal is a lengthy process. From the time a medal is announced, it goes through an extensive process before it is issued. This includes Royal approval, consultation on eligibility and design, formal approval, tendering for manufacture, testing and manufacturing the medal before it



is issued. The Request for Tender for the manufacture of the Australian Defence Medal was re-leased on 20 October 2005.

(3) The Government continues to honour all members of the Australian Defence Force, both past and present. The Government will begin issuing the medal when the medal has been manufactured and applicants for the medal have been assessed as eligible. The medal is expected to be available in the first half of 2006, subject to manufacturing lead times.

Minister for Health and Ageing: Travel Advice (Question No. 2424)

Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 10 October 2005: (1) When did the Minister for Health and Ageing inform him of his intention to take leave for a family

holiday in Bali, Indonesia, in September/October 2005.

(2) Did he or his office suggest that the Minister for Health and Ageing should holiday at a location other than Bali in keeping with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) travel advice that Australians should defer non-essential travel to Indonesia; if not, why not; if so, what was the Minister’s response.

(3) Are Government Ministers and senior officials expected to set an example by heeding the travel advice issued by DFAT.

Mr Howard—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) to (3) The Minister’s request for leave was handled in the normal and appropriate way.

Domestic and Overseas Air Travel (Question No. 2430)

Mr Quick asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 11 October 2005: (1) For 2004-2005, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on domestic and international air

travel.

(2) For 2004-2005, what proportion of domestic air travel by employees of the Minister’s department was provided by (a) Qantas, (b) Regional Express, and (c) Virgin Blue.

(3) For 2004-2005, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on domestic air travel provided by (i) Qantas, (ii) Regional Express, and (iii) Virgin Blue.

(4) For 2004-2005, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on (a) economy and (b) business class travel on (i) domestic routes and (ii) international routes.

(5) For 2004-2005, what proportion of the expenditure on air travel by the Minister’s department was on the domestic route (a) Sydney to Canberra, (b) Melbourne to Canberra, (c) Sydney to Mel-bourne, (d) Sydney to Brisbane, (e) Melbourne to Hobart or Launceston, and (f) Sydney to Perth.

(6) For 2004-2005, how many employees of the Minister’s department had membership of the (a) Qan-tas Chairman’s Lounge, (b) Qantas Club, (c) Regional Express Membership Lounge, and (d) Virgin Blue’s Blue Room paid for by the department.

(7) Which company provides travel management services to the Minister’s department.

Mr Howard—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised by my department that:

(1) The air travel spend by my department in 2004-2005 was $788,478 for domestic and $354,413 for international.

(2) (a) Qntas 95%



(b) Regional Express 3%

(c) Virgin Blue 2%

(3) (i) Qantas $745,731

(ii) Regional Express $ 22,105

(iii) Virgin Blue $ 17,599

(4) (a) Domestic Economy Class $481,144

(b) Domestic Business Class $307,334

(c) International Economy Class $ 10,161

(d) International Business Class $344,252

(5) (a) Sydney to Canberra (Return) 29%

(b) Melbourne to Canberra (Return) 21%

(c) Sydney to Melbourne (Return) 2%

(d) Sydney to Brisbane (Return) 1%

(e) Melbourne to Hobart or Launceston (Return) 0%

(f) Sydney to Perth (Return) 2%

(6) (a) Qantas Chairman’s Lounge - none are funded by the department.

(b) Qantas Club 43

(c) Regional Express Membership Lounge 0

(d) Virgin Blue’s Blue Room 0

(7) TQ3 Navigant


Mr Quick asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 11 October 2005: (1) For 2004-2005, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on domestic and international air

travel.







Mr Truss—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) (a) Sum spent on Domestic Air Travel - $3,080,319



(b) Sum spent on International Air Travel- $1,814,311

(2) (a) Qantas – 88.417%

(b) Regional Express – 1.413%

(c) Virgin Blue – 7.038%

(d) Other – 3.132%

(3) (i) Qantas - $2,723,535

(ii) Regional Express - $43,518

(iii) Virgin Blue - $216,800

(iv) The balance is on other airlines - $96,466

(4) (a) Sum spent on economy class travel on:

(i) domestic routes - $2,491,480.

(ii) international routes - $166,673.

(b) Sum spent on business class travel on:

(i) domestic routes - $588,839.

(ii) international routes - $1,647,638

(5) (a) Sydney to Canberra – 12%

(b) Melbourne to Canberra – 16%

(c) Sydney to Melbourne – 0%

(d) Sydney to Brisbane – 1%

(e) Hobart to Melbourne – 0%

(f) Launceston to Melbourne – 0%

(g) Sydney to Perth – 1%

(6) (a) Chairman’s Lounge – This is used by the Secretary and the two former Deputy Secretaries and is not a cost to the Department, it is a membership invitation from Qantas.

(b) Qantas Club – 305. This figure includes a number of memberships paid for by staff them-selves.

(c) Regional Express – Nil. All DOTARS staff are entitled to Regional Express Lounges if they show their boarding pass. No cost.

(d) Virgin Blue – Nil.

(7) American Express provides travel management services to the Minister’s department.


Mr Quick asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 11 October 2005: (1) For 2004-2005, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on domestic and international air

travel.









Mr Ruddock—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) (a) domestic - $2,951,407.66, (b) international – $7,149,386.05

(2) (a) Qantas (including Jetstar) - 97%, (b) Regional Express - 1%, (c) Virgin Blue - 2%

(3) (a) Qantas (including Jetstar) - $2,899,747.11, (b) Regional Express - $21,668.42, (c) Virgin Blue - $29,992.13

(4) (a) Economy - domestic - $2,517,201.09 (b) Economy - international - $4,123,441.07 (c) Business – domestic - $414,025.96 (d) Business – international - $2,713,950.46

(5) (a) Sydney to Canberra - 14.68%, (b) Melbourne to Canberra – 23.12%, (c) Sydney to Melbourne – 3.98%, (d) Sydney to Brisbane – 1.77%, (e) Melbourne to Hobart or Launceston - 3.13%, (f) Sydney to Perth - 1.63%

(6) (a) Qantas Chairman’s Lounge – 3 (all complimentary) , (b) Qantas Club – 149 (72 complimen-tary), (c) Regional Express Membership Lounge - Nil, (d) Virgin Blue’s Blue Room - Nil.

(7) Qantas Business Travel.


Mr Quick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 11 October 2005: (1) For 2004-2005, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on domestic and international air

travel.







Mr John Cobb—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) The total expenditure by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

(DIMIA) on domestic and international air travel in 2004-05 was $8,540,450.



(2) The proportion of domestic air travel by DIMIA employees in 2004-05 was provided by the vari-ous carriers as follows:

Airline 2004-05 (a) Qantas 88.60% (b) Regional Express 2.07% (c) Virgin Blue 2.22%

(3) The actual expenditure on domestic air travel by DIMIA in 2004-05 with the various carriers was:

Airline 2004-05 (i) Qantas $4,808,433 (ii) Regional Express $112,246 (iii) Virgin Blue $120,488

(4) Expenditure by DIMIA on economy class travel in 2004-05 on domestic and international routes

was:

Routes Economy Business Class (i) Domestic $4,701,902 $836,883 (ii) International $550,496 $2,451,169

(5) Expenditure by DIMIA on air travel on the nominated domestic routes represented the following

proportions of total expenditure on air travel in 2004-05.

Routes 2004-05 (a) Sydney/Canberra 13.18% (b) Melbourne/Canberra 11.37% (c) Sydney/Melbourne 1.58% (d) Sydney/Brisbane 1.20% (e) Melbourne/Hobart or Launceston 0.70% (f) Sydney/Perth 2.72%

(6) The number of airline lounge memberships paid for by DIMIA for DIMIA employees in 2004-05

was:

Airline 2004-05 (a) Qantas Chairman’s Lounge nil (b) Qantas Club 350 (c) Regional Express Lounge nil (d) Virgin Blue Lounge nil

(7) Carlson Wagonlit Travel currently provides travel management services for DIMIA except for the Office of Indigenous Policy Co-ordination, whose travel management company is Qantas Business Travel.




Mr Quick asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 11 Octo-ber 2005: (1) For 2004-2005, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on domestic and international air

travel.







Dr Nelson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) In the 2004-05 financial year the Department of Education, Science and Training (the Department)

spent $4,608,835 on domestic air travel and $696,680 on international air travel.

(2) In the 2004-05 financial year 90% of the Department’s domestic air travel was provided by Qantas, 2% was provided by Regional Express and 2% was provided by Virgin Blue.

(3) In the 2004-05 financial year the Department spent $4,146,516 on domestic air travel provided by Qantas, $89,569 on domestic air travel provided by Regional Express and $74,754 on domestic air travel provided by Virgin Blue.

(4) In the 2004-05 financial year the Department spent:

Economy class domestic air travel $3,218,620 Business class domestic air travel $1,390,215 Economy class international travel $112,420 Business class international travel $584,260

(5) In the 2004-05 financial year the proportion of the Department’s expenditure on air travel on the

requested domestic routes is as follows:

(a) Sydney-Canberra 6%

(b) Melbourne-Canberra 9%

(c) Sydney-Melbourne 1%

(d) Sydney-Brisbane 1%

(e) Melbourne-Hobart/Launceston 1%

(f) Sydney-Perth 1%

(6) The Department does not pay for staff memberships to airport lounges.

(7) The Department’s travel management services are provided by Navigant Australia Pty Ltd.




Mr Quick asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 11 October 2005: (1) For 2004-2005, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on domestic and international air

travel.







Mr Andrews—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) $4,467,273 for domestic air travel and $311,167 for international air travel.

(2) (a) Qantas approx. 95%, (b) Regional Express approx. 3%, (c) Virgin Blue approx. 2%.

(3) (a) Qantas $4,254,514, (b) Regional Express $116,710, (c) Virgin Blue $96,049.

(4) (a) Economy class (i) domestic routes $3,124,041 (ii) international routes $13,531. (b) Business class (i) domestic routes $1,343,232 (ii) international routes $297,636.

(5) (a) Sydney to Canberra approx. 12%, (b) Melbourne to Canberra approx. 20%, (c) Sydney to Melbourne approx. 2%, (d) Sydney to Brisbane approx. 1%, (e) Melbourne to Hobart or Launceston approx. 1%, (f) Sydney to Perth approx. 2%.

(6) (a) (b) (c) (d) The information requested would require a detailed search of all employees AWAs/contracts to establish whether such a benefit had been negotiated. It would involve a substantial and unreasonable diverson of resources to compile the information requested.

(7) Navigant Australia Pty Ltd.


Mr Quick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 11 October 2005: (1) For 2004-05, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on domestic and international air

travel.






(5) For 2004-05, what proportion of the expenditure on air travel by the Minister’s department was on the domestic route (a) Sydney to Canberra, (b) Melbourne to Canberra, (c) Sydney to Melbourne, (d) Sydney to Brisbane, (e) Melbourne to Hobart or Launceston, and (f) Sydney to Perth.

(6) For 2004-05, how many employees of the Minister’s department had membership of the (a) Qantas Chairman’s Lounge, (b) Qantas Club, (c) Regional Express Membership Lounge, and (d) Virgin Blue’s Blue room paid for by the department.


Mr McGauran—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) (a) Domestic Air Travel $1,505,703

(b) International Air Travel $657,600

(figures include government taxes and charges)

(2) (a) Qantas (including subsidiaries) 90.50%

(b) Regional Express 3.44%

(c) Virgin Blue 3.44%

(3) (i) Qantas $1,143,896

(ii) Regional Express $43,468

(iii) Virgin Blue $43,431

(figures exclude government taxes and charges)

(4) (a) economy—

(i) Domestic $1,057,470

(ii) International $86,280

(b) business class travel—

(i) Domestic $448,233

(ii) International $550,189


(5) (a) Sydney to Canberra $272,392

(b) Melbourne to Canberra $296,131

(c) Sydney to Melbourne $32,553

(d) Sydney to Brisbane $19,187

(e) Melbourne to Hobart or Launceston $14,802

(f) Sydney to Perth $25,671


(6) (a) Qantas Chairman’s Lounge 0

(b) Qantas Club 41

(c) Regional Express Membership Lounge 0

(d) Virgin Blue’s Blue room 0

(7) Qantas Business Travel




Mr Quick asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 11 October 2005: (1) For 2004-2005, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on domestic and international air

travel.







Mr Truss—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following an-swers to the honourable member’s question: (1)

Domestic air travel expenditure $4,428,696 International air travel expenditure $1,736,379

(2)

Qantas 88.00% Regional Express 00.05% Virgin Blue 06.08% Other 5.87%

(3)

Qantas $3,896,920 Regional Express $2,396 Virgin Blue $269,266 Other $260,114

(4)

Economy Business Domestic $3,351,262 $1,077,434 International $182,387 $1,490,375



(5)

Sydney to Canberra 07.91 % Melbourne to Canberra 13.38 % Sydney to Melbourne 00.81 % Sydney to Brisbane 00.38 % Melbourne to Hobart 02.78 % Melbourne to Launceston 00.04 % Sydney to Perth 00.65 %

(Note: in accordance with the airline industry practice of reporting, the above percentages reflect air travel between destinations eg. Sydney to Canberra should also be reflected as Canberra to Sydney).

(6)

Qantas Chairman’s Lounge By invitation only Qantas Club 64 Regional Express Membership Lounge 1 Virgin Blue’s Blue Room 1

(7) Carlson Wagonlit Travel.


Mr Hayes asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Ser-vices, in writing, on 11 October 2005: (1) How regularly does the Minister’s department update its list of the areas that need additional child

care places and when was it last updated.

(2) Was South-west Sydney identified as an area that needed additional child care places; if not, why not.

(3) How many additional child care places have been allocated to (a) South-west Sydney and the post-code area (b) 2167, (c) 2168, (d) 2170, (e) 2171, (f) 2174, (g) 2178, (h) 2179, (i) 2560, (j) 2564, (k) 2565, and (l) 2566.

Mr Hockey—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the follow-ing answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) The last completed needs assessment for outside school hours care and family day care was in No-

vember 2005 when 16,724 outside school hours care places were allocated. Another needs assess-ment process to allocate additional outside school hours care places will commence in early 2006.

Needs assessments do not include standard long day care centre places as there are no limits on these places and they are not allocated by the Government.

(2) Yes. In November 2005, 240 additional outside school hours care places were allocated to services in South-west Sydney.

(3) (a) See answer to Question 2

(b) Places data is maintained at planning area level rather than by postcode so this data is not available.



Hoxton Park Airport (Question No. 2459)

Mr Hayes asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 11 October 2005: Is Hoxton Park Airport classified for protection by Regional Rapid Deployment Teams; if not, why not.

Mr Truss—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Regional Rapid Deployment Teams deploy to security controlled regional airports in Australia.

Regional Rapid Deployment Teams would not deploy to Hoxton Park airport because it is not a security controlled airport.

In the event of an incident at the airport, the New South Wales police would respond, which is consis-tent with the National Counter-Terrorism Plan.

Profiteering (Question No. 2462)

Ms Hoare asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 11 October 2005: (1) Is he aware of reports that some airlines operating out of Bali had attempted to increase the price of

flights returning from Bali following the recent devastating terrorist attacks.

(2) What measures are in place to prevent organisations and individuals profiteering from incidents such as natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

(3) Will the Government introduce measures to restrict such profiteering; if not, why not.

Mr Howard—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) I am not aware of any such reports.

(2) The Trade Practices Act 1974 (the Act) is the Commonwealth legislation that generally regulates business transactions and provides protection for Australian consumers in a range of areas. Al-though there are no provisions under the Act that deal specifically with profiteering from incidents such as natural disasters or terrorist attacks, the Act does prohibit the misuse of market power and therefore provides a mechanism for dealing with anti-competitive conduct.

(3) Airfare prices are set by airlines and are commercial decisions for the individual companies. Al-though it is not the role of the Australian Government to control or limit the commercial decisions of the business community, the Government does expect that Australian companies will act ethi-cally and not take advantage of people in traumatic circumstances caused by terrorist attacks or natural disasters.


Ms Hoare asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Ser-vices, in writing, on 11 October 2005:: (1) Will the Government’s policy to encourage single parents from ‘welfare to work’ result in greater

pressure being placed on already limited child care places.

(2) Will the Minister outline the measures the Government is undertaking to increase the number of child care places available for working parents and how many additional child care places in each State and Territory will these measures provide.

(3) Is the Minister aware of any studies showing that increasing child care fees contributes to parents not participating in the workforce.



(4) Is the Minister aware that for many parents the fees associated with child care nullify any financial benefit from working, particularly in part time employment.

(5) Will the Government introduce a tax deduction for the costs associated with child care for working parents; if not, why not.

Mr Hockey—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the follow-ing answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) The Government is investing a further $266.4 million in child care through a suite of child care

measures that will support the Government’s Welfare to Work changes, including nearly 88,000 new places for Outside School Hours Care (OSHC), Family Day Care (FDC) and In-Home care. The additional places are expected to meet demand.

(2) The Government provided an additional 84,300 Outside School Hours Care places, 2,500 Family Day Care places and 1,000 In-Home Care places over a four year period in the 2005-06 Budget. There is no limit on the number of long day care centre places that may be approved. The initial al-location of the over 17,000 Outside School Hours Care places occurred in November 2005. All confirmed demand was met.

(3) The Minister is not aware of any studies that show increases in child care fees a contributing factor to parents not participating in the workforce.

(4) The Australian Government provides support to families to assist with the cost of child care. All families who use approved child care are eligible to receive assistance in the form of Child Care Benefit (CCB). CCB is means tested and low income families receive the highest rate of CCB. CCB covers two thirds of the cost of care for low income families. CCB has a part time loading, in recognition that part time fees are sometimes more expensive than full time fees. In addition the Child Care Tax Rebate will provide working families with up to $4000 per child per year additional assistance for out of pocket costs per child. Furthermore, parents benefit socially and economically over the longer term from participating in the workforce.

(5) The Howard Government introduced the Child Care Tax Rebate (CCTR), which benefits working families using care from 1 July 2004. Further questions on tax issues should be directed to the Treasurer.

World Summit on the Information Society (Question No. 2465)

Mr Melham asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Informa-tion Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 11 October, 2005: (1) What are the names and positions of the persons who will represent Australia at the International

Telecommunication Union’s World Summit on the Information Society which will be held in Tunis from 16 to 18 November 2005.

(2) What are the names and positions of the Australians who attended the preparatory conference which was held in Geneva from 19 to 30 September, 2005.

Mr McGauran—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.

While the WSIS was managed by the International Telecommunication Union, it was actually a United Nations summit.

(1) The names and positions of the people who represented Australia as members of the Australian delegation to the WSIS held in Tunis from 16 to 18 November 2005 are as follows:



Ms Fay Holthuyzen, Deputy Secretary, Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts

Mr Colin Oliver, General Manager International Branch, Department of Communications Informa-tion Technology and the Arts

Mr Tom Dale, General Manager Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Communications Informa-tion Technology and the Arts

Mr Mark Sawers, First Secretary, Permanent Mission to the United Nations Geneva

Mr Philip Mason, Manager, Internet Governance & World Summit on the Information Society Sec-tion, Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts, Alternate Head of Delegation

Mr Geoffrey Adlide, Counsellor (Development), Australian Permanent Mission to the United Na-tions, Geneva

Mr John Haydon, Executive Manager, Consumer Branch, Australian Communication and Media Authority

Ms Pauline Cooney, Assistant Manager, Anti-Spam Team, Consumer Branch, Australian Commu-nication and Media Authority

Mr Barry Haase, Member for Kalgoorlie

Mr Geoffrey Prosser, Member for Forrest

Mr Tony Hill, President, Internet Society of Australia

Mr Don Schauder, Chair, Centre for Community Networking Research

Mr Graeme Johanson, Head, Centre for Community Networking Research

Mr Hendrik Prins, Consultant, Cemdia-Asia Limited

Mr Mark White, Todaycorp (World Summit Awards)

Ms Angela Jones, Brisbane City Council (World Summit Awards)

(2) The names and positions of the people who represented Australia as members of the Australian delegation at the preparatory committee meeting for WSIS held in Geneva from 19 to 30 Septem-ber, 2005 are as follows:

Mr Philip Mason, Manager, Internet Governance & World Summit on the Information Society Sec-tion, Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts

Mr Mark Sawers, First Secretary, Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva

Ms Rachel Moseley, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva

Ms Robyn Mudie, Counsellor, Deputy Permanent Representative United Nations, Australian Per-manent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva

Government Advertising (Question Nos 2470 to 2488)

Mr Tanner asked all ministers, in writing, on 13 October 2005: For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio, what sum was spent on display advertis-ing in newspapers in 2004-2005 (a) in total, and for purpose of advertising (b) job vacancies, (c) tender processes, and (d) Parliamentary committee proceedings.

Mr Abbott—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the hon-ourable member’s question, on behalf of all ministers: The following figures represent whole of government advertising expenditure.



(a) $39,505,905;

(b) $22,516,710;

(c) $3,184,539; and

(d) whole of government information on the costs of advertising parliamentary committee proceedings is not recorded in the Central Advertising System. The information can only be sourced from the Parliamentary Departments.

Naval Communications Station (Question No. 2514)

Mr Melham asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 31 October 2005: (1) Further to the answer to question No 2095 (Hansard, 11 October 2005, page 137) on what dates

and where has the Executive Steering Committee met since March 1996.

(2) Who represented (a) Australia and (b) the United States at each Executive Steering Committee meeting.

Mrs De-Anne Kelly—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) and (2)

Date Location Representatives 12-14 October 2005 Hawaii – USA USN – CONCTAMSPAC, DNNSOC

AUS – DRFSPO, A/SMNO 27-29 September 2004 Sydney – Australia USN – CONCTAMSPAC, DNNSOC

AUS – DRFSPO, DNC4ISREW 6-8 October 2003 Hawaii – USA USN – CONCTAMSPAC, DNNSOC

AUS – DRFSPO, DNC4ISREW 10-12 December 2002 Canberra – Australia USN – CONCTAMSPAC, DNNSOC

AUS – DRFPSO, DNC4ISREW 13-15 November 2001 Hawaii – USA USN – CONCTAMSPAC, DNNSOC

AUS – DRFSPO, DDNC4PP 6-9 November 2000 Exmouth – Australia USN – CNCTC, CONCTAMSPAC

AUS – DCLM, DMCOM 6-8 October 1999 Washington – USA USN – CNCTC, CONAVCOMTELSTA

(GUAM) AUS – DCLM, DMCOM

16-18 November 1998 Exmouth – Australia USN – CNCTC, CONAVCOMTELSTA (GUAM) AUS – DCLM, DMCOM

28-30 April 1998 Washington – USA USN – DCNCTC, CONAVCOMTELSTA (GUAM) AUS – DCLM, DMCOM

5-7 November 1997 Exmouth – Australia USN – DCNCTC, CONAVCOMTELSTA (GUAM) AUS – CSO-SUP, DMCOM

7-9 April 1997 Washington – USA USN – CONCTAMSPAC, CNCTC AUS – CSO-SUP, DMCOM

4-6 November 1996 Exmouth – Australia USN – CONCTAMSPAC, CNCTC AUS – CSO-SUP, DMCOM



Date Location Representatives 30-1 April-May 1996 Guam – USA USN – CONCTAMSPAC, CNCTC

AUS – CSO-SUP, DMCOM Notes:

United States Navy (USN) representatives: CNCTC - Commander Naval Computer and Telecommunications Command;

CONCTAMSPAC - Commanding Officer, Naval Computer and Telecommunications Pacific;

CONAVCOMTELSTA - Commanding Officer Naval Command Telecommunications Station; and

DNNSOC - Director Naval Network and Space Operations Command.

Australian (AUS) representatives: CSO-SUP - Chief Staff Officer-Support;

DCLM - Director Class Logistic Management;

DDNC4PP - Deputy Director Navy Command, Control, Communications and Computers Policy and Planning;

DMCOM - Director, Maritime Communications

DNC4ISREW - Director Navy Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Electronic Warfare;

DRFSPO - Director, Radio Frequency Systems Program Office; and

A/SMNO - Acting Senior Manager Network Operations.

Writing Services (Question No. 2536)

Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 31 Oc-tober 2005: (1) Did the Australian Taxation Office enter into a contract with Evans-Smith and Dando Pty Ltd to

provide writing services at a cost of $12,000; if so, what did Evans-Smith and Dando write under the terms of this contract.

(2) Why was it considered necessary to engage an outside company to write this material.

Mr Brough—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) Yes. Evans-Smith and Dando Pty Ltd were engaged by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to

write the 2005-06 edition of Making it Easier to Comply, an annual corporate publication that re-ports to the community on the ATO’s progress and plans under its easier, cheaper and more person-alised program. The total cost for the services was $11,616 (GST inclusive).

(2) It was considered necessary to engage an outside company to write this material because the ATO did not have sufficient available resources with the necessary specialised skills to undertake the work in the required timeframe.

Eleven Group Consulting (Question No. 2538)

Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 31 October 2005: Did the Minister’s department engage Eleven Group Consulting at a cost of $10,479.89; if so, what services were provided under the terms of this contract.



Mr John Cobb—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has no record of engaging Eleven Group Consulting.

Granther Group (Question No. 2539)

Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 31 October 2005: Did the Minister’s department pay the Granther Group $12,940 for symposium tickets; if so, (a) what was the title and purpose of the symposium, (b) how many departmental officers attended, (c) where was the symposium held; and (d) what other costs were associated with the symposium.

Mr John Cobb—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: No.

Alcohol (Question No. 2540)

Mr Windsor asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 31 October 2005: Why does the Government not require labels to be placed on alcohol containers in Australia warning women who are pregnant of the dangers associated with the consumption of alcohol using the same wording as the warning labels placed on alcohol containers by the Government of the United States.

Mr Abbott—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The development of food regulation policy, including labelling of food and drink, is a shared responsi-bility between the Ministers of the Australian Government, the states, territories and New Zealand.

The Australian Government therefore can not unilaterally change food labelling and other food regula-tions.

The mechanism for developing food policy guidelines that guide food standards development is under-taken by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) undertakes the development of food standards.

FSANZ has assessed a number of applications to review the situation regarding health warning labels on alcohol beverages. The reasons for FSANZ rejecting the applications include that:

• studies on the effectiveness of warning statements on alcohol beverages have shown that while they may increase awareness, the increased awareness does not necessarily lead to a change in be-haviour. The evidence even indicated that warning statements may result in an increase in the un-desirable behaviour of ‘at risk’ groups;

• existing labelling requirements and public health programs and campaigns already provide infor-mation to enable consumers to make informed decisions about alcohol intake and prevent decep-tion about the nature of the product;

• there has been a reduction in consumption and alcohol-related harm in Australia (between 1990 and 1997); and

• labels would be difficult to devise given the complexity of issues surrounding the use and misuse of alcohol, and the known benefits of moderate alcohol consumption.

The full FSANZ assessment report and regulation impact assessment for FSANZ application number A359 is located at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/A359_Full_Assessment.pdf.



Ozzy Tyre and Tube Pty Ltd (Question No. 2541)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writ-ing, on 31 October 2005: (1) Is the Minister aware of the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the case CEO of

Customs v Ozzy Tyre and Tube Pty Ltd and Anor [2005] NSWSC 948 and, in particular, paragraph 109 of the judgement referring to that part of the agreement between the Chief Executive Officer for Customs (CEO) and Ozzy Tyre and Tube Pty Ltd which allows, if the CEO considers that on reasonable facts at any time that the information as to impecuniosity contained in the affidavit of Ms Khan (the director of Ozzy Tyre and Tube) is materially incorrect at the date of its making, the CEO to be at liberty to terminate the agreement and take such proceedings to recover the balance of any judgement sum.

(2) Can the Minister confirm that (a) the Supreme Court found that Ozzy Tyre and Tube had evaded duty of $255,805.34 which it ordered to be paid and, in addition, imposed fines totalling $3,237,000, and (b) the agreement between the CEO and Ozzy Tyre and Tube provides for the $255,805.34 to be accepted as full settlement and the fines totalling $3,237,000 not to be paid on grounds of impecuniosity.

(3) Is the Minister aware of the Australian tyre industry periodical Australian Tyre Dealer, Volume 14, Number 4, August/September 2005, which, on page 13, carries a one page advertisement titled ‘Ozzy Tyre Wants You!’ stating that (a) Ozzy Tyres is one of Australia’s leading tyre and wheel companies and is currently looking for dealers to join the company as franchisees, (b) Ozzy Tyres was established in Sydney in 1988 and its head office and flagship store is located in Liverpool, New South Wales, holding one of the best displays of wheels and tyres in Australia, and (c) Ozzy tyres has researched and developed a franchise system with its first franchise opening in Brisbane.

(4) Will the Minister direct the CEO for Customs to review whether Ozzy Tyre and Tube is impecuni-ous in light of its current franchise expansion plans as expressed in its advertisements in Au-gust/September this year; if so, when, if not, why not.

(5) What action will the Minister take to ameliorate the damage Ozzy Tyre and Tube has inflicted on its competitors because it had been trading unfairly by not paying the proper customs duty on 18 shipments of tyres, wheels and other car parts.

(6) Can the Minister say what damage Ozzy Tyre and Tube has inflicted on its competitors as a result of its illegal conduct; if not, what steps will the Minister take to find out.

Mr Ruddock—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) Yes, I am aware of the case referred to and of the terms of the settlement agreed to by the CEO of

Customs and Ozzy Tyre and Tube Pty Ltd and Lorene Khamis.

(2) (a) The decision handed down by Justice Rothman imposed:

- penalties totalling $1,725,000 on the first defendant (Ozzy Tyre and Tube Pty Ltd); and

- Penalties totalling $1,512,000 on the second defendant (Lorene Khamis).

(b) The settlement sum agreed to by the CEO of Customs was $255,805.34 in full and final satis-faction of the judgement sum. The settlement terms also required the defendants to pay the le-gal costs incurred by Customs in this matter. In reaching this settlement, Customs accepted le-gal advice that a settlement involving guilty pleas and recovery of duty was the best available outcome given the complexity of the case and the lack of capacity for the defendants to pay the judgement sum. This settlement resulted in convictions against the Customs offences and



guaranteed the recovery of duty owing to the Commonwealth, without incurring substantial additional costs to the taxpayer.

(3) Yes, I have viewed a copy of the advertisement referred to and have noted the claims made in this advertisement.

(4) I have been advised that Customs are assessing whether there is cause to review the accuracy of the claims of impecuniosity made in the defendants affidavit.

(5) The Customs offences involved in this case have been before the courts and the outcome is out-lined in the answer provided at 2 a) and b) above.

(6) The illegal conduct referred to has been dealt with by the courts, as outlined in the answer to Ques-tion 2.

Employment and Unemployment (Question No. 2542)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 31 October 2005: (1) According to the most recent Australian Labour Force Survey, what proportion of employed per-

sons reported that they worked (a) less than 5 hours, (b) 5-10 hours, (c) 11-20 hours, (d) 21-30 hours, (e) 31-40 hours, and (f) 41 or more hours in the survey period.

(2) Can he say what proportion of employed persons reported that they worked (a) less than 5 hours, (b) 5-10 hours, (c) 11-20 hours, (d) 21-30 hours, (e) 31-40 hours, and (f) 41 or more hours in each other member country of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

(3) How does Australia define ‘employed’ for the purposes of reporting employment statistics and when was this definition first applied.

(4) Can he say which other OECD countries use the same definition of ‘employed’ as Australia for reporting employment statistics.

(5) What is the (a) definition of ‘employed’ used for employment statistics and (b) latest published unemployment rate for (i) New Zealand, (ii) the USA, (iii) Canada, (iv) the United Kingdom, (v) Germany, (vi) France, (vii) Sweden, (viii) Norway, (ix) Denmark, (x) Netherlands, (xi) Italy, (xii) Japan, and (xiii) Korea.

Mr Andrews—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) According to the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) data, for September 2005, the

proportion of employed persons who worked:

(a) Less than five hours per week was 8.6 per cent;

(b) Between five and ten hours per week was 5.7 per cent;

(c) Between 11 and 20 hours per week was 9.9 per cent;

(d) Between 21 and 30 hours per week was 10.8 per cent;

(e) Between 31 and 40 hours per week was 34.8 per cent; and

(f) 41 hours and over per week was 30.2 per cent.

(2) My Department does not have hours data worked for each member country of the OECD. Accord-ingly, this matter should be referred to the ABS for further consideration.

(3) The official measure of employment is compiled by the ABS from their monthly Labour Force Survey. In general terms, to be defined as employed, a survey respondent must have: • Worked for one hour or more in the reference week for pay or profit, or for one hour or more

without pay in a family business or on a farm; or



• Had a job, but were not at work in the week they were surveyed for one of a number of specific reasons (such as being on leave, on strike or locked out, stood down or away from work because of shift arrangements).

This definition closely follows International Labour Organisation (ILO) guidelines, and has been essentially unchanged since the national Labour Force Survey was first undertaken in 1964.

(4) The majority of OECD countries also have definitions of employment that closely follow ILO guidelines and, accordingly, are comparable with the definition used by the ABS (ie, that persons who work for one hour or more, or who have a job but are away from work for one of a number of specific reasons, are classified as employed). The countries that have a definition of employment comparable with Australia’s on which my Department has information are: Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Neth-erlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. The United States of America and Korea also have very similar definitions, but only classify unpaid family workers as employed if they work for 15 hours or more or 18 hours or more, respectively. It should be noted that unpaid family workers only comprise 0.001 per cent of total employment in the United States of America. Accordingly, this difference in definition will not have any significant impact on any international comparison.

(5) (a) As noted above, most of the countries listed below have a definition of employment that is comparable with (or in the case of the United States and Korea, very similar to) that used in Australia (ie, that persons who work for one hour or more, or who have a job but are away from work for one of a number of specific reasons, are considered employed). My Department does not, however, have information on the definition of employment used in France.

(b) The latest available data on unemployment rates for the following OECD countries (for 2004) has been extracted from the 2005 OECD Employment Outlook:

(i) New Zealand – 4.0 per cent;

(ii) the USA – 5.6 per cent;

(iii) Canada – 7.2 per cent;

(iv) the United Kingdom – 4.7 per cent;

(v) Germany – 9.9 per cent;

(vi) France – 9.6 per cent;

(vii) Sweden – 6.6 per cent;

(viii) Norway – 4.5 per cent;

(ix) Denmark – 5.3 per cent;

(x) Netherlands – 4.7 per cent;

(xi) Italy – 8.1 per cent;

(xii) Japan – 4.9 per cent; and

(xiii) Korea – 3.6 per cent.

Livingstone Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (Question No. 2546)

Mr Brendan O’Connor asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writ-ing, on 31 October 2005: Did the Australian Taxation Office engage Livingstone Services (Aust) Pty Ltd for the sum of $12,000 to undertake an administrative investigation; if so, (a) what was the purpose of the investigation, (b) why was it necessary, and (c) will the findings be made public.



Mr Brough—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) engaged the services of Livingstones Australia Brisbane on a consultancy basis to undertake an administrative investigation.

(a) The purpose of the investigation was to look into allegations and counter-allegations of harassment between two ATO employees.

(b) The engagement of their services was necessary because the allegations have a history of several years and efforts to resolve the issue informally by senior management and human resource opera-tives have not been successful. The issues are complex and legal representatives are involved in the process. Because of this, and to provide impartiality, an external investigator was considered neces-sary.

(c) The results of the investigation will not be made public, but will be considered by a senior ATO delegate. The report will form the basis for any further appropriate administrative action considered necessary.

SX Trailers Pty (Question No. 2550)

Mr Brendan O’Connor asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writ-ing, on 31 October 2005: Did his department engage SX Trailers Pty at a cost of $86,100 for a semi-trailer; if so, why was it nec-essary.

Dr Nelson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Questacon – The National Science and Technology Centre, part of the Department of Education, Sci-ence and Training, did engage SX Trailers Pty at a cost of $86 100, the price of a new semi-trailer.

This was necessary to replace a trailer used by the travelling Shell Questacon Science Circus that had become unserviceable and unsafe due to age, corrosion and mechanical failure. The original trailer was designed and manufactured in 1987.

A custom-built trailer is essential for the transport, storage and promotion of a national touring pro-gramme known as the Shell Questacon Science Circus. The new trailer was purchased after investigat-ing alternatives such as repairing the old trailer or leasing a general purpose transporter.

A range of quotations was sought and assessed before choosing SX Trailers Pty as the supplier. The new vehicle enables Questacon, on behalf of the Australian Government, to provide a science education out-reach programme to Australian rural, regional and remote communities.

News Clipping Service (Question No. 2552)

Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 1 November 2005: Did his department pay Australian Associated Press a fee of $14,824 for more than 2500 press clippings in September 2005; if so, was this in addition to the research fee of $15,284 in August 2005.

Mr Truss—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. The department paid Australian Associated Press $14,824 (GST inclusive) for 2500 press clippings in September 2005.

Yes. This amount was in addition to the research fee of $15,284 (GST inclusive) in August 2005.




Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Ser-vices, in writing, on 1 November 2005: (1) Has the Minister read the article titled ‘Child care crying out for a proper accounting’ in The Syd-

ney Morning Herald on 31 October 2005 which reported that the price of childcare had jumped 9.1 per cent in the year to September, more than three times the headline inflation rate, and that this gives credence to the claims that childcare is in crisis.

(2) Can the Minister say what the factors are that have contributed to the inflation of childcare prices.

(3) Can the Minister confirm that the childcare sector is in danger of collapse because of chronic la-bour shortages; if so, what is the Government doing to alleviate the shortage of childcare workers.

(4) Can the Minister confirm that despite spiralling childcare costs, childcare workers can find better paid work in supermarkets or call centres; if so, what is the Government doing to ensure childcare workers are better paid.

(5) Will the Minister rule out forcing sole parents to become family day carers; if not, why not.

(6) Where are childcare supply problems most acute and how many new long day care places are re-quired to address the supply shortage in (a) Australia and (b) the inner-West of Sydney.

(7) What is the Government doing to increase the supply of childcare places in (a) Australia and (b) the inner-West of Sydney.

Mr Hockey—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the follow-ing answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) Yes. The Minister notes that the child care CPI does not reflect the significant benefits of the Child

Care Tax Rebate (CCTR), which will deliver additional assistance of around $1 billion over the four years to 2008-09. The CCTR is not taken into account because taxation assistance is outside the scope of the CPI.

(2) Child care fees are not regulated by the Australian Government and are business decisions made by child care services. The Australian Government provides assistance to families through Child Care Benefit which is indexed to the CPI and the CCTR – a 30 per cent tax rebate of up to $4,000 per child, per year on out of pocket child care costs.

(3) No.

(4) No.

(5) Yes. Parents entering the workforce will be supported with a range of employment options which they may consider.

(6) Since 2004, the Government has met in full the confirmed demand for places from family day care and outside school hours care services. The Government has no limits on the number of long day care centres or long day care centre places that may be approved for the purposes of Child Care Benefit.

(7) (a) and (b) Under the Howard Government, child care places have doubled to 600,000 compared to 306,000 in 1996. In successive Budgets in 2004 and 2005 the Government has made provision for a total additional 124,300 Outside School Hours Care places and 6,500 Family Day Care places to 2008-09. The government allocated over 17,000 Outside School Hours Care Places to services in November, meeting all confirmed demand. There are no limits on the availability of long day care centre places.



All levels of government have a role in child care. The Australian Government has had discussion on planning, including land and approvals with the Local Government and Planning Minister and the Australian Local Government Association.

The Department is currently examining options to increase flexibility of Family Day Care, includ-ing in inner city areas, to provide extra choice for families.

Ipswich Motorway (Question No. 2559)

Mr Ripoll asked the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, in writing, on 2 November 2005: (1) When will he announce funding for the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway which is a crucial

link in the National Highway network and a Commonwealth Government funding responsibility.

(2) How much longer will the people of Queensland wait to have what is widely regarded as the worst road in Queensland upgraded.

(3) Is he aware that the Member for Ryan said on Gold Coast radio on 14 September 2005 that the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway must become a top priority and that funding should be made available for the full upgrade immediately; if so, why does he continue to ignore these pleas.

(4) Can he confirm that the independent report released by the engineering firm Maunsell on the feasi-bility study of the Ipswich Motorway upgrade and the half Northern bypass found that the Ipswich Motorway must be upgraded and that the full distance of 19km from Dinmore to Rocklea would cost approximately $1.1 billion, including $160 million to upgrade the Logan Interchange; if so, will he implement the independent report and commit funding to the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway.

(5) Can he confirm that (a) the funding required to complete the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway is approximately $57 million per km, (b) the planning has been finalised, and (c) if construction were started immediately, the full upgrade could be completed by the end of 2010 and the Goodna to Gailes section could be completed by 2008; if so, can he say whether the Commonwealth has as-sessed the investment to be good public policy for the people of Queensland.

(6) Can he confirm that the independent report released by the engineering firm Maunsell on the feasi-bility study of the Ipswich Motorway upgrade and the half northern bypass found that (a) the half Northern bypass, which is only eight km in length, would cost approximately $1.061 billion ex-cluding $160 million to upgrade the Logan Interchange, (b) this equates to about $142 million per km, (c) there is the need for a minimum of three years of additional planning required before de-sign and construction can begin and, (d) if planning were to begin immediately, the project would not be completed until 2012.

(7) Can he explain the huge disparity in cost and construction timeframes between the full 19km up-grade of the Ipswich Motorway and the 8km half Northern bypass.

(8) Can he explain why the Commonwealth Government will not proceed with the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway immediately to provide immediate relief to the traffic problems which plague the area and consider options in relation to the need for a half Northern bypass later.

Mr Lloyd—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) to (3) On 12 November 2005 the Prime Minister, the Honourable John Howard MP, announced that

the Australian Government will allocate $320 million of the AusLink Brisbane Urban funding to upgrading the existing Wacol to Darra section of Ipswich Motorway. The total Australian Govern-ment funding now allocated to improving the Ipswich Motorway corridor is $556 million.



(4) The independent feasibility study of the Ipswich Motorway Northern Option identified three poten-tially feasible alignments and estimated construction costs of between $820 million and $1,137 million. These options require further investigation and planning. The study concluded that the ex-isting Wacol to Darra section of Ipswich Motorway must be upgraded irrespective of the approach adopted for the Dinmore to Goodna section. The 12 November 2005 announcement by the Prime Minister recognises these findings.

(5) The Queensland Government’s estimate of the cost of upgrading the existing Ipswich Motorway could be up to $1,098 million in 2005 dollars. I understand that this estimate has been confirmed by engineering consultants, Maunsell Australia. The Queensland Government has completed plan-ning only and estimates that construction would take three years minimum using Design and Con-struction (D&C) procurement methods.

(6) Further geotechnical and environmental investigation and planning is required. The Prime Minister announced on 12 November 2005 an additional $10 million of AusLink funding for investigation and planning of the Ipswich Motorway Northern Option between Dinmore and Gailes. It is likely that this will take a minimum of two and one half years. I understand that it is possible that con-struction could be completed in a further three and one half years using contractor alliances and concurrent planning.

(7) Until such time as the further investigations referred to in (6) are concluded, it would not be appro-priate to compare claimed costs for what may prove to be non-compatible (due to route choice, en-gineering solutions etc) potential projects.

(8) Funding has now been provided so that the Wacol to Darra section of Ipswich Motorway can be upgraded without delay and further investigation and planning of the Ipswich Motorway Northern Option can proceed.

Media Ownership (Question No. 2560)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Informa-tion Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 2 November 2005: Further to the answer to question No. 2371 (Hansard, 31 October 2005, page 129), can the Minister explain why she stated that she has nothing further to add to the information provided previously when this was the first occasion that I had raised this matter with her.

Mr McGauran—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The honourable member’s question No. 2371 related to a former Bill to reform Australia’s media own-ership laws. The Minister has repeatedly responded to questions on the issue of media ownership reform from the honourable member, indicating that the Government is considering how best to implement its commitment to reform Australia’s outdated media ownership restrictions.

As part of this process, the Minister announced in November 2005 that a position paper on a number of media reform issues will be issued for public consultation early in 2006.

Respite Care (Question No. 2561)

Ms Annette Ellis asked the Minister for Ageing, in writing, on 1 November 2005: (1) Is she aware that the competitive tendering process used to allocate funding for Respite Care Ser-

vices in the ACT resulted in the Saturday Dementia Program at the Burrangiri Crisis Respite Day Centre losing its Commonwealth funding and that it has since closed due to lack of funding.



(2) Why was the method of allocating funding for Respite Care Services in the ACT and nationally changed to a process of competitive tendering.

(3) What period of time was allowed, and what rationale was used to determine the period of time al-lowed, for ACT Respite Care Providers to submit their funding applications for 2005.

(4) Prior to the introduction of a competitive tendering process for the allocation of respite care fund-ing, how many places were available in Community Respite Care Service programs in the (a) Aus-tralian Capital Territory, (b) electoral division of Canberra, and (c) postcode area (i) 2600, (ii) 2603, (iii) 2605, (iv) 2606, (v) 2607, (vi) 2609, (vii) 2620, (viii) 2900, (ix) 2902, (x) 2903, (xi) 2904, (xii) 2905, and (xiii) 2906.

(5) Prior to the introduction of a competitive tendering process for the allocation of respite care fund-ing, how many places were available in Community Respite Care Service programs that operate on Saturdays in the (a) Australian Capital Territory, (b) electoral division of Canberra, and (c) post-code area (i) 2600, (ii) 2603, (iii) 2605, (iv) 2606, (v) 2607, (vi) 2609, (vii) 2620, (viii) 2900, (ix) 2902, (x) 2903, (xi) 2904, (xii) 2905, and (xiii) 2906.

(6) Since the introduction of a competitive tendering process for the allocation of respite care funding, how many places are available in Community Respite Care Service programs in the (a) Australian Capital Territory, (b) electoral division of Canberra, and (c) postcode area (i) 2600, (ii) 2603, (iii) 2605, (iv) 2606, (v) 2607, (vi) 2609, (vii) 2620, (viii) 2900, (ix) 2902, (x) 2903, (xi) 2904, (xii) 2905, and (xiii) 2906.

(7) Since the introduction of a competitive tendering process for the allocation of respite care funding, how many places are available in Community Respite Care Service programs that operate on Sat-urdays in the (a) Australian Capital Territory, (b) electoral division of Canberra, and (c) postcode area (i) 2600, (ii) 2603, (iii) 2605, (iv) 2606, (v) 2607, (vi) 2609, (vii) 2620, (viii) 2900, (ix) 2902, (x) 2903, (xi) 2904, (xii) 2905, and (xiii) 2906.

(8) Can she confirm that all former clients of all the Respite Care programs in (a) the ACT and (b) Australia that ceased operation in 2005 due to lack of funding have since found alternative respite care services; if not, why not; if so, what programs have provided for the clients of the recently closed programs.

Mr Abbott—The Minister for Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) The Saturday respite service program has ceased because it was unsuccessful in the National Res-

pite for Carers Program (NRCP) Request for Application (RFA) process.

(2) NRCP funding is not allocated through competitive tendering processes. The NRCP is a grant pro-gram and the usual method for allocating funds is through competitive application processes.

(3) The RFA process for the NRCP was advertised nationally on 5 March 2005. Applications closed on 1 April 2005. There is no minimum time requirement for grant processes, but the four weeks al-lowed was more than the 25 day requirement for competitive tender processes. Organisations had been advised in January 2005 of the government’s intention to conduct a competitive application process.

(4) to (7) A separate estimate of the availability of respite on any particular day is not available be-cause a significant proportion of respite availability is for flexible care that is used on different days of the week depending on the requirements of individual carers. In addition, the Carers ACT Commonwealth Carer Respite Centre (CCRC) brokered respite for carers in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) according to assessed relative need.



Notes to parts (4) to (7):

Answers reflect that assessments for funding under the RFA were made on the basis of assessed priorities within Home and Community Care (HACC) regions. The ACT is one HACC region. In the ACT, services commonly have a territory-wide catchment area and it is not possible to quantify carer uptake of services within specific electoral boundaries, nor postcode areas.

Services are not approved on the basis of “places”, rather carer numbers and hours of respite pro-vided are used.

(8) (a) In the ACT, all 6 carers who were receiving respite from services unsuccessful in the RFA that ceased operating from 30 September 2005, are continuing to receive respite.

(b) Organisations that were unsuccessful in receiving continuing NRCP funding received transi-tional funding until 30 September 2005. They were provided with information about alterna-tive services for carers. It was up to individual carers whether or not they chose to accept al-ternative respite.

Analysis Consulting (Question No. 2562)

Mr Bowen asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 3 November 2005: Did the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission engage Analysis Consulting at a cost of $24,000; if so, what services were provided under the terms of this contract.

Mr Costello—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission did engage Analysys Consulting to undertake an assessment of the cost modelling submitted by SingTel Optus in support of its ordinary access under-taking for supply of the mobile terminating access service (MTAS). The $24,000 amount was a progress payment with the total contract value being $60,000.

Consultancy Services (Question No. 2564)

Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 3 No-vember 2005: Did the Australian Taxation Office engage the services of Grosvenor Management Consulting at a cost $11,550.01; if so, what services were provided under the terms of this contract.

Mr Brough—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. The Australian Taxation Office engaged the services of Grosvenor Management Consulting at a cost of $11,550.01 to review adherence by United KPFW (Now United Group Services Pty Ltd) to the terms and conditions of its contract to provide property services to the office.

Small Business: Workplace Agreements (Question No. 2580)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 7 November 2005: (1) Is it the case that many small business owners currently rely on the award system as a benchmark

for employee wages; if so, on what information should small business owners rely to determine the price of labour after the enactment of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005.

(2) Can he confirm the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 will allow work-place agreements that undercut awards; if so, can he explain why.



Mr Andrews—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) The proportion of businesses with less than 20 employees that had their pay set by awards was 27.5

per cent at May 20041.. For businesses with 20 to 99 employees the proportion that had their pay set by awards was slightly higher at 31.2 per cent2. Therefore, the majority of small businesses with less than 100 employees have their pay set by agreements rather than awards.

Under the Workplace Relations Amendment (WorkChoices) Bill 2005 (the Bill), minimum and award classification wages will be set and adjusted by the Australian Fair Pay Commission (the Fair Pay Commission). These wages will form the basis of the wage guarantee in the new Austra-lian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard (the Standard). Under the Standard, no employee who signs an agreement can be paid less than their relevant classification wage. Employees who remain award-reliant will continue to be paid their classification wage.

The wage and classification details published by the Fair Pay Commission will have sufficient in-formation for small business employers and employees to be able to determine the appropriate classification wage for their employees.

(2) The Bill is designed to provide people with the choice of remaining under the award system or entering into a workplace agreement which tailors working arrangements to their particular needs and circumstances. In respect of workplace agreements, protection is provided through both the Standard and a number of protected award conditions.

The Australian Government will enshrine in federal legislation, a number of key employment con-ditions: annual leave, personal/carer’s leave (including sick leave), parental leave (including mater-nity leave) and maximum ordinary hours of work. These conditions, together with basic rates of pay and casual loadings set by the Fair Pay Commission, will comprise the Standard. All new agreements will need to meet the Standard throughout the life of the agreement.

In addition, the Bill will protect certain award conditions when new workplace agreements are ne-gotiated. These award conditions are: public holidays, rest breaks (including meal breaks), incen-tive-based payments and bonuses, annual leave loadings, allowances, penalty rates, shift loadings and overtime loadings. Employers and employees will continue to be able to vary these protected entitlement’s arrangements by agreement, as they can under the current system. However these specific award conditions can only be modified or removed by specific provisions in a new agree-ment.

It is the Australian Government’s intention to provide certainty and clarity for employees and em-ployers wishing to negotiate an agreement. In particular, any changes made to these protected con-ditions in agreements must be clearly identified so that the employees affected are aware of the modifications to their entitlements.

————————————————— 1 ABS, Employee, Earnings and Hours (Cat. No. 6306.0) May 2004, unpublished data.

2 ABS, Employee, Earnings and Hours (Cat. No. 6306.0) May 2004, unpublished data.

Pakistan (Question No. 2583)

Ms Hoare asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 November 2005: (1) What are the sums of emergency aid provided to each organisation providing assistance to Pakistan

following the recent earthquake.

(2) Is he aware of the appeal from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for US $9 million to support reproductive health needs, particularly of pregnant women, and a further US $1 million for hygiene supplies.



(3) Has the Australian Government received a direct request from the UNFPA for aid for reproductive health and hygiene needs; if so, what was the Government’s response.

(4) Has he considered providing specific funding for clean birthing for home delivery and for clinical delivery; if not, will he consider providing funds for this purpose.

(5) Will he increase Australia’s emergency aid to Pakistan to increase assistance for the reproductive health and hygiene needs of those affected by the recent earthquake; if not, why not.

Mr Downer—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)

$M IFRC 3.0 UNICEF 2.5 WHO 3.0 WFP 2.0 CARE Australia 0.5 Oxfam/CAA 0.5 Australian Red Cross 0.5 World Vision Australia 0.5 Austcare 0.2 Caritas 0.2 Fred Hollows Foundation 0.2 Save the Children Australia 0.2 TEAR 0.2 Plan Australia 0.2

(2) Yes, I am aware of the appeal from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for US $9 mil-

lion to support reproductive health needs, particularly of pregnant women, and a further US $1 mil-lion for hygiene supplies.

(3) No, the Australian Government has not received a direct request from the UNFPA for aid for repro-ductive health and hygiene needs.

(4) If priority requests for funding for clean birthing for home delivery and for clinical delivery are made, they will be considered on their merits.

(5) Australia’s response to the earthquake reflects the Government of Pakistan’s priorities, the exper-tise Australia has to offer, the contributions of other donors, and competing priorities in the Asia Pacific region.

Crisis Payments (Question No. 2584)

Ms Plibersek asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, in writing, on 8 November 2005: (1) In respect of the Crisis Payment review, (a) what was its purpose, (b) what were its findings, (c)

was the cessation of the crisis payment discussed and is it being considered, and (d) will the Minis-ter table the review?

(2) Can the Minister explain why there is a disproportionate number of men compared to women who receive Crisis Payment grants?

(3) Will the Minister list all of the circumstances under which people can successfully claim the Crisis Payment?



(4) How many Crisis Payment grants (a) have been made in each of the last five financial years and (b) are expected to be made this financial year.

(5) In respect of each grant of Crisis Payment for the last five financial years, what was (a) the age, (b) the sex, and (c) the state or territory of residence of the applicant, and (d) the reason for the appli-cation.

(6) How is the availability of the Crisis Payment advertised?

(7) How many (a) alleged and (b) proven perpetrators of domestic violence have received the Crisis Payment since the payment was established.

(8) After perpetrators of domestic violence are removed from the family home and have received Cri-sis Payment grants, are their estranged partners who have remained in the family home also able to access crisis payments; if not, why not, and are they able to access any other payments.

Mr Hockey—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the follow-ing answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) (a) The purpose of the review was to assess the effectiveness of the service delivery of Crisis

Payment.

(b) The report found that Crisis Payment was considered to be a valuable payment by both the community and the Centrelink network but that there was scope to streamline administration and better meet individual needs and community expectations.

(c) There was no discussion of the cessation of Crisis Payment.

(d) The review was an internal Centrelink review and there are no plans for the Minister of Family and Community Services to table this review.

(2) There are more men than women granted Crisis Payment primarily because there are more male prisoners in Australia. The majority of Crisis Payments are granted to people on release from prison. In 2004-05 there were 45,804 Crisis Payments granted, of which 25,476 were granted to newly released male prisoners in comparison to 3,098 granted to newly released female prisoners.

(3) Crisis Payment can be claimed where a person is in severe financial hardship and an extreme cir-cumstance has forced their departure from their home, or on release from gaol or psychiatric con-finement.

(4) (a) Centrelink is unable to extract Crisis Payment data for the 2000/2001 financial years at this time. The data was recorded and stored in a different manner to subsequent years.

Total Crisis Payments made in the remaining four financial years are as follows:

2001/2002 = 43,971

2002/2003 = 45,282

2003/2004 = 44,847

2004/2005 = 45,804

(b) Crisis Payment is not separately appropriated and therefore a forecast of the number of Crisis Payments to be paid in this financial year is not available.

(5) The requested data for four financial years is listed in Attachment A.

(6) Crisis Payment is marketed through a number of channels including:

On the Centrelink website;

In refuges, that is, equipping refuge workers with the necessary information to refer customers to claim a Crisis Payment;

Welfare and Education areas in prison or psychiatric confinements;



Department of Family and Community Services Website;

Welfare Right websites;

Centrelink brochures and booklets (i.e. Are you in Crisis or Needing Special Help life event book-let); and

Australian Services for Regional Australia website.

(7) 74 crisis payments were made available to alleged and actual perpetrators of domestic violence.

(8) Currently only victims of domestic violence who leave their family home and establish a new home are eligible for Crisis Payment. Section 1061JH(1) subsection (c) of the SSAct states that a person is qualified for a Crisis Payment if the person has established or intends to establish a new home. They are not able to access other social security payments in addition to their pension or al-lowance. Paying Crisis Payment to a perpetrator is also of benefit to the victim as it assists with the relocation of the perpetrator away from the family home.

Communitites and Children Program (Question No. 2585)

Ms Plibersek asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, in writing, on 8 November 2005: (1) In respect of the Communities and Children program, (a) when did the program commence, (b)

what sum was allocated for the program for each financial year since it commenced, and (c) how many applications for funding were (i) received and (ii) approved each financial year since it commenced.

(2) Will the Minister provide a list of approved projects for each financial year since the program commenced including (a) the nature of the project, (b) the name, address, and electoral division of the organisation receiving the grant, (c) the name, address and electoral division of the facilitating partner, (d) the sum spent to date and estimated forward expenditure over 3 years, and (e) whether there was a tender process and; if so, how many tenders were submitted.

(3) Will the Minister provide a list of the facilitating partners under the program including (a) the pro-grams for which they are responsible and (b) what sum or sums they have received since the pro-gram commenced.

(4) Will the Minister explain the process for applying under the program.

(5) Does the Minister’s department exempt applicants from making a formal application for funding in any circumstances; if so, (a) in what circumstances, (b) how many programs or grant recipients have been funded without submitting a formal application.

(6) Which departmental officers are responsible for making final funding selections and who approves the grants.

(7) Will the Minister provide the most recent University of New South Wales (UNSW) and Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) evaluation of the program.

(8) What are the accountability mechanisms the department requires of Facility Managers and local shareholders (service providers).

Mr Hockey—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the follow-ing answer to the honourable member’s question: (1) (a) 2004

(b)

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 TOTAL $4.758M $26.100M $37.599M $38.344M $22.190M $128.991M



(c) (i) 78 applications for funding were received in 2004-05; 26 applications for funding were re-ceived in 2005-06.

(ii) 27 applications for funding were approved in 2004-05; 10 applications for funding were approved in 2005-06.

(2) (a) Approved projects are listed in column 1 of the table below.

(b) (c) are listed in columns 2 and 3 of the table below.

Site Communities for Children Initiative (Project)

Organisation Address Federal Electoral Division/s

Funding Paid as of 16 No-vember 2005

Fairfield The Smith Family Level 8, 35 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

Fowler/Prospect/ Reid

$173,352

Campbelltown The Benevolent Soci-ety

1/188 Oxford Street Paddington NSW 2021

McArthur $122,390

Blacktown Mission Australia 4-10 Campbell Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

Chifley/Greenway/ Prospect

$198,248

Wyong The Benovolent Soci-ety

1/188 Oxford Street Paddington NSW 2021

Dobell $184,127

Dubbo Centacare Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes

PO Box 957 Forbes NSW 2871

Parkes $211,031

Raymond Terrace Raymond Terrace Communities for Children (led by The Smith Family and including The Family Action Centre)

Level 8, 35 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

Paterson $158,195

Taree Mission Australia 4-10 Campbell Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

Patterson $179,498

Hume/ Broadmeadows

Opportunities for All Children (Led by Broadmeadows Unit-ing Care and includ-ing Dianella Commu-nity Health Inc and Orana Family Ser-vices)

413-419 Camp Road Broadmeadows VIC 3047

Calwell $200,210

Swan Hill / Robinvale

St Luke’s Angli-care/Mallee Care

PO Box 315 BENDIGO VIC 3552

Mallee $0.00

Brimbank Consortium:TSFSIS (Led by The Smith Family and including ISIS Primary Care)

Level 8, 35 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

Marybrinong $173,352

Greater Dande-nong

Consortium: Mission Australia – Greater Dandenong (Led by Mission Australia and including the City of Greater Dandenong

Level 2 398 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000

Bruce/Issacs $173,388

Bendigo St Luke’s Anglicare 32 Forest Street BENDIGO VIC 3552

Bendigo $43,435

Frankston Anglicare Victoria 12 Batman Street West Melbourne VIC 3000

Dunkley $182,154






Deception Bay Boystown PO Box 2000 MILTON QLD 4064

Petrie/Longman $113,558

Gladstone Consortium: Glad-stone Communities for Children (Led by Gladstone Area Pro-motion and Develop-ment Ltd and includ-ing Anglicare Central Queensland Ltd

Marina Ferry Terminal Bryan Jordan Drive Gladstone QLD 4680

Hinkler $176,385

Kingston /Loganlea / and Waterford West

The Salvation Army (Queensland) Prop-erty Trust as part of the Salvation Army Australia Eastern Territory

123 Paradise Road Slacks Creek QLD 4127

Forde $183,418

Inala-Ipswich Mission Australia 4-10 Campbell Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

Blair/Oxley $122,691

Onkaparinga Consortium: Healthy Families, Strong Communities (Led by Anglicare SA Inc. and including UnitingCare Wesley Adelaide)

18 King William Road North Adelaide SA 5006

Kingston $176,910

Port Augusta Unitingcare Wesley Port Pirie

60 Florence Street PORT PIRIE SA 5540

Grey $85,291

Salisbury The Salvation Army (South Australia) Property Trust

Cnr Bridge & Maxwell Roads Inglefarm SA 5098

Makin/Port Adelaide $174,301

Kwinana The Smith Family Level 8, 35 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

Brand $143,139

East Kimberly Consortium: Yam-baba Consortium (Led by Lingiari Founda-tion Inc. and includ-ing Save the Children Australia

Level 3 20 Council Street Hawthorn East VIC 3123

Kalgoorlie $0.00

Aramdale Communicare (Inc.) 28 Cecil Avenue Cannington WA 6107

Canning $210,742

Palmerston/ Tiwi Is

Australian Red Cross Northern Territory Division

19 Lambell Terrace Larrakeyah NT 0820

Solomon $201,175

East Arnhem Anglicare NT (Synod of the Diocese of the Northern Territory Inc)

PO Box 1791 Nhulunbuy NT 0881

Lingiari $59,274

Burnie Centacare Tasmania 108 Mount Street Burnie TAS 7320

Braddon $52,353






Inner North Can-berra

Northside Community Service Inc

PO Box 453 DICKSON ACT 2602

Fraser $116,345

*Lismore and YWCA NSW 5-11 Wentworth Ave-nue Sydney NSW

Page $607,950

+Murwillumbah YWCA NSW 5-11 Wentworth Ave-nue Sydney NSW

Page $0.00

*Launceston Anglicare Tas 18 Watchorn St Hobart Tas 7000

Bass $784,714

*Coomera Cedar Creek and Sur-rounds

Lifeline Australia 14 Thesiger Ct Deakin ACT 2614

Fadden/Forde $498,750

*East Gippsland Shire

Kilmany Uniting Care PO Box 454 Bairnsdale Vic 3875

Gippsland $796,086

*North Western Adelaide

Uniting Care Wesley Port Adelaide

PO Box 3032 Port Adelaide SA 5015

Port Adelaide $694,279

*Mirrabooka The Smith Family 35 Pitt St Sydney NSW 2000

Cowan/Stirling $870,390

*Miller Mission Australia 4-10 Campbell St Syd-ney NSW 2000

Werriwa $557,500

Shellharbour Barnardos Po BOX 76 13 Greene ST WARRAWONG NSW 2502

Throsby $0.00

Mt Isa and Sur-rounds

Centacare Catholic Family Services

PO Box 1362 AITKENVALE QLD 4814

Kennedy $0.00

Townsville West The Smith Family Good Beginnings

PO Box 10500 SYDNEY NSW 2001

Herbert $0.00

Cranbourne Windermere Child & Family Services

48 Webb St NARE WARREN VIC 3805

Holt $0.00

Lower Great Southern

Great Southern Divi-sion of General Prac-tice

PO Box 5294 ALBANY WA 6330

O’Conner $0.00

West Pilbra Red Cow Consortium PO Box 1404 KARRATHA WA 6714

Kalgoorlie $0.00

Murray Bridge Murraylands Connect-ing Communities Consortium

PO Box 1842 MOUNT GAMBIER SA 5290

Barker $0.00

South East Tas-mania

Salvation Army PO Box 50 NEW TOWN TAS-MANIA 7008

Lyons $0.00

Katherine The Smith Family Good Beginnings Consortium

PO Box K969 HAYMARKET NSW 1240

Lingiari $0.00

Cairns Mission Australia PO Box 479 STONES CORNER QLD 4120

Leichhardt $0.00

(d) The total sum spent to date is $8,624,624. Estimated expenditure for the financial years 2005-

06 to 2007-08 is $102.043 million.



(e) A tender process was conducted for all sites listed in the table above with the exception of those sites marked with either an asterisk or a cross in column 1. The number of tenders re-ceived was 104.

(3) Column 2 of the above table lists the Facilitating Partners.

(a) Facilitating Partners do not administer Programmes.

(b) The sum that each Facilitating Partner has received as of 16 November 2005 is listed in col-umn 5 of the table above.

(4) Seven sites and NGOs were initially selected to pilot the initiative. These sites are marked with an asterisk in column 1 in the table above. The remaining sites were subject to a competitive tender process with the exception of Murwillumbah (marked with a cross in column 1 of the table above) where an existing Facilitating Partner was invited to operate in that site.

(5) (a) Facilitating Partners may be approved where no applications were received for a particular site or the applications that were received did not meet the minimum standard to be a Facilitating Partner.

(b) Counting the seven listed at answer 4, nine.

(6) The Minister for Family and Community Services approves each grant following consideration of advice provided by FaCS and the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy Partnership.

(7) The National Evaluation Consortium comprising the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC), UNSW and the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) has drafted the National Evaluation Framework for the evaluation of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (SFCS) 2004-2008. (Against the National Agenda for Early Childhood (NAEC))

The draft National Evaluation Framework details the planned approach to the evaluation of the SFCS. The consortium provided the draft of the Framework to FaCS in November 2005. A copy of the final National Evaluation Framework will be available in December 2005 and placed on the FaCS SFCS internet site.

(8) Site specific, locally developed milestones and deliverable outcomes are outlined in each Facilitat-ing Partner’s funding agreement. These funding agreements are unique to each site against the NAEC.

Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs: Australian Chamber of Com-merce and Industry (Question No. 2586)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 8 November 2005: For each of the last nine financial years, what sum has been granted by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry or its predecessor.

Mr John Cobb—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: No grant money has been provided to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry or its prede-cessor by the Department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio during last nine financial years.

An amount of $5592.03 has been paid to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, during the last nine financial years regarding other payments.



Industry, Tourism and Resources: Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Question No. 2589)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 8 November 2005: For each of the last nine financial years, what sum has been granted by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry or its predecessor.

Mr Ian Macfarlane—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The information requested for all of the past nine financial years is not readily available and would re-quire an unreasonable diversion of resources to compile. Records in my Department’s current financial management information system only go back to 1999, therefore only payments made during the last six financial years is readily available.

The table below lists the payments made by my Department to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry during 1999-00 to 2004-05.

Financial Year Total Payments 1999-00 $27,245.63 2000-01 $22,665.00 2001-02 $6,456.53 2002-03 $65.00 2003-04 $5,270.85 2004-05 Nil

Records held indicate that there have been no payments made to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry by the agencies within my portfolio during 1999-00 to 2004-05.

Employment and Workplace Relations: Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Question No. 2590)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 8 November 2005: For each of the last nine financial years, what sum has been granted by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry or its predecessor.

Mr Andrews—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has provided payments to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and its predecessor for the following financial years:

$ 1996-1997 866,191 1997-1998 1,007,444 1998-1999 977,450 1999-2000 621,945 2000-2001 420,125 2001-2002 562,159 2002-2003 485,662 2003-2004 96,400 2004-2005 90,156



The only Portfolio Agency to have made payments to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Indus-try is the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and the details are as follows:

$ 1996-1997 300,000 1997-1998 200,000 1998-1999 200,000 1999-2000 200,000 2000-2001 200,000 2001-2002 281,505 2002-2003 220,000 2003-2004 220,000 2004-2005 360,672

Communications, Information Technology and the Arts: Australian Chamber of Com-merce and Industry (Question No. 2591)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 8 November 2005: For each of the last nine financial years, what sum has been granted by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry or its predecessor.

Mr McGauran—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: None of the agencies within the Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio have granted any money to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in any of the past nine finan-cial years.

The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has made one grant to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry during the past nine financial years.

Financial Year 2002/2003

Title of Project: Funding for the promotion of e-business practices

Total value of funding:

$200,000 (including GST)

Payment profile by financial year:

2002-2003: $100,000

2003-2004: $100,000

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Question No. 2593)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writ-ing, on 8 November 2005: For each of the last nine financial years, what sum has been granted by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry or its predecessor.



Mr McGauran—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No sums have been granted to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry or its predecessor for the last seven years. In accordance with Administrative Functions Disposal Authority entry number 1214 distributed by the National Archives of Australia, records are not kept beyond this time.

Media Ownership (Question No. 2596)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Informa-tion Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 8 November 2005: Further to the answers to question Nos 2322, 2323, 2325, 2368, 2369 and 2370 (Hansard, 31 October 2005, pages 126, 128 and 129), why does the Minister have nothing further to add to the information provided in relation to the Government’s agenda in respect of Australia’s media ownership laws, par-ticularly as they relate to the public interest and future of our democracy.

Mr McGauran—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Questions 2322, 2323, 2325, 2368, 2369 and 2370 have not varied in their substantive content. The honourable member has therefore been referred to previous answers to questions on the same topic.

The Minister has repeatedly indicated in response to the honourable member’s questions on media own-ership laws that the Government is considering how best to implement its commitment to reform Aus-tralia’s outdated media ownership restrictions.

As part of this process, the Minister announced in November 2005 that a position paper on a number of media reform issues will be issued for public consultation early in 2006.

Abortion (Question No. 2597)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 8 November 2005: Further to the answer to question No. 2148 (Hansard, 31 October 2005, page 107), is it the case the Government does not have a role in alerting Australian women; if not, why not.

Mr Abbott—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Although there have been some studies researching the link between abortion and premature birth risk, there is insufficient evidence of a clear causal link at this time to warrant government action in this area.

Consistent with my previous answer to question No. 2148, it is the responsibility of the medical practi-tioner concerned to discuss the possible associated risks in the light of an individual woman’s circum-stances as part of gaining informed consent to conduct any medical procedure.

Consumer Medicine Information Scheme (Question No. 2599)

Mr Laurie Ferguson asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 9 November 2005: (1) What investigations has the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) undertaken in relation to the

delivery of information to the public through the Consumer Medicine Information (CMI) process.

(2) Is there any connection between evidence of delivery of CMI and the related payment to pharma-cists for the medicines.

(3) How many CMI documents have been sent back for revision.



(4) What evidence is available on (a) the level of public awareness of the scheme and (b) whether the scheme is meeting its objectives.

(5) Has the scheme been advertised; if so, what sum was spent on it.

(6) Is he aware that according to the Pharmacy Guild’s evaluation of the CMI program, only 33% of pharmacists reported that they always provided CMI the first time a consumer was prescribed a medicine and that only 16% of consumers in one year, and 21% of consumers in another year re-ported they had received CMI.

(7) Can he confirm that the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia guidelines state that CMI should be provided 100% of the time to first time consumers and does the TGA formally monitor this process or have any checks and balances in place in relation to the CMI scheme.

(8) What forms of monitoring of the CMI is undertaken by the TGA.

Mr Abbott—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) engaged the services of mpconsulting in November

2004 to provide advice to the TGA on the most appropriate means for improving consumer and professional access to web based copies of up-to-date Consumer Medicine Information (CMI) and Product Information (PI) documents.

Following an initial exploration of some of the issues, mpconsulting prepared an Initial Discussion Paper in April 2005 to provide a basis for scoping further discussions with stakeholders. The Initial Discussion Paper Improving access to prescription medicines information is available on the TGA website available at: http://www.tga.gov.au/consult/index.htm and was subject to a period of con-sultation. The responses from that consultation are being considered and further work is to be un-dertaken on this issue.

(2) The CMI scheme provides a payment to pharmacists to assist them to meet additional costs associ-ated with printing and explaining CMIs. Pharmacists are required to certify every two months that they have provided CMIs in accordance with the provisions of the CMI scheme.

(3) All prescription medicines must be supplied with a CMI document and the TGA reviews CMI documents as part of its evaluation process. The Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 set out the requirements CMI documents must meet and if assessors believe that CMI documents do not meet these they are ‘sent back’. CMI documents must also be consistent with the PI document for health professionals and therefore are regularly reviewed when changes to the PI document are made.

(4) (a) An evaluation of the CMI scheme was undertaken by Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) under con-tract to the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. The TNS evaluation showed that in April 2004, 47% of consumers who had a prescription filled in the previous six months were aware of CMIs, compared with 41 per cent who were aware of the program in July 2003.

(b) The main objectives of the CMI scheme are to promote the quality use of medicines and assist consumers to make informed decisions.

The TNS evaluation showed that the majority of participating pharmacists are better equipped and more focused on providing their customers with CMIs.

The evaluation report also showed that since the commencement of the CMI scheme, around 90% of consumers who were surveyed reported greater knowledge of the possible side effects and inter-actions of their medications.

(5) The Pharmacy Guild promoted the CMI scheme in pharmacies in September and November 2002. Promotion to consumers included the provision of posters and cards displayed on pharmacy count-ers. Promotion to pharmacists included distribution of registration forms and program guidelines. A total of $42,618 (excluding GST) was spent on this promotion, for approximately 5,000 pharma-cies.



In June 2005, the Australian Government funded the Pharmacy Guild of Australia to organise the “Ask Your Pharmacist Week” information program. One of the aims of the program was to raise awareness of CMI. Key activities included raising public awareness and demand for CMI, and the development of new pharmacy and consumer CMI promotion materials. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia spent a total of $668,490 (excluding GST) on the “Ask Your Pharmacist Week” informa-tion program.

The Australian Government funded National Prescribing Service promotes awareness of CMI through its Community Quality Use of Medicines Program. It is not possible to provide a specific expenditure figure for the CMI awareness activities undertaken as part of this program.

(6) Yes.

(7) The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (PSA) Pharmacy Practice Handbook 2000 states, in part, that “CMI may be offered to the patient each time a product is dispensed. Whether this is appropri-ate is a matter for professional judgement. Specific circumstances where CMI should be provided include when a medicine is first provided to the patient.”

The TGA does not formally monitor this process.

(8) See part (3).