Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 149 the committee will first consider the schedule to the bill. It might suit the convenience of the Main Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order shown in the schedule which has been circulated to honourable members. I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Main Committee that the proposed order for consideration of portfolios’ estimates has been discussed with the opposition and other non-government members, and there has been no objection to what is proposed.

The schedule read as follows—

Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio

Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio

Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Portfolio

Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Portfolio

Industry, Tourism and Resources Portfolio

Environment and Heritage Portfolio

Transport and Regional Services Portfolio

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio

Attorney-General’s Portfolio

Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio

Health and Ageing Portfolio

Defence Portfolio (Department of Veterans’ Affairs)

Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio

Treasury Portfolio

Finance and Administration Portfolio (including Department of Human Services)

Education, Science and Training Portfolio

Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio (continued)

Is it the wish of the Main Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Families, Community Services And Indigenous Affairs Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $2,444,747,000.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek clarification. We were expecting the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to be present this morning.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Community Services is present.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We were expecting Mal Brough.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Community Services is representing Mr Brough.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The agreement that has been published and circulated has Mr Brough on the list.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have an amended list which says ‘Mr Cobb’. Maybe it has changed.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition has not been made aware of any such amendment. We have in front of us a document—‘Appropriation and related budget bills, consideration in detail, Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Minister Brough, 45 minutes’.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The list does not hold as far as the committee is concerned. We do have a minister here.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that, but there was no courtesy extended to the opposition. You have an amendment, the government has an amendment and, again, the opposition is left in the dark.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you should take that up with the Leader of the House.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly do not mean any disrespect to the minister present; we are grateful for his presence indeed. But I find it extraordinary that the minister who is prepared to mouth off in public day after day about the great things that his government is doing for Indigenous affairs, child care and the other areas in his responsibility does not have the common courtesy to the parliament to turn up when he is expected to to answer questions about his portfolio responsibilities. I am sure that the minister present can answer questions about his areas of responsibility but he cannot answer about Minister Brough’s areas of responsibility. We were led to expect him here today, and I think we need to place it on record that it is an absolutely appalling act of arrogance not to turn up today. It is gutless in the extreme. Let me start by asking the minister that we do have present, who has had the courtesy to turn up, whether he is able to answer questions in the area of child care and Indigenous affairs.

John Cobb (Parkes, National Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will endeavour to do so.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the lead-up to the budget we were led to expect a great deal to be done in the area of child care. One of the areas that was under constant discussion was shortages in child care. We were led to expect something quite impressive in that area. The minister’s press release on budget night included a statement that was an admission of 10 years of neglect and mismanagement in the area of child care. It says:

... there is no reliable, centralised and independent source of child care market data to ensure that the movements in supply and demand can be accurately tracked.

That is an admission that 10 years of neglect and mismanagement means that there is no reliable and centralised data. That is what Labor has been saying for years now. We were also told in that press release that a national child-care management system would be set up and it would ‘support approved child-care services to implement a more streamlined process, cutting unnecessary red tape and providing parents with improved access to information on child-care availability’, that it would ‘provide services with access to technology, systems and information exchange that many services have never had access to before’ and that final ‘funding will be announced in the future’.

There is nothing in the budget that talks about the funding for the management system. The only significant new funding in the budget is for fraud and compliance, and that money is allocated to spot checks, as far as we can tell, which is the only measure specified under that initiative and costed at the very precise figure of $50.8 million. The first thing I want to ask in relation to spot checks is: can the minister provide us with the information—which he does not seem to have announced publicly but only leaked selectively to some newspapers—on the extent of fraud estimated in the child-care sector? We have no idea whether $50.8 million is too much or not enough. We have no idea, if there is significant fraud in the child-care area, whether it will be enough of a measure to stamp that out or, indeed, whether it is overkill. So I would like to know what the estimates of fraud are and whether this $50.8 million is simply for spot checks or will cover other measures as well. Is any of the $50.8 million to be spent on the PIN or smartcard that the minister has spoken about in public? Do we know whether it is going to be a PIN or a smartcard? Have you any details so far of that fraud and compliance system?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has indicated that he will answer the questions at the finish. Does the member for Sydney have any other questions?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly do. I will then ask further questions about the national child-care management system. It is curious: during Senate estimates, we had senior government officials saying that the new management system would not measure shortages in child care, that shortages are not a problem to be dealt with by the government, that shortages are a problem that the market will solve. Very shortly afterwards, we had the minister come out and say that shortages would be measured by the new management system. In doing so he gave the impression that the department does not know what the minister is planning for this new management system and that the minister is basically making it up as he goes along—that whatever is running in the media that day as a criticism of the government is going to be solved by the new management system that the government is introducing.

On 30 May we had senior officials saying that the system will not measure demand but will simply act as a referral and information service for parents who want information about vacancies. That means that you can ring up and say, ‘I’m looking for a vacancy in a particular suburb,’ and the telephone line will tell you what you already know—‘There are no vacancies in your suburb.’ Will it or will it not provide information about where there are areas of unmet demand? Most importantly, if it is to provide the government with information about unmet demand, what is the government going to do about that unmet demand?

If this new management system says that there are whole suburbs where there is no family day care available or there are whole suburbs where long day care is not available, what measures will the government take to meet unmet demand in that area? Will it invest in setting up new centres? Will it support private operators, community operators and not-for-profit operators to set up in areas of high demand? Will there be any intervention in the market to help in those areas of unmet demand? What is the point of collecting the statistics if the government is not prepared to act on those areas of unmet demand?

I would also like to ask the minister about the PIN or swipe card that the minister has been talking about in the media recently. I am not sure whether this is an official announcement of the government or whether it is a strategic leak—like some of the other measures that the minister likes to announce and then say that they have not actually been announced. I would like to know if any work has been done on whether it will be a PIN system or a swipe card system and whether there is any information about how much this is likely to cost child-care centre operators.

Is every family day care provider in the country supposed to have some new machinery so that they can read a PIN or a swipe card? Are they going to be paying for it themselves? How much is it likely to cost every child-care provider in the country? We are talking about family day carers who are struggling to pay for the shatter-proof glass that they need to have in their homes to be able to care for children, let alone any new equipment that will read PINs or swipe cards. We also read in the Financial ReviewI guess it is another strategic leak—on 11 May that the tender for the new management system will be under way within two months of the budget. Is that still on track? Are the tender documents being drawn up? If that is the case, the government should be able to tell us whether it is a PIN card or some other system that will be used in the future.

I have one final question in this information management section. We have been told that child-care providers will be submitting information to a telephone line weekly. If they have no vacancies, will they still have to go through the motions of filling in the paperwork and sending it off to Centrelink? Will child-care providers in the areas where there are no vacancies and it is unlikely there will be any vacancies—where they have waiting lists of 200 or 400—be forced to go through the motions of filling in all the paperwork just to make Centrelink happy? (Time expired)

Kelly Hoare (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like all members in this place, I had lots of contact with constituents following the budget about how it was going to affect them personally, and not very many of them had a favourable reaction. But there is a particular case that I want to raise with the minister during this opportunity today. I have already written the minister a letter but I have not had a response, so I am taking this opportunity to try and seek that response.

One of my constituents was concerned about the payment of the utilities allowance to age pensioners and self-funded retirees. She was concerned that the changes announced in the budget provided eligible individual self-funded retirees with access to the utilities allowance, whereas couples receiving the age pension were only entitled to one payment per couple, or per household. The budget speech stated that they would also share in—and I quote:

... an additional one-off payment equal to the annual amount of the utilities allowance of $102.80 to each household with a person of Age or Service Pension age eligible for that allowance.

In the same paragraph it stated:

A $102.80 payment will also be provided to each self-funded retiree who is eligible for Seniors Concession Allowance.

I received an answer to question No. 1921 from the Minister for Human Services in October last year, in which he said:

The social security system recognises that single pensioners need more income to have a similar standard of living to, and run a household like, couples. Couples gain economies and advantages from living together. Single people cannot usually share costs, such as electricity, telephone, heating and house maintenance.

My question to the minister is: is he able to advise why it is that self-funded retirees are paid the utilities allowance as individuals, irrespective of their couple status? I have already provided the minister at the table, the Minister for Community Services, with a copy of my question, if he wants to refer to that.

The couple who wrote to me outlined their own personal situation and what they have to pay out. They both rely on the age pension for their income, so they are not flush with funds. It seems to have been the direction taken by this government that the rich are rewarded and the poor are punished. My constituent recognises that self-funded retirees are helping the government by providing for their own retirement. She goes on to say:

Unfortunately, there are many people who, through circumstances and family situations, need to be assisted by our Commonwealth Government.

They just exist on their pension, as many pensioners do. Her question, as I said—and that is why I am directing it to the minister—is: why is each self-funded retiree receiving the entire amount of this payment while each pensioner household has to share the $102.80?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to turn now to the question of child-care costs. The minister has admitted recently that child-care costs have risen ‘significantly’—and that is his word—although he rejects the figures on fee increases in long day care that are derived from data published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and also answers supplied by the previous minister, Senator Kay Patterson.

Consumer price index figures published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that child-care fees are rising at about five times the rate of other goods and services bought by Australian parents. In 2002-03, the cost of child care rose by 17 per cent while the general CPI rose by only 3.1 per cent. In 2003-04, child care increased by another 12.2 per cent while the general CPI rose by three per cent. In 2004-05, child care increased by another 12.4 per cent compared to a rise in the general CPI of 2½ per cent. So CPI figures for the first quarter of this year show that child-care costs have increased by more than five per cent in just three months compared to a general inflation rate of 0.9 per cent. The 5.1 per cent increase for child care is a huge rise for just one quarter of the year—the largest in almost three years. The Australian Bureau of Statistics household expenditure survey shows that, between 1998-99 and 2003-04, child-care fees have risen by 34 per cent. Answers to questions on notice supplied by Family and Community Services last year, combined with historical data compiled by the Institute of Health and Welfare, showed increases at around the 50 per cent mark for full-time care in long day care centres.

The minister has rejected these figures although they have been provided by respectable bodies which include his own department. But he has admitted that the rises have been significant. I would like to hear from the minister what he believes the actual rises in the cost of child care have been and how he believes the rises should be calculated and what result that gives him.

I also want to ask the minister about the shortage of family day care workers. Family day care is one area of the federal budget that is uncapped. Unfortunately, before the uncapping there were already 30,000 undelivered places in the system because of a nationwide shortage of family day care workers. I note that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations notes in its recent skills in demand list that there are shortages of child-care workers and directors in every state and territory. Were the 30,000 places that were undelivered before the last budget allocated to schemes in the past? Were schemes asking for those places or is the actual situation that schemes were not asking for those places because they simply did not have the workers to care for the children? I want to know if the reason there were so many undelivered places before the cap was lifted was simply that there were not enough family day care workers because—and I think family day care workers would agree with this—their wages are insufficient given the important and valuable work that they do.

I also want to know from the minister what evidence there is that lifting the cap is going to make any difference at all in the number of family day care places actually delivered, given that we have 30,000 unused places in the system that are undelivered for a variety of reasons, mostly because there are not enough family day care workers as the remuneration is not good enough. How is lifting the cap going to make a single bit of earthly difference to the actual delivery of family day care places to families on the ground? (Time expired)

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to turn to choice in child care. In the past there has been a lot of government rhetoric about choice, such as choice of superannuation fund and Work Choices. However, it appears that when it comes to child care the minister thinks that families should be prepared to take any child-care place that is available even if a family is not happy with the quality of care that is offered, even if it is a family day care place but the family wants a long day care place or even if it is a long day care place and the family prefers a family day care place.

Labor believes that parents should be able to choose the type of care that best suits their children and that they should have a choice when it comes to the quality of care. If they believe that the quality of a service is not suitable for their child then they have a right not to take the place. So I will be very curious to know, when the new telephone line is finally set up, if that ever actually happens—and we now hear from the minister, although we are not sure whether it is an announcement or just a press statement, that figures will be collected on vacancies—whether the government will accept the situation of parents saying they want family day care for their children when there is only long day care available in the suburb as being unmet demand for child care. Will that be included in any statistics that are collected, if they are collected, or does the government believe a vacancy is a vacancy is a vacancy? Will parents be allowed to have any choice at all when it comes to the type of child care suitable for their child?

I want to turn away from child-care now and move on to Indigenous affairs, an area that I know the Minister for Community Services, who has bothered to turn up today, is very interested in. These are specific questions about Wadeye, a community that the minister for Indigenous affairs has visited on several occasions. Is it the case, in relation to Wadeye, that, since mid-2004, FaCSIA has provided no programs to target family violence on the ground, that it promised $50,000 two years ago to run a community patrol but that has not happened, and that the minister’s own department says it is not their responsibility, despite families and women being an agreed priority of the Wadeye COAG trial?

I want the minister to answer the question about how he feels comfortable with allowing his government, the Howard government, to blame the Northern Territory government and the community itself when it is the minister’s own department that has been the lead agency in a whole-of-government trial at Wadeye for nearly four years. Despite the fact that there have been 10 official and very high profile visits to the region, there has not been a single iota of improvement in the lives of local Indigenous people. It is all very well to be blaming this government or that government or the people themselves when the minister’s own department has been the lead agency in the whole-of-government trial, yet there has been no substantial improvement, as the minister himself was pleased to announce on the front page of the Australian.

Is it the case that the women of Wadeye talked about their concerns to the federal government in October 2005 and that the Howard government did nothing? Is it the case that the Wadeye community applied for a crime prevention grant in 2005 and received no response? Is it the case that the women there met again with the federal government through early 2006 and still there was no action taken on their concerns? Did the minister himself visit the community, talk up the problem and again walk away without offering any constructive solution to the critical situation there? Is it the case that the community has been asking for help, calling for help, demanding it, for at least six months as problems there have been escalating but has had no response beyond the government sending a senior bureaucrat to tell gang members to fix up their houses? (Time expired)

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also wanted to ask the minister for Indigenous affairs about something else, if he had bothered turning up. He has spoken in the past about using a card system to divert social security cash benefits from some recipients so that benefits could only be used to pay for food, rent and utilities. I would like to ask the minister to report on what progress has been made in developing that plan. I want to know specifically what provisions have been made in this year’s budget for implementing the plan or whether it was just another thing plucked out of the air and announced on the front page of the Australian with no back-up and no follow-through.

Apart from the provision of a sniffer dog team, what provisions are there in the budget to alleviate the shocking plight of outback communities ravaged by drink, petrol sniffing and drugs? Is it just about the headlines? What actual measures are there to improve the situation of families living in these communities? Is the minister aware of the call by his colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing for an integrated system to treat alcohol abuse in remote communities? What provisions are there in the budget for such an integrated system or is it once more put into the too-hard basket?

John Cobb (Parkes, National Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I go back to the member for Sydney’s questions on child care initially. There was quite a row of them, but I will attempt to deal with some of them together. It seemed to me that many of the questions that the member for Sydney raised revolved around the issue of the child-care management system which the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the government spoke about—the smartcard and how the system will be managed. A lot of that seemed to me to come down to the issue of the child-care management system, which the government put over $50 million into.

The child-care management system will be built on the previously announced expansion of the child-care access hotline. Even though the cap has been lifted, it will include information on vacancies and information for providers in regions. It will provide information as to where vacancies do and do not occur—in other words, where families can most easily take advantage of those things that are available and what areas need to be looked at by providers themselves.

Until now, there has been a total lack of reliable centralised information on the supply of child care and associated demand. I have no doubt that the issues already addressed by the minister will address the shortcoming. It will streamline processes and reduce the administration burden on child-care services. It will help people get access to technology and systems that many have never had access to before and provide an automated system for the exchange of information. It will also allow the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the government to have up-to-date information on the supply, availability and the utilisation of it. We will announce further details of the child-care management system as soon as it is completed.

The member for Sydney talked about what the government have done to address the issue of fraud in various ways. It is true that we conducted audits around Australia as to what was happening. In future, there will be audits undertaken of child-care systems around Australia, as indeed there should be. I think a lot of this has to do with people—providers in particular, be they family day care providers, organisers or child-care centres—knowing what is expected of them. Some of this involves education. I suspect a small part may involve something worse, but obviously the auditing will look at that and, if necessary, deal with it.

The states put in place licensing and regulations. I have no argument with regulations. We are talking about children and, obviously, they have to be properly provided for. But, quite often, the rise in child-care costs is to do with the new licensing and regulations that are put in place. The costs of child care rose at twice the rate under the Labor government than they have under the Howard government. At the same time, we have doubled the places and doubled the amount of money that we have put towards child care.

As far as shortages and availability are concerned, the member for Sydney mentioned choice. I think the budget measures go a long way towards resolving that. The fact that there has been an uncapping of all places, except for occasional care and home care—in other words, at least 99 per cent of all child-care places—obviously means that people do have an absolute choice. The member for Sydney raised a very good point—we have to have family day carers, and we are addressing that issue. The member for Sydney referred to workers—I assume she meant carers in family day care. They are not really workers; they are carers in the home. (Extension of time granted) There are a few issues about that. No. 1 was the uncapping of that situation. No. 2 was that we looked at a payment of $1,500 to be put towards providing at least 600 places, and we will see what comes out of that.

Probably something that is also important in getting a lot more carers involved in family day care is regionalisation rather than, as has been the practice, local government areas running a family day care system between them. I could use the example of my own electorate of Parkes, where the local government areas of Forbes and Parkes run a family day care system. Up to now, carers within those areas have had no choice other than to work there. Under the regional system being introduced, they will be able to practise wherever they choose. In other words, theoretically, it will be possible for a family day care organisation out of Perth to run one in the seat of Parkes. That is not likely to happen, but the point is that regionalisation will mean that a carer does not have to go under a system locally. Somebody in Parkes could actually run a family day care in Dubbo because it might be a system that suits them better.

Family day care is a very big issue, particularly regionally, because it is very often one of the few options there. We are committed to making family day care more available to more people. Yes, there are a lot of underused places. Uncapping, while it does not make those unused places immediately used, does mean there is no limit in any town anywhere in Australia on people’s ability to partake of it. I have not necessarily answered them in the order they were asked, but they are the main issues that were brought up by the member for Sydney.

The member for Charlton asked about self-funded retirees. While I do not pretend to know all the answers on self-funded retirees, I would like to point out to her that households in receipt of utilities allowance and seniors concession allowance will receive a one-off payment of seniors concession allowance of $102.80. In 2004-05 we introduced a utilities allowance for older Australians on income support to provide additional assistance with household bills and the seniors concession allowance for holders of the Commonwealth’s seniors health card in recognition of the fact that this group does not receive concessions from most state and territory governments.

In the short time left, I will return to the issues to do with Indigenous Australians and family violence brought up by the member for Sydney. I thank her for saying that I do have an interest, and I can assure you that I do. That is a very big part of my electorate, as it is for all regional Australians. I say firstly that I do not believe for one second that the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs attacked the Northern Territory government. What he was doing was offering cooperation to deal with an issue not just in the Northern Territory but Australia-wide. This is not just an issue for the Northern Territory; this is an issue Australia-wide, as has been recognised by the premiers of all other states. This is about leadership and the fact that Aboriginal leadership around Australia has recognised we cannot go on as we are. I think people have got the guts now to face up to issues they did not want to face before. I think what Minister Brough was doing was saying, ‘It is time to use the fact that everyone is now willing to face up to issues that have to be faced.’ I am very proud to be part of a government that—and to work for a minister who—is willing to face up to this. I hope governments like the Northern Territory government will work with us to do so.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly, while I appreciate that the minister is answering questions outside his portfolio responsibilities, I asked a number of quite specific questions, such as: is the $50 million going to be spent on spot checks or the new phone line? What will the government do when shortages are discovered? Who is going to bear the cost of the PIN card equipment? He did not have the information to hand, so I ask that the questions that have not been fully answered and those that have not been answered at all be taken on notice and responded to in writing when the minister has the chance.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $4,709,419,000.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Part of these appropriations relate to the Office of Workplace Services. The minister is in the chamber and I refer him to a report of the Office of Workplace Services entitled Cowra Abattoirs: report of an investigation into alleged breaches of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. That is dated May 2006, and the last paragraph of the last page of that report, entitled Conclusions/recommendations, states:

In any event, the investigation leads to a conclusion that the “dominant” reason for Cowra Abattoirs conduct ... was to make the operation efficient and to ultimately secure the financial viability of the company .... Thus there does not appear to be a breach of ... the Act nor ... the section. It is therefore submitted that no further action is taken at this time.

Will the minister confirm the existence of this report? Will the minister confirm the conclusions and recommendations? As a consequence, will the minister finally admit that the conduct by the owners of the abattoir shortly after the government’s legislation came into effect was lawful under the act?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the honourable member for Perth fully knows, the Director of the Office of Workplace Services has indicated that he is still investigating the matter.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The report is pretty conclusive in its conclusion and recommendations; I can only therefore ask that the minister respond. It was revealed in Senate estimates that when the Cowra Abattoir story became public in, amongst other newspapers, the Canberra Times, it caused a staff member from the minister’s office to contact the Office of Workplace Services. Who was that staff member? Was that contact authorised by the minister? Has there been ongoing contact with his office since the publication or presentation of the report with its conclusive recommendations and conclusions?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I recall, the Director of the Office of Workplace Services—I think during the Senate estimates process—indicated that, prior to him taking up his role, the office had decided to investigate the matter, which is fully appropriate. I presume the member for Perth is not making the suggestion that there should not have been an investigation into this matter.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am making the suggestion that the minister has in his possession a report from the Office of Workplace Services, which is conclusive both in its conclusions and its recommendations. I am also suggesting that, following the receipt of that report, the minister or his office contacted the Office of Workplace Services and suggested that further work might need to be done because that suited the political convenience of the minister and the government. When will the minister finally admit that the conclusions of this report indicate quite clearly that the conduct and actions of the owners of the Cowra Abattoir were lawful in accordance with the government’s new legislation?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only repeat what I have said and what the Director of the Office of Workplace Services indicated, and that is that his investigation is not yet concluded. I respectfully suggest to the honourable member opposite that he wait until the investigation is concluded. If he wants to draw conclusions then he may do so, but I do not intend to comment further.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did the minister order—

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In order for there to be some order to this debate, I call the member for Perth.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will do my best not to jump the gun again. Given that the minister is in possession of a report, of which the conclusions and recommendations are clear-cut, is it or is it not the case that the minister, his staff or his office, subsequent to the receipt of this report, contacted the Office of Workplace Services and suggested that further work be done so as to provide the minister with a report which was more suitable to the minister’s political convenience?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the honourable member for Perth.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let the Hansard transcript record that the minister failed or refused to get to his feet and that he failed or refused to respond to the suggestion that I have made. I can take one or two conclusions from that, one of which is guilty as charged.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Perth is seeking to verbal me. He ought to know better than to do that. The reality is that the Director of the Office of Workplace Services is continuing to investigate this matter, as he should, as he is charged to do under his responsibility. I say to the member for Perth: if he wishes to draw some conclusions about this on the basis of some document he has, he is entitled to go out there in the public square and do so. But he ought to also take into account the fact that the Office of Workplace Services is continuing to investigate this matter. For my part, I will wait until that investigation is concluded and then I can draw whatever conclusions I want to, and I suggest the member for Perth does equally.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was there any contact by the minister, his office or his staff with the Office of Workplace Services following the receipt by the minister and his office of this report? And was the suggestion made by the minister, his staff or his office that further work should be done so as to provide the minister with a report which was more suitable to his political convenience?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The suggestion is below the honourable member opposite who is making it.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All you have to do is say yes or no. Was contact made or not?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stephen, I will answer your questions if you behave yourself. But, if you are just going to carry on like that, I do not think there is much point in doing this.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not for you to tell me how to conduct myself.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister is responding. The minister also has no obligation to respond after each contribution from the honourable member for Perth. He can choose to make a contribution at the end of each five-minute interval or at the end of the debate.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the minister seen this evidence given in Senate estimates by the Office of the Employment Advocate, Mr McIlwain? He said:

Clearly, regulation 2.8.5(1)(c) identifies as prohibited content training or leave to attend training, however described, provided by a trade union.

Does the minister agree with the Office of the Employment Advocate that leave to attend trade union training is prohibited conduct under the government’s legislation?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. I call the honourable member for Perth.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is failing or refusing to get to his feet to answer a question, is he?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take it that the minister has chosen to respond at a later point in this debate.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or not at all. So it is the dummy spit, is it?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Perth has the call, or I will give it to someone else.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the minister recall these remarks of the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Abetz, who represents him in the Senate? When asked the same question about regulation 8.5(1)(c) he said:

No matter how it is described, it is ... prohibited content. Therefore we could call it ‘doing the work of angels’ or all sorts of wonderful things but, at the end of the day, the regulation is very clear.

Does the minister agree that, under the government’s legislation, leave to attend trade union training is prohibited content under the government’s legislation?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. I call the honourable member for Perth.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I find it extraordinary that we have this dummy spit from the minister. The minister gets very precious, because he refuses to answer a question about a report that is provided to him by the Office of Workplace Services in respect of Cowra Abattoir when it is crystal clear to the entire community that the owners of Cowra Abattoir effected an unfair dismissal against the employees of that abattoir, consistent with the government’s legislation—operational reasons for a company that has more than 100 employees.

The minister does a dummy spit when he is sprung on that and then sits rooted to his chair, either through fear or arrogance—or both—and refuses to answer the question that he has been asked on any number of occasions, because it does not suit his political convenience. Is leave for trade union training prohibited content under the government’s legislation?

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. I call the honourable member for Perth.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Frankly, I find this quite extraordinary. The minister is here. He could have sent a parliamentary secretary or a junior minister if he so desired. If he wants to waste the time of Commonwealth taxpayers by sitting here, refusing to respond in any reasonable way to reasonable questions, he might just as well go back to his office and send a representative. This is the one occasion in the course of the year when members of this place get a chance to ask ministers of the Crown detailed questions in respect of their portfolio responsibilities.

These are detailed questions which go to appropriations of taxpayers’ money. After three or four quite gentle questions, the minister spits his dummy and now sits rooted to his chair—through fear or arrogance or both—doing nothing other than desperately watching the clock tick down. What sort of farce have we got here? Mr Deputy Speaker, are you going to use your good offices to see whether the minister is actually seriously interested in the workings of this chamber and this House or whether he is proposing to sit there, after 10 long years, an arrogant representative of an arrogant government, refusing to be held accountable in any reasonable way, either through this House or through the parliament?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are well aware of the way in which the consideration in detail runs. Ministers can choose to respond at the end of each five-minute interval or at the end, as they please.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek clarification as to whether the minister is simply going to wait until the time expires and not answer any questions—in which case there is not much point and the whole exercise will be high farce—or whether the minister will respond now to inform us of his plans in responding to these questions.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the honourable member for Rankin, I will respond at the end of the questions; but I am not going to engage in the sort of juvenile conduct that the member for Perth is engaging in.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the minister thinks that juvenile conduct is members of the House turning up and asking him questions about—

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Andrews interjecting

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have asked them. Did your office, or did it not, contact the Office of Workplace Services after you had received this report and suggest to the office that further work might be done because a subsequent report might suit your political convenience better than the report they handed to you in May 2006? That report said in its conclusions and recommendations:

... the investigation leads to a conclusion that the “dominant” reason for Cowra Abattoirs conduct ... was to make the operation efficient and to ultimately secure the financial viability of the company ... Thus there does not appear to be a breach of  ... the Act nor ... the section. ... no further action is taken at this time.

Did your office, or did your office not, approach the Office of Workplace Services to try to get a better report that might suit your political convenience? When will you finally admit that what Cowra Abattoir did was lawful under your act? You can knock off anyone who works for a company of fewer than 100 employees, and for someone who works for a company of greater than 100 employees, like Cowra Abattoir, ‘operational reasons’ suffices. Answer that question.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. Before I call the honourable member for New England, I do remind everyone making a contribution in this debate that it will be to the benefit of everyone involved if the questions are put through the chair.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point which I would like the minister to clarify on the Work Choices legislation, particularly relating to sections of prohibited content in workplace agreements. Minister, could you outline the role of the minister, as you see it, in relation to prohibited content in workplace agreements. Is it correct to say that the minister of the day can delete certain content from workplace agreements if he or she sees fit?

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we are on the question of reports, the minister would be aware of a report commissioned by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations from the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University, which was commissioned before the Work Choices legislation was tabled but after the announcement outlining the broad content of the legislation, that announcement being made by the Prime Minister. I have sought access to that report of the Centre of Policy Studies under freedom of information legislation. The department appears to be using every piece of technical and legal device to deny access to that report. I ask the minister, in the spirit of the democratic traditions of this parliament and the public interest in such a report, whether he will make the report available to me and through me to the Australian public.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to return to the matter of prohibited content. Can the minister take on board the statement by Senator Abetz, who I think represented him at Senate estimates, when he said:

No matter how it is described, it is ... prohibited content. Therefore we can call it ‘doing the work of angels’ or all sorts of wonderful things, but at the end of the day, the regulation is very clear.

Given that this appears to conflict with the statements by the minister himself in the House of Representatives, I wonder: has he reprimanded Senator Abetz or has he misled the House?

Kelly Hoare (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My questions to the minister go to Welfare to Work changes being implemented on 1 July. I have been approached by various support organisations in my electorate with many questions about the implementation of that program. Firstly, in relation to people’s work capacity, I would like to know the qualifications of the work capacity assessors and whether they are vocationally trained. I would like to know what criteria will be used to assess capacity to work and whether we can have access to those criteria. A  particular organisation that I represent needs that for their clients.

In relation to people on the disability support pension, are undiagnosed conditions or episodic illnesses acknowledged and will they be accommodated in the assessments? When people’s benefits are suspended in relation to activity testing, how will the financial support for access to transport for work be accessed? Which non-government organisations in the Hunter will administer emergency relief to people suspended from benefits? Are we able to have the criteria for how priorities for clients will be decided? We would like to know how the exploitation of job subsidies by employers will be monitored and whether those employers will be punished. When can customers who have been sacked through the new industrial relations laws be able to access Centrelink benefits because the unfair dismissal category no longer exists? What is the process for intending TAFE students who are not engaged in the Job Network but want to do a short-term course?

How will carers receiving a carer allowance and carer payment be affected if the person being cared for has to work 15 hours per week? A high percentage of carers will have to transport them to and from work as well as organise their regular caring tasks. Will carers be financially affected? Also, will carers have to work 15 hours per week if their role is to provide care for a disabled person? This will cause a lot more stress and difficulty for that carer.

How will young people aged 15 to 16 get short-course approval when transitioning directly out of school into short course or accredited training which is not through a TAFE, such as Links to Learning, if these young people are not members of a Job Network provider? Will counselling, group work or eight-week therapeutic programs—for example, for anger management or relationship difficulties—be part of participation and can they be used as an activity? Who will be able to advocate for young people who have been sacked after a subsidised placement ends? How often can a business apply for a wage subsidised employee?

In relation to client consent, how is this obtained? Will it be conditional to receipt of benefit and what will the consent include? What are the reasonable excuses criteria used to assess whether or not a client will get a strike against them? Also, can a participation failed young person—that is, somebody who has failed their activity test—have their family benefit awarded to a person nominated by them if they do not have a healthy relationship with their parents? For example, can that payment go to a youth service? I have a couple of questions and I am unsure as to whether they should be directed to this minister. They relate to the Voluntary Work Initiative. I have already placed them on notice to the Minister for Human Services.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ask your questions to me anyway.

Kelly Hoare (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister confirm that contracts for the Voluntary Work Initiative for organisations providing services for the federal divisions of Charlton, Dobell, Hunter, Paterson, Robertson and Shortland for 2006-07 have been finalised? Will the minister advise which organisations in those divisions have been awarded contracts to be VWI providers? (Extension of time granted) Can the minister advise when the contracts were finalised for 2006-07 and if all services will be able to commence on 1 July 2006? If there is any delay in the commencement period, will the minister advise why this is the case?

In relation to other services provided by support organisations, I have been advised by some that they have not received any advice from the government about the Welfare to Work changes so they do not know how they are going to affect the clients they case manage. Can the minister advise what efforts Centrelink has undertaken to keep welfare organisations and other non-government organisations aware of the government’s Welfare to Work changes and the impact these changes are expected to have on prospective clients of such organisations? Many welfare organisations have been contacted by their clients seeking advice and assistance in relation to changes. Will the minister be able to provide details of the resources that have been provided to organisations and workers in the welfare sector in the federal division of Charlton to ensure that they have been kept informed of the Welfare to Work changes?

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question to the minister that may be slightly outside his ambit but which relates to employment services, particularly the Job Network. I would like the minister to look into the concerns that are being expressed by rural and regional providers of the Job Network on the cost structures that are attached to the provision of their work, particularly in relation to the distance and fuel cost factors.

I compliment the government on its role in the community generally in terms of the fall in unemployment levels. But in a sense that is making it harder to place some of the job applicants who are receiving Job Network services. You have a double whammy, in effect, where the costs for providing the service in relation to the contracts signed are higher and the capacity in regional areas to find a job for some people who are accessing Job Network is becoming harder. I ask the minister to take that on board. If he does have any comments in relation to the rewrite of the contractual arrangements, which I think is coming up next year, will the disadvantage of rural location be taken into account in those contractual arrangements?

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As part of the appropriation expenditure, has the minister’s department conducted any economic modelling on the implications and impact of the government’s industrial relations legislation?

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I put the question that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe the minister would prefer that I just put the questions on notice.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Perth has the call; please continue.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a quite straightforward question: did the minister’s department conduct any economic modelling on the implications of the government’s industrial relations legislation, commonly known as Work Choices?

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are in a highly ironic situation where, in the absence of the minister providing an answer, I might be able to provide an answer to the question of the member for Perth. Indeed the minister’s department did commission economic modelling on the impact of the Work Choices legislation. That analysis was conducted by the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University. It was done before the detailed legislation came down but after the outline of the legislation had been provided by the Prime Minister.

That report remains a secret report. I have sought to obtain it under freedom of information legislation, and the department is using every technical and legal device to seek its retention as a secret document. So when the minister does choose to answer these questions he might clarify whether in the public interest he would be prepared to release that report. I indicate that I will continue to pursue through legal channels the obtaining of that report, because I think it would be in everyone’s interests if it were released.

I was told by the department that it contains false assumptions and that it is not a very useful report. Yet I was also told by the department that it formed part of the deliberative process. There seems to be an immediate contradiction here—that is, a report that the department has described as being not very useful did in fact form part of a deliberative process. So I certainly join with my colleague the member for Perth in seeking information on that report by the Centre of Policy Studies, and I urge the minister in the strongest possible terms to release it. Of course, if the government seeks to keep that report secret we know why: it is not happy with the analysis contained in it and it is of some embarrassment to the government.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the minister’s refusal to answer questions about the Cowra Abattoir, his refusal to answer questions about leave for trade union training and his refusal to answer questions about economic modelling for the government’s legislation, and given the very erudite response by the member for Rankin, I move:

That the member for Rankin be authorised by the Main Committee to proceed across the chamber to sit in place of the minister and to answer questions on the minister’s behalf.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That motion cannot be moved.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why? There is a motion before the Main Committee, and if the motion is not in order I would like to know why so that I can raise a point of order.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Perth, my understanding is that the Main Committee does not have the authority to do that.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have ruled.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am raising a point of order. There is a motion before the chair. I would like a ruling from the chair that that motion is out of order. If it is not out of order, then it is appropriate either for me to speak to it or for someone to second it and reserve their right to speak.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion is out of order.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no reason why any member of this committee cannot move a procedural motion at any point of the committee’s deliberations.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that the Main Committee does not have the power to consider the motion. Therefore, the motion is out of order. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I simply want to make the point that the member for Perth is acting in an entirely juvenile manner and that he is seeking to verbal me by saying that I was not going to answer the question. I responded to the member for Rankin—and he is nodding—and said that I would answer the questions when all the questions had been put, and I will do that. If the member for Perth wants to continue to act in this juvenile manner, that is simply a reflection on him.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure, as ever, to see you in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams. I can only conclude from the minister’s most recent, most outrageous and most arrogant response that I should just put all of my questions to him on notice and receive a letter in the post in due course.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to return to the matter of prohibited content, which the minister has declined to respond to thus far, and I wonder if he could be so good as to respond at the end of my time. It appears to me that we have the extraordinary situation where the government is saying one thing in the House of Representatives and another thing in the Senate. The Prime Minister said in the House of Representatives:

There have been agreements entered into under the new law which allow for the safety training of people including attending courses provided by unions who are accredited trainers.

Yet we have Senator Abetz saying, as I said before:

No matter how it is described ... it is prohibited content. Therefore we can call it ‘doing the work of angels’ or all sorts of wonderful things but, at the end of the day, the regulation is very clear.

And of course the head of the Office of the Employment Advocate, Mr McIlwain, said:

Clearly, regulation 2.8.5(1)(c) identifies as prohibited content training or leave to attend training, however described, provided by a trade union.

I would be so bold as to suggest that what the government is doing is actually telling the truth in the Senate and squibbing the truth in the House of Representatives by refusing to answer the question in the House of Representatives and saying, ‘Actually, OH&S is a state matter and an employer—out of the goodness of their own heart, if it’s a nice day and if they’re in the right mood—can provide union safety training, but of course you cannot put it in an award, you cannot put it in an agreement and you cannot put it in an AWA because it is prohibited content.’ The minister has a golden opportunity today, away from the hubbub of the House of Representatives main chamber and out of the political spotlight, to actually get up and admit that union sponsored safety training is prohibited content and will not be allowed in any agreement. I now give him the opportunity to do so.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address my remarks to the minister, and they follow on from what the member for Prospect raised. I was not here for the shadow minister’s comments, but there is clearly some disquiet about the way in which the government has sought to prohibit enforceable agreement clauses that would provide trade union training which would also include health and safety training. I have heard the minister, at least in question time, fantasise about the fact that there had been no change to the effects of health and safety laws and indicate, as the member for Prospect indicated, that it was a state government matter. But any independent observer would conclude that removing from industrial instruments that are regulated by the Commonwealth an enforceable provision for trade union training will reduce the quality, standard and amount of health and safety training provided in the workplace. The reality is that overwhelmingly health and safety training in workplaces is undertaken either by unions and employers working together or indeed by unions on their own having union training officers provide training for health and safety delegates or indeed employees.

Most people would agree—those who do not have the ideological blindness and enmity towards unions that this government seems to have—that, with respect to health and safety training, the last thing you want to do is place your hatred of unions above the safety of Australian workers. As a result of the decision by the Commonwealth to place its enmity towards employee organisations that are registered under the Workplace Relations Act above the safety of ordinary Australian workers in their workplaces, I ask the minister to give a guarantee that no-one will be less safe as a result of the Work Choices legislation that was introduced into this House and that Australian workers will not be injured or killed as a result of removing the enforceable clauses of agreements that would allow for health and safety training to be provided by trade unions.

It is not just an employer prerogative, Minister; it is actually the right of employees, the right of unions, to negotiate agreements to provide health and safety training under federal instruments. If he is not able to give that guarantee then clearly the minister has blood on his hands, just as the government have blood on their hands because they are willing to put their hatred of unions above the health and safety concerns and interests of Australian working people. He, along with the Prime Minister and the government, will rue the day that he made that decision.

Before I sit down—and I ask the minister to respond to this—I ask whether his department has any recent figures on termination of employment and whether there has been a net growth in unfair terminations or dismissals. Clearly, the data that could be collected would allow the department to determine whether an employee was suggesting that he or she had been dismissed unlawfully, but I ask the minister to respond as to whether there is any information about increases in unfair dismissals as a result of the legislation. Certainly, we are hearing more and more examples of people being unfairly dismissed. By allowing an extra four million or more people to be in workplaces without any recourse whatsoever for being unfairly dismissed—and I ask the minister to respond to this specifically—given that we have the most casualised workforce amongst all OECD countries, with about 25 per cent of the workforce casualised, isn’t it the case that the minister’s legislation has doubled the proportion of the workforce in this country to be placed under what would be determined precarious employment? Hasn’t he effectively doubled the number of people precariously employed in this country? Clearly, by removing unfair dismissal laws, he has done so.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the member for Prospect, I see some dichotomies between what the government is saying in the House of Representatives and what seems to be being said in the Senate. Only two or three weeks ago I read with interest in the Weekend Australian some quotes from Senator Judith Troeth. As will be recalled, Senator Troeth chaired the government’s one-week-long investigation into Work Choices—five days of hearings and the committee were not allowed to leave Canberra. I think they received in the vicinity of 1,000 submissions, but they only got to talk to about half-a-dozen people—not many at all.

Senator Troeth’s comments reported in the paper were about the impact on regional areas of temporary training visas. She said words to the effect that she would find it thoroughly unacceptable for people to be able to come in and undercut the pay and conditions of Australian workers and to take their jobs temporarily, because she was concerned about what this would do to regional economies.

I actually found some level of parallel with that. At Spotlight, for instance, we are inviting people to come in and take jobs now—not negotiate around flexibility and not negotiate whether there should be a reduction in penalty rates or whether overtime should apply. There are no negotiations here. Like those contracts for people who take jobs in country areas under these visas, these contracts are set in concrete before people even get a chance to negotiate. They just sign them. You either sign the contract or do not take the job. The member for Deakin referred to that in an MPI discussion the other day, and I have to say I appreciate his honesty. He said that no-one is asking them to take the job; they either sign the contract or do not take the job.

Having regard to Senator Troeth’s position on regional and rural Australia—and no doubt her comments were on the impact of these temporary training visas—have the minister and the government costed the effect on the local economies in regional and rural Australia and how they will be impacted upon as a consequence of Work Choices? I am sure the minister will not take the view that this means flexibility and that jobs will be more plentiful and people will be paid more. He knows that will not be the case. Every man and his dog out there knows that that will not be the case. All the experiences since the Work Choices legislation was brought in demonstrate that blue-collar working Australians are far worse off under AWAs under Work Choices than under any other form of collective bargaining.

I have a special soft spot in my heart for people who come from regional and rural Australia. It is not as though they can simply say, ‘I’m not going to take that job,’ because it might be 200 or 300 kilometres to the next job. They do not have any choices under this legislation. If it is possible, as we all know it is, whether or not there is a collective agreement in place, for an employer to simply force people to sign an AWA or compel them to sign—and I know it is no longer duress to hound someone to sign—

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sign or sack.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sign or sack, that is precisely the case. If you can do that, with a view to driving wages and conditions down, what choices do the people who live in regional and rural Australia have? I would like the minister and the government to give some indication—particularly when, as I understand it, they still have a few Nationals supporting their position on this; I would like to see them stand up and be counted—of the financial impact this will have on economies in regional and rural Australia.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note in passing that we are in an unusual situation whereby the minister is taking all these questions and, presumably, will answer them at the end. This provides the Labor Party with little or no opportunity to ask follow-up questions or indeed to point out to the minister that he has neglected to answer the odd question along the way, which would be human, if he did. Taking note of all these questions and attempting to answer them in one go at the end would be very difficult. I would have thought it would be better if the minister could answer them as we go and then provide the opportunity for follow-up questions, which is the way other ministers have dealt with it. I know the minister took offence at some things said earlier in this session, but there has been nothing which would lead him to continue to sit there and refuse to answer questions at this point in the proceedings.

Perhaps I could coax the minister out of his chair by asking him about something very close to his heart: Australian workplace agreements. I note that 2.4 per cent of Australian employees are on Australian workplace agreements, and I am sure the minister would like that figure to be a lot more. I wonder whether the minister would be so good as to enlighten the House on whether he has any plans for advertising to encourage people onto Australian workplace agreements or any plans for mail-outs to employers, for example—paid for by the government—to encourage them to enter into Australian workplace agreements. What other steps might the minister be taking to encourage people to enter into Australian workplace agreements?

I know that employers will find Australian workplace agreements a lot more attractive since the no disadvantage test has been abolished, and we have already seen evidence of that. Clearly, they will be a lot less attractive to employees. I am sure the minister has a cunning plan to encourage people onto AWAs—other than by way of sign or sack—through advertising or other means. I wonder whether he would be so good as to share with the House what plans they are.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not going to enter this debate but I think that we are hearing a lot of doom and gloom and fear about activities as we did back in the days of the Reith legislation in 1996. Let me make a few points: in my electorate, a lot of the big industries in Gladstone—

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been to Gladstone and I am not happy; small businesses are not happy.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are people in Gladstone who will be happy and people who will not be happy, but you will find in Gladstone that a lot of big companies are using AWAs or the individual contracts that were their forerunners. There was the great case, of course, at the Boyne smelter—this was some years ago now—where the employees were given the opportunity to have a workplace agreement or to stay on awards. A very robust campaign was mounted by a number of unions, including the ETU—with tents at the gates and pamphlets handed out to fellows coming to work for several days, if not weeks. Then they had the vote in the plant to decide whether or not they would go onto these workplace agreements or stay on awards. They voted, as I remember it, 83 per cent to 17 per cent in favour.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the member take a question?

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the member for Hinkler. With respect to the people at the Boyne smelter and the agreements they entered into, were those workers protected by a no disadvantage test in their contracts?

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not aware of the actual detail of it.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is that they were.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me go on a little further. In the union mounted campaign we hear about the number of people who supposedly have dropped holiday leave loadings, public holiday entitlements and the like, but we never hear quoted the percentage of those who have actually increased their entitlements as a result of a workplace agreement, and I think that is central to it. There would be a vast amount of resentment in Gladstone if workplace agreements were banned as Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, has said that he will do as part of his policy. I go to Comalco—which is absolutely a model plant, where safety and all those sorts of things are benchmarked at the highest levels—and I never hear a word of complaint or resentment whatsoever.

I had a case in Bundaberg recently involving a firm that sold blinds and shades—and those of you who know Queensland know that that is partly seasonal because you do not sell blinds and shades throughout the year. A man took over this firm which, to that point, had only casuals; the whole firm was casuals—the lot. He did not find that satisfactory. He created between 17 and 20 full-time jobs so, for the first time, those employees were going to get holiday pay, sick pay and all the other entitlements. He paid out the existing employees that had other entitlements and he said that, because of the seasonal nature of the work, those who were leaving would have first call on coming back for the casual work.

The unions tried to portray it to the media—but the media would not wear it—as being a result of the IR legislation, which it was not. All these guys had gone from casual employment to 17 to 20 full-time positions but, because four or five of them in this reshuffle would be brought in on a seasonal basis, the unions attempted to portray that to the people of Bundaberg as being part of the IR regime. It was totally dishonest. So I have intervened in this debate today for no other reason than for the sake of balance.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two very brief questions, and I think we should allow the minister to answer them. The first is in relation to a wage freeze. Isn’t it a fact that the Fair Pay Commission has yet to deliver its first decision on increasing the minimum wage? That means that a wage freeze of 12 months has already been implemented. Can the minister advise as to when a minimum wage rise might be forthcoming from the Fair Pay Commission?

Secondly, in relation to the so-called Welfare to Work measures, isn’t it a fact that from 1 July a single mother will be expected, when her youngest child turns eight, effectively to go out into the workforce for as little as $1.88 per hour, after taking account of the loss of benefits, income tax paid, child-care costs, travel costs and other work costs? If that is the case, isn’t that an appalling indictment of this country—that a government would expect single mothers to work for as little as $1.88 an hour? Isn’t it also the case that, in particular circumstances, people on disability support pensions could end up working for nothing—in fact, having to pay to go to work—to meet this government’s ideological lust for beating up people on disability support pensions so that it can please its other constituents? I would ask that the minister now begin to answer our questions.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable members for their questions. I begin by responding to the honourable member for New England, who asked me about prohibited content. Prohibited content is provided for in the regulations. The reason it was done that way, for the benefit of the honourable member, was that previously this was a matter which was part of the certification process in the Industrial Relations Commission. Having moved away from a certification process, it made sense to actually set out what the prohibited content is. It is true that there is an ability to modify or vary those regulations but I say to the honourable member that the government have no intention of doing that. The ability is there because, if something unforeseen arises, we obviously need a way to respond to that. What is set out there is what we basically thought was appropriate and, unless there is something untoward or unforeseen, that is what it will remain.

The other question that was asked of me by the honourable member for New England related to the Job Network and the position of rural and regional providers under the Job Network. The question about the relativity of cost is something we do consider and take into account. There are ongoing discussions on a regular basis with Job Network providers both individually and through the umbrella organisations—NESA in particular. This is a matter which we will continue to monitor. I accept and understand what the honourable member is saying, and it is something that we will continue to monitor. I say to him that, if there are any particular instances that he is aware of or particular difficulties that his Job Network providers raise with him and if he brings them to me, I will certainly have a look at them myself. I appreciate the spirit in which he asked the questions and the use he has made of this session.

Secondly, I turn to the member for Charlton, who I know is not here but who asked me a whole series of questions about Welfare to Work. Given the detail of those questions, I will provide some written answers to the member for Charlton as soon as I possibly can. Again, they were questions that were genuinely seeking information, in contrast to some of the other contributions to this debate. Perhaps, given the time, it would be better that I provide the answers to those 16 or 18 different questions in writing. I can say to her that some of them did cross over to the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Human Services, particularly in relation to the operation of Centrelink. If the member for Charlton is listening to this or reading the transcript, I will liaise with the Minister for Human Services and endeavour to have answers to those questions which do not fall particularly within my portfolio responsibilities.

Thirdly, there was a series of questions essentially about the same thing: the question of trade union training leave. I repeat what I have said on numerous occasions in the House: the Work Choices legislation provides in section 16(3)(c), as I recall, an exclusion from Work Choices, effectively, of matters relating to occupational health and safety. I do not have the provision in front of me but it also includes right of entry, as I recall.

The effect of that is that the states retain their powers in relation to occupational health and safety matters. Indeed, there was a discussion about this at a recent workplace ministers council meeting in Sydney. I understand that the state ministers conceded that that was the view: they still have powers in relation to those matters. I will point out a couple of things that reinforce this. There is the famous email involving the member for Perth and the member for Lilley—maybe it is an infamous email within ALP circles. The question was put by a constituent, so the impression being given, that employers are subject to $30,000 fines if they send employees to union-run safety training courses, is misleading. The answer, which came from the member for Lilley—who had consulted with the member for Perth about this matter, according to the email trail—was, yes, that is correct: an employer can send employees to union training.

Honourable Member:

Honourable member interjecting—

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member asks, ‘What about agreements?’ I also point out that the occupational health and safety reps SafetyNet journal from the Victorian Trades Hall Council gave advice to its readers about this. There was a frequently asked question: ‘Does the Work Choices legislation mean a rep or a deputy cannot attend a union occupational health and safety reps course?’ (Extension of time granted) The answer provided by the Victorian Trades Hall Council to its members—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you’re not answering the question.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I took this as a genuine question. I am trying to give a genuine answer.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you’re not.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer given by the Victorian Trades Hall Council is the—

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. Would the minister take a question?

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am answering the questions being put to me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will answer them and then, if there is time, I will take some more. The changes to the federal Workplace Relations Act, Work Choices, do not—that is ‘not’ in capital letters—affect an occupational health and safety rep or deputy’s right to attend an initial/refresher course of their choice, including courses run by unions or the Victorian Trades Hall Council.

To reinforce that with evidence, I have here an agreement entered into under the new system, since 27 March. One of the signatories is the Australian Workers Union assistant secretary in Victoria. Clauses which are approved include clause 26, occupational health and safety. That clause says that the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act, its regulations and associated safety legislation will apply, and it is approved by the Office of the Employment Advocate. So the Victorian legislation continues to apply. It says, ‘In support of this, all employees will participate in the following three safety training programs,’ and then clause 26(11) says: ‘Occupational health and safety representatives will be provided with five days paid training for attendance at an occupational health and safety course.’ Not only is it the law, not only is it set out in the legislation, but it is actually in agreements which are being entered into in this case by the Australian Workers Union in Victoria.

There were some other questions. The honourable member for Rankin asked me about some modelling. I will have to seek some legal advice about the matters he asked about, and I will give the member for Rankin an answer in relation to that. There were also some questions about—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cowra.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will come to that. There were also some questions about trade union training, which I have spoken about. There were questions about termination of employment and the data. I am not aware of what data might have been collected since 27 March. I know the AIRC does collect data and collate it—and I presume it would collect data about unlawful termination applications.

There were also questions about temporary training visas, from the member for Werriwa, and the position of people in rural areas. Can I remind the honourable member that the latest employment statistics for May showed an increase of 55,000 in employment in Australia. This is a month after Work Choices came into effect.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the resources boom.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He says it is the resources boom. Most of that employment actually occurred in his state of New South Wales. A resources boom occurs in Western Australia and Queensland, and this was in New South Wales—and the member for Werriwa knows that as well. The reality is we have an ageing population in Australia. Some research carried out last year showed that, because of the ageing of the population in just five years, we are facing a shortage of up to 200,000 people—195,000, to be precise—which all has an impact on the availability of jobs. We have had the Reserve Bank say that one of the constraints facing the economy in Australia is that there is not enough workers for the jobs going around. I say that the government takes a sensible position in relation to visas for people coming in from overseas. As the Minister for Health and Ageing pointed out yesterday, there are something like 7,000 or 8,000 health workers in Australia who have come in from overseas on 457 visas. If we did not have that provision, people in the rural areas that the member for Werriwa is talking about would have a shortage of health workers, including doctors and nurses.

There was a suggestion made that 2.4 per cent of employees are on AWAs. That is not right. There are approximately 10 million workers in Australia. According to the Employment Advocate’s evidence in the Senate, there are something like 538,000 current AWAs. When I went to school that number would have constituted about five per cent. There have been almost a million entered into since 1997. (Extension of time granted) There were also the questions about an employee having to sign or be sacked. That is unlawful, and anybody who faced that situation ought to have the matter taken to the Office of Workplace Services. It is clearly unlawful under the legislation.

The member for Rankin asked about the Fair Pay Commission. The Fair Pay Commission is scheduled to make a decision in spring of this year. He suggested that that constitutes a wage freeze. It does not, because the Fair Pay Commission has indicated it will take into account the fact that there has been an extra length of time since the last minimum pay decision of the Industrial Relations Commission. As honourable members opposite know, particularly those with a trade union background, the reality is that, in the past, by the time the wages actually flowed through and were incorporated into awards it was often three, four, five or six months after. In some awards it did not occur at all because of the redundant awards that are on the books at the present time. But that will be taken into account.

Finally, in relation to the matter the member for Rankin raised about Welfare to Work and the sole parent whose youngest child has turned eight and has gone to school, I point out that the requirement for work is a minimum of 15 hours. A person who works a minimum of 15 hours has to be paid the minimum wage at least, which is $12.75 an hour. In addition to the income that person would receive from their private exertion, they would also continue to receive a range of welfare benefits. The result of that is that that person is better off. In fact, there are guidelines being issued in relation to what sort of job has to be taken. Part of those guidelines looks at the cost of things like transport and the time that it might require to go to a job, the cost of child care, any reduction that might occur under rental assistance from a state authority and changes in taxation. The guidelines say that a person has to be better off financially by a certain amount after all of those things are taken into account, otherwise the job is unsuitable. They were matters we looked at in consultation with a number of agencies and individuals who work in the welfare system to ensure that those provisions are ones which we believe do not work in an unfair manner. I think those are most of the things, apart from the matter that was raised at the outset by the member for Perth.

I answered the member for Perth twice in relation to this matter and that was to say, as he well knows—as was indicated in Senate estimates and as has been indicated publicly by the director of the Office of Workplace Services—that that investigation is continuing. When there is a report from the Office of Workplace Services, presumably that will be made public by the director. Honourable members on all sides of this place are fully entitled to make comments about it then, but I suggest that the member for Perth waits until that report is provided.

The Office of Workplace Services is investigating this in an independent manner. I presume honourable members opposite would want that investigation to go ahead. The member for Perth’s problem is that he was left out of any consideration recently by the Leader of the Opposition. He was only told some time afterwards that the Leader of the Opposition had made a major policy change in his area. We know he is under pressure from the unions because they do not think he is doing the job properly, and he has just spat the dummy today and walked out.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question raised by the member for Perth went to whether the minister or his office contacted the Office of Workplace Services to alter the contents of the report that had been provided in draft form. The minister to date has failed to answer that question and I invite him to do so now.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have answered this question. The Office of Workplace Services is an independent body. It is carrying out an independent investigation. It will deliver a report. I suggest once again to honourable members that we all wait until the report is delivered.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a very brief and straightforward question for the minister. Can the minister confirm that when Senator Abetz told Senate estimates that a trade union safety course was prohibited content Minister Abetz was being accurate?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have outlined to the chamber today the situation so far as the law—and, indeed, the practice—is concerned. That reflects what I have been saying for some months about this matter. It reflects my belief about the state of the law and practice in this matter and I cannot add anything further to what I have said.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $1,421,272,000.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I am seeking some clarification in relation to a proposed detention facility in Broadmeadows. I have received correspondence from the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs informing me and the community that the government has decided not to proceed with its proposed immigration detention facility at this stage. I also have recently received a letter from the parliamentary secretary—and I thank him for it and for his obvious interest in this matter—indicating that the government is not proceeding with the previously announced large-scale facility. I am seeking clarification as to whether it is not proceeding at all or not proceeding at this stage.

If you are not proceeding at this stage, I would like your views on any justification the government may have for the need for a large-scale detention centre in Broadmeadows at some time in the future. If you are not proceeding at all in favour of the small-scale detention centre, there is the matter of the surplus land. There have been many discussions with the council and me in relation to the value of this land. In the past I have lobbied for this land, given its historical value, to be gifted to the community for community use, but I am also mindful of my council’s interest in the economic importance of this land and its situation in an industrial park. So I would like your views and some clarification on that matter of ‘at this stage’ or ‘not at all’.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The intention is that the transition centre that you have been advised of and that the local community has been advised of will proceed in the facility that is currently there, with some renovation. As explained, that is intended to be very much a transit centre. It would be unusual for anyone to be there for more than two or three days at the most. It would probably be 24 hours. There is a substantial amount of other land there. Certainly a decision has been taken not to proceed with the earlier intention to build a large detention centre. There will be further reviews in the years ahead. Because of the dynamics of the situation with people in detention and with people coming illegally to the country, these things are reviewed on a regular basis every two to three years. We have just finished a major review. There is not another one planned for some time.

There has been no decision taken with regard to any other facility at any point in the future. We have a program—a comprehensive one—that has been announced, to close Woomera and upgrade Baxter. We also currently have the situation with Nauru and those that are arriving by boat illegally. So there are all these factors in what is obviously a very dynamic and fluid situation. At some point in the future, we will have another review about the suitability of detention centres in every part of Australia. That is the situation. We have no program, agenda or timing for a future review, but future reviews will be undertaken. But, in the existing one, we have decided against having a detention centre there and decided to have a transit centre there and in Brisbane. That is the existing situation.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our community is very grateful for the government’s decision; it is just that you would also be aware, as I am, that there is a great level of interest in that land by both the community and the council. I just want to understand: is the land going to remain idle until such time as another review takes place? It is very important land, and it can be very useful to our community. I would like you to reflect on that. I want to understand whether it is just going to remain idle until some fluid situation at some point in time may render a need for the government to consider building another detention centre. We just need some clarification on that because that helps us in our understanding of what we can do to lobby government about that land.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand your point. The situation is that there simply has been no decision taken one way or another. We have just finalised a set of decisions about what the use of that land will be for the foreseeable future, and in due course consideration will be given to the use of the remaining land.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to seek clarification from the parliamentary secretary. He has spoken about the review of detention centres and the decisions that have been made on the basis of that review and then indicated that he did not feel that there was any direct need to have a further review. The difficulty with that is that there were decisions made about a refit of Maribyrnong. That was on the basis that there was to be, down the track, a facility in the city of Hume. There have been decisions about works to be done at Villawood. They have now been shelved. I do not think it is really good enough if we just retreat at this stage and not do something about it. The Maribyrnong facility has had a chequered career. The works to be carried out are a minor improvement.

I have not had the opportunity to visit Villawood, but, by its reputation, there is obviously a great need for work there. And it is not just about the physical infrastructure. Stories and allegations that have appeared in the media about incidents—especially those currently occurring at Villawood—indicate that we really do need to look at the expressed aim of the department to treat those in detention centres humanely. It is about not just the physical infrastructure but the social infrastructure and the way these detention centres operate as communities. I have had to conclude that, regrettably, the detention centres are very badly run prisons. I am sure that correctional facilities are run better than detention centres at certain stages. I am concerned that, because some decisions that arose out of the previous review have been shelved, we are not going forward and we are not doing the right thing by people who end up in detention centres.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the member for Scullin, I have several points. Firstly, the arrangements will be periodically reviewed. My earlier comments did not seek to suggest otherwise. We will periodically review whether the centres are run adequately, appropriately and satisfactorily or otherwise. A lot of it will be determined by what is happening in a general sense. As you would be aware, the composition of those in detention centres has changed dramatically in the last two or three years. A lot of that would not have been foreseen earlier on. Numbers of foreign fishermen now dominate a lot of our detention centres and I think their average detention is around 13 weeks duration. There is a fundamental difference in many of our detention centre requirements compared with those of even two or three years ago. We have just taken a decision to spend serious taxpayer money on the renovation and upgrade of Maribyrnong. You said you have not had the opportunity to see that work.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’ve been to Maribyrnong.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would urge you to take the opportunity because some excellent work is being done there. I have now had the opportunity to visit most of the centres, including the one at Christmas Island. In a design sense, I think we are now leading the world with this sort of facility. The village concept has been designed to ensure that this is not comparable to a jail experience but rather provides for people who have arrived in the country illegally and are awaiting the processing of their claims. I invite you to take the opportunity to look at some of the renovations at a number of the facilities. Baxter has undergone a very significant improvement and provides a very adequate and appropriate environment. I think a proper balance has been reached at that centre.

We have moved a long way forward. The only reason work has not begun at Villawood is that the prospect of a greenfield site is being assessed—the results of that assessment are not far away. There will be substantial improvements either at Villawood or at a greenfield site. Even at Villawood, the construction of homes has provided an excellent facility for families in detention. On all those fronts I think you will find that we have gone a long way towards creating facilities which reach an appropriate balance and deal with the concerns that we should legitimately have for people being held in detention.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following up on the answer just given by the parliamentary secretary, I am interested in knowing which greenfield sites have been considered as alternatives to Villawood.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure of the location, but there is a site that has been under consideration for some time. I have not seen the location, but I can certainly furnish you with details of the investigation into a greenfield site.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the parliamentary secretary. Last weekend the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs admitted that, of the 220 cases bearing the description ‘released, not unlawful’, 26 were Australian citizens. How many of those people, including the 26 Australian citizens, were assessed for any mental illness; how many of those people were diagnosed as having a mental illness; and how many have been detained since the release of the Palmer report? Can the parliamentary secretary give us a detailed report on any internal investigation the government has conducted after finding out that there were 220 cases bearing the description ‘released, not unlawful’ and that 26 Australian citizens had been detained under our immigration laws?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the member for Hindmarsh, it is correct that 26 of the 220 cases referred to the Ombudsman in which the descriptor ‘released, not unlawful’ was used were Australian citizens. The government did not hide these details from the public. In fact, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee was advised of these numbers on 9 February 2006. A further Australian citizen has been identified in the additional group of 28 cases referred to the Ombudsman on 18 April, and the Senate committee was advised of this case on 13 February. The other details you have sought are matters which are the particular responsibility of the minister. I will certainly take those on notice and get you a response.

Ann Corcoran (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have seen a statement from the minister about closing detention facilities and saving $78 million. The minister said:

Detention centres at Woomera and Singleton will be closed with plans to build further centres at Melbourne and Brisbane shelved.

Could the parliamentary secretary help me with the details of how that $78 million is arrived at? I assume that much of it is attributable to closing existing centres and saving the running costs there. How much of the saving is attributable to not building new centres? Does it include not having to run the new centres and that sort of thing?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to the member for Isaacs that I will need to get those details for her. I have been through it all, and you are right: there are savings in some areas and costs in others. I am happy to get a detailed response to show where the $78 million in net savings occurred. We are talking here about a lot of facilities. There is $4.9 million being spent at Baxter. Of course, there are the improvements to the Darwin detention facility, which again are quite significant and very important. But we have shelved, as you say, the intention to build detention centres in Queensland and Victoria. There is a significant saving associated with that. With respect to the upgrading of Maribyrnong and Villawood, in response to your earlier query, I think that is likely to be the result. Another option is being considered to see whether there are some financial savings. That has not been concluded but I understand that it is more likely that the Villawood plans as originally decided will be proceeded with. But I will come back with a detailed response to that question.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that area that the parliamentary secretary just referred to, there is an understandable concern from the opposition to clarify exactly how much of the $78 million is a saving by virtue of closing facilities that have not been built. No doubt, had the government closed 10 facilities that had not been built, they would have been able to save a tremendous amount more than $78 million. But, in terms of genuine savings, the minister has been saying that one of the impressive economic things that the government has done is find $78 million in savings. When the parliamentary secretary provides that information we would like to see, quite specifically separated, how much of that $78 million is derived from closing facilities which had never been built.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The substantive answer to that will be given in the response to the question by the member for Isaacs. I make the point that there were deliberate decisions taken at an earlier stage and budget appropriations were established. So, in an accounting sense, clearly there will be some savings; some of the accounting for that whole expenditure on detention centres will take account of decisions that have been reversed. They are savings against the budget, because they are appropriations that had been taken account of at an earlier stage.

Ann Corcoran (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would appreciate some help with an apparent contradiction that I have in front of me here. The minister has announced that $5 million will be spent to build a new medical centre at Baxter and upgrade the kitchen, yet in the budget papers there is a note that the government will rationalise Australia’s onshore immigration detention network, resulting in savings of $78 million—which we have just been talking about—over four years. It includes the suspension of the use of the Baxter immigration detention centre. I am intrigued with the notion of spending $5 million to upgrade it but closing it down. I am not too sure which comes first and how those two statements can be reconciled.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The intention is to spend that appropriation immediately and as quickly as possible so those improvements will take place. It is a contingency plan that Baxter will not be required in full operation; therefore, it will be held as a reserve detention centre in case of unforeseen circumstances. As I mentioned earlier, the dynamics of this area are significant and many things happen in an unforeseen way. It is responsible to have facilities—and good facilities. The Woomera one has been closed because it was an unsatisfactory facility. There were other reasons as well, but it was clearly unsatisfactory. Baxter is now, I think, an excellent facility, and when we make these further improvements, with the oval that has now been completed and all the rest of the improvements, it will provide a good balance and an appropriate environment. But, to get it to the stage of being a facility which is appropriate to hold people under detention, we consider that nearly $5 million needs to be spent.

The expectation is that some time in the next 18 months to two years, if current trends continue and Christmas Island comes on stream, the Darwin facilities are improved and all other arrangements are in place, we will be in a position to hold Baxter as a reserve facility. That is factored into the calculations and is the nature of the release that you referred to.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the parliamentary secretary: is there space at other mainland detention centres to simply close Baxter now, by transferring people? If Baxter is mothballed, what will be the difference in long-term maintenance costs for such a facility, now that it also involves maintaining the grounds of the oval?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand it, because significant alterations are taking place at a number of detention centres—Darwin; potentially Villawood; Maribyrnong; Christmas Island is under construction; Perth is being renovated, although it is only small—Baxter is required for the immediate future. I am not across the savings and costs of mothballing but I will get those and respond to your question.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The budget refers to cost savings in Nauru where the two processing centres are being merged, savings I believe of $33.8 million over four years. I am wondering about the extent to which this saving is to be offset by the projected increased numbers of asylum seekers who will now be held on Nauru. In arriving at those figures, how many people does the government envisage will be on Nauru? I presume all forward estimates have some way of estimating the length of stay for asylum seekers on Nauru. How long, in preparing its budget, has the government presumed asylum seekers will stay on Nauru?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the member for Watson, there have been developments on Nauru since the budget was framed. As you are well aware, the government currently has legislation in the House and is considering a Senate response to that legislation. Subject to final decisions by the government and the will of the House, that could potentially have implications for Nauru. I suppose it goes to the point I made earlier, that this—people arriving illegally—is a very dynamic area. Again, we have a new development which has led the government to make further decisions to review some of the earlier arrangements relating to people arriving illegally on boats and has led to implications for Nauru. We do not have projections for numbers. As to whether this legislation will imply a need for some further improvements on Nauru which will have a financial implication, that has not been finalised in any sense. As I understand it, we have no projections about who might arrive illegally by boat—not fishermen—in the foreseeable future. I am not in a position to provide a commitment by giving you a satisfactory answer because I do not think the numbers are available. I suspect there will be financial implications for some upgrading so that women and children can have living quarters which are a village type facility, consistent with the arrangements that we have struck on the mainland.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response, while I can understand that projections will change—and the outcome of legislation currently before the parliament could well have a bearing on what the realistic projections are for people if they do find themselves sent to Nauru—I find it extraordinary that, as I understand what has just been put to the House, the government framed a budget without any such projections. While it might not yet have been the law of Australia, it was already the policy of the government. The policy was announced in April and we are talking about the May budget. The policy of the government was in place. It had been through the National Security Committee of cabinet. The policy was clearly defined, and that policy would be what I presume the budget was based on.

I appreciate that until the end of next week it will be very difficult to determine if those figures have changed, and I respect that. But the question is: were projections done as to the length of stay at the time of the budget? If not, how could it be that, for something that is costing millions of dollars a month, a formal government policy was announced to the Australian people yet the government then framed and announced its May budget without reference to the policy? Surely some projections have to exist about the number of people who are sent to Nauru and the length of time they are expected to be there. If legislation subsequently alters that, that is beyond what you could have predicted at a May budget. But it seems unthinkable that in May a budget would be framed and put forward as the projections for the next 12 months without reference to what government policy was at the time.

I do not want to misrepresent the parliamentary secretary, but my understanding of what was just put forward here is that there is a chance that no projections were done. I do not argue for a minute that those projections might no longer be accurate and might change at the end of next week. But the question—and it goes to not only the prudence of the budget process itself but also the confidence that the government had in its own policy within a month of it having been announced—does remain: at the time of the budget, were there any projections made as to how many people would be on Nauru and how long they would be staying there?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the member for Watson, yes, there were obviously projections. I took your earlier question as referring to what are now the predictions for Nauru in the context of the changed circumstances and the legislation that is currently before the House. There were very clear projections for all the facilities. There is a qualifier, as you would well appreciate, that they are very uncertain. We are doing our best to provide a proper contingency and assess what may or may not be in the future. But there were projections, which, again, I am happy to provide. My response was, as you suggested, to do with the fact that the changed circumstances since the budget will alter projections with regard to Nauru. I am aware that there has been no final view formed on that, but no doubt people within the department are trying to make some assessment.

Ann Corcoran (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to follow on from what my colleague has been asking about Nauru. I am also interested in how those savings were arrived at in the budget papers. If you can come back to me with an indication of how the $33.8 million was arrived at, that might help the situation. My other question is seeking some clarification. I note the fact sheet the minister has issued talks about closing one site on Nauru and maintaining the other in a state of high readiness. In the recent Senate inquiry, Mr Okely from DIMA talked about two different sorts of facilities at Nauru. We need to be careful with the word ‘closed’ here because it means two things. He talked about one being a closed facility, in the sense of not being shut but people having restricted movement, and the other one being a more open type of facility where people have more freedom to move around. It is not clear to me whether those two different sorts of facilities are going to be in the one place or whether in fact both are going to be open to accommodate two different types of detention.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that the arrangements on Nauru are currently being reviewed. What was announced in the budget is under further review. That was framed when Nauru was seen more in the context of a contingency than in the context of a real prospect of more imminent arrivals. I do understand there will still be a closed facility, as you have defined it—

Ann Corcoran (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As in restricting movement?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As in some capacity to restrict the movement of some people. At the same time, there is a review currently being undertaken, so I do not have a capacity to give you any definitive answers on this. They are looking at what is required to improve some of the arrangements and the facilities, especially for women and children if they were to be on Nauru for any period of time.

Ann Corcoran (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As clarification, do I understand the parliamentary secretary to be saying that the situation which was announced through this fact sheet about closing one site and maintaining the other is now being reviewed again? So we may not have a situation where one site is being closed and one is not?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The adequacy of the arrangements in Nauru is being reviewed in toto. It could remain, as was announced, with some improvements at the margin, or it may be sensible to review what was announced in a more comprehensive way. We have had over 1,500 people successfully processed in the past through Nauru. There is a significant population on Nauru. Notwithstanding that, given the new developments and the legislation, there is a review of the adequacy of those arrangements and they are currently under consideration.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Within the budget papers, has the government budgeted for the cost of taking people who have been found to be refugees from Nauru back to Australia?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will need to take that question on notice.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to ask about the impact on the budget of some completion payments which have been referred to in a report by the Australian National Audit Office concerning the change of the contract from ACM to GSL. The Australian National Audit Office referred to a $5.7 million completion payment but was not able to determine why in fact that had been made. The Australian National Audit Office was of the belief that there was no contractual obligation on the part of the government to make that payment to ACM. I want to understand, firstly, whether the government agrees with the finding of the Australian National Audit Office. Secondly, out of the budget papers, is there provision made for payments to private companies where there is no contractual obligation to make those payments?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the member for Watson, again that is a matter in the minister’s area of responsibility. I will take that on notice and get back to you, if I might.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In doing so, would the parliamentary secretary also find out whether or not there is a forecasted budget allocation for any future completion of payments to GSL? We cannot work out why on earth ACM ever received $5.7 million. It came from something in a process that the Australian National Audit Office actually found when we had the change from ACM to GSL. Even though the change is only meant to occur if a competing operator provides better value for money, the change happened notwithstanding that ACM was still providing better value for money because the department failed to revisit their figures. Could the parliamentary secretary confirm—and I appreciate this may well be on notice in the same fashion—whether there is any budget allocation for any future completion payments to other operators? Has the government budgeted in any way to cover itself against legal action by ACM now that it has been revealed by the Australian National Audit Office that the contract was transferred away from them even though they were still satisfying the better value for money test?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I will take the honourable member’s question on notice and will come back to him.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In answer to a question that was taken on notice during the estimates hearings, the department of immigration provided a table identifying the cost per detainee per day for each facility. Villawood cost $190 per detainee per day and Christmas Island cost $2,895 per detainee per day. I want to know what the cost is per detainee per day for somebody to be kept in Nauru, how that differs between Nauru as it was at the time of the budget and under the merged facilities in Nauru, and what services and facilities detainees at these two centres receive. If the reasons for the difference could be identified in a reference to the costs per detainee, that would be of assistance.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I am willing to take those questions on notice, but the element that refers to Nauru will of course be subject to decisions that are taken. We could end up pretty much with the announcements that were in the budget, or there could be changes based on new information and new forecasts and expectations. With that qualification, I will seek to respond to the queries.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In identifying the reasons behind sending people to different detention centres, are the costs per detainee per day of concern to the government and part of the process in determining which detainees will be sent to which detention centres? In those circumstances, why has there been processing at Christmas Island on occasions when it would actually make no difference to the rights or legal status of the detainees involved?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I will need to take some parts of the question on notice. As a general comment I will say that there are all sorts of considerations that come into this for the government when deciding where to place detainees: the nature of the detainees, the appropriateness of having different groups of people in different centres or separated et cetera. Again, we must remember the significant objective while seeking to honour, as we have done, our international obligations with regard to asylum seekers. At the same time we have an obligation to the Australian community to protect our borders. So there are many issues regarding the decisions taken as to where people are best detained while their applications for asylum are being properly processed. In many cases the detainees are not applying for asylum. In fact, often they are there short term before they are sent back home. There are all sorts of reasons, and I will do my best to give you some sense of those in the response.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary made reference to protecting our borders. What is the government’s opinion on where the borders of Australia are?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The borders of Australia are quite well defined. The Australian territory defines the borders of Australia.

Ann Corcoran (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to add to my earlier question—I know they normally add to answers in this place—about Baxter and the proposed $5 million to be spent on health facilities. I understand there have been some recent refurbishments there—a sporting oval and those sorts of things have been built in recent times. Can you give us an idea of what has recently been spent on upgrading and adding to this facility?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be happy to include that in my response on the Baxter details.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $2,507,312,000.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am particularly interested in raising with the parliamentary secretary the developments that have recently been referred to by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts on the community service obligations of Telstra. The minister would be aware—although the parliamentary secretary may not be aware—that I recently had cause to raise with the minister concerns about students at the TAFE in my local area. Four public telephones have been provided on the TAFE campus in previous times. Their concern was a notification that appeared on two of those phones to say that they would be removed. The students raised with me a particular range of concerns around those telephones being very strategically placed to provide access for students, particularly at night.

One of the phones proposed to be removed is at the welfare studies building, which frequently runs night-time courses in which many women participate. That phone is used extensively when students have finished their course for the night, to let people know to pick them up. It is also the phone closest to the disability services unit. For a number of students in wheelchairs who met with me on the day, that particular phone is an important provision. There are, of course, three other phones on the campus and the expression of the students was that generally during daytime hours it would not be a great problem to traverse the campus to other phones, but, to its credit, the campus is nicely landscaped with quite a few trees around and at night having to traverse the campus to get to other phones would create some serious concerns for many students.

I was quite surprised when I approached local Telstra management to be told that educational facilities are not covered under community service obligations. I assume that would also apply to university campuses and perhaps even to some of the more senior college arrangements where mature age people access the campus and need access to telephones. It is certainly true, I acknowledge, that there has been a great expansion of the use of mobile phones but the reality for most of the students I spoke to is that they do not utilise mobile phones. Many of them are on welfare payments and study at TAFE in order to improve their job prospects. They do not have mobile phones and use public phones quite extensively.

I could not find from Telstra on what decision they allocated two out of the four phones—whether they had looked at usage rates or anything like that. They could not provide that level of information. All they would say to me was that it was not financially viable to maintain four services on the campus. I recognise that the minister recently put out a statement that this issue would be explored with Telstra, hopefully before any sale goes through, when it would become a redundant issue. I understand that is proceeding. I would very much appreciate advice from the parliamentary secretary about the nature of those discussions and whether there is a proposal to extend what is covered under community service obligations. I would argue that, in particular, educational facilities should be covered and there may be others that the community would quite rightly suspect should be covered. For my local area, I would appreciate any advice on the progress of those discussions and their format.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the interests of brevity and time, I make the point that there were no measures relating to Telstra in the budget. However, I am happy to respond to the points raised by the member for Cunningham. I am sure the member for Cunningham knows that the supply, installation and maintenance of payphones is enshrined in the government’s universal service obligation, the USO. So all Australians should have access to a payphone regardless of where they live. The government is committed to ensuring that Telstra continues to meet its obligations under that USO. To ensure that communities clearly understand their rights, the government will require Telstra to amend its standard marketing plan to give a clear description of what constitutes having reasonable access to a payphone and include a description of what constitutes a USO payphone. Telstra will be required to more clearly identify which payphones in a community are provided under the USO and to ensure that there are robust consultation processes where a non-USO payphone is to be removed or relocated.

I am sure you are aware that the minister has required Telstra to enhance its consultation processes for the removal of payphones by including on its removal notice the reasons and details of how a person can object to the removal. The removal notice will include a reference to the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s role as the regulator of Telstra’s payphone obligations. It is important that people realise it is not just Telstra they are dealing with but also ACMA. Telstra will also engage with its Low Income Measures Assessment Committee and advise them of the new arrangements for payphone consultation processes and complaint mechanisms.

I would see this committee as another check and balance on the operations in this area. The member for Cunningham mentioned that she has raised these issues with the minister. I am sure the minister is taking them very seriously. I am sure she understands and appreciates the needs of students, the fact that they do not all have mobile phones and that they are sometimes alone on campus late at night. I am sure the minister will respond in due course in a satisfactory fashion.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the light of the amount of the proposed expenditure that was directed to the arts in the 2006 budget, I would like to discuss the budget announcement by the Attorney-General and the Minister for the Arts and Sport to unilaterally cancel any prospect of a resale royalty scheme for Indigenous and other visual artists. Over the years since the Myer report considered this issue there have been unanimous calls from arts organisations, Indigenous arts organisations, the Australian Copyright Council and others for a resale royalty scheme to be considered by the government. These calls were contested by the major auction houses but, at the same time that this debate unfolded, various jurisdictions, in the European Union in particular, considered and brought into effect resale royalty schemes.

I ask the parliamentary secretary representing the minister whether the department conducted a review with the Attorney-General’s Department and, if so, whether it did any costings of the likely consequences for artists of a resale royalty scheme. I also ask whether or not consideration was given to the likely impact on or flow-through of income to artists, particularly Indigenous artists, who were the ones most likely in the first instance to benefit from resale royalties, given that in some instances the price of their artworks has escalated very quickly over a short period.

In the budget papers, under the announcement ‘Individual visual artists—enhancing business skills’, some $6 million was made available, of which I believe $4 million is for Aboriginal art centres and $2 million for forms of training. I point out that the estimate given by some analysts of the likely benefits that would flow to Indigenous artists if a resale royalty scheme were introduced is in the order of $20 million to $25 million. I draw the minister’s attention to that discrepancy and ask whether that was considered in this decision and whether any additional reasons will be given for the government not considering a resale royalty scheme.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the issue raised by the member for Kingsford Smith about a resale royalty scheme, particularly for Indigenous art, the government are committed to supporting Indigenous artists in every way we can. We have been most concerned indeed about any allegations of corruption or misuse of Indigenous art funds and we are keen to make sure that any misuse or fraudulent dealings with Indigenous art are dealt with very quickly and immediately through our policing systems.

In the budget, as the member for Kingsford Smith alluded to, we announced a $6 million initiative over four years to support visual artists as an alternative to a resale royalty scheme. We think that is the better alternative. The initiative includes a $0.5 million per annum training package to help visual artists enhance their engagement with the commercial arts market and $1 million per annum to strengthen the Indigenous arts industry in regional and remote communities. The initiative builds on the government’s existing commitment of $19.5 million for the Visual Arts and Craft Strategy, as part of a $39 million partnership with the states and territories. This additional funding will provide targeted support for a broad range of artists to develop business skills that will help them to engage more effectively with the commercial art market. We hope in particular to help them become independent of second and third parties in the marketing of their work.

The new initiative also directly addresses the issue of strengthening Indigenous art centres by enhancing the critical support they provide to individual artists. This will be achieved through increased funding to existing national arts and crafts industry support programs. Art centres offer a place where artists are not exploited and where their skills and talents are nurtured, developed and appropriately remunerated.

The government considered the effectiveness of a resale royalty scheme following the recommendations of the 2002 Report of the Contemporary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry and in light of submissions received in response to the discussion paper released in July 2004. We concluded that a resale royalty right would be a largely symbolic recognition of an artist’s status and would not provide a meaningful source of income for the majority of Australia’s artists. Research showed that a resale royalty scheme would not end disadvantage for Indigenous artists and that the principal beneficiaries of such schemes are successful late career artists and the estates of deceased artists. Such a scheme would bring little advantage to the majority of Australian artists, whose work rarely reaches a secondary art market, and may also adversely affect commercial galleries, art dealers, auction houses and investors. The alternative funding package announced by the government will provide practical assistance for the majority of individual visual artists to build their businesses and strengthen their capacity to engage with the commercial arts market. We believe this approach to be entirely consistent with that put forward by Rupert Myer in the Report of the Contemporary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry.

I am aware of the suggestion in a recent National Association for the Visual Arts press release that, as a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Australia is obliged to implement a resale royalty scheme. This is principally a matter for the Attorney-General, and I am advised that Australia is under no obligation to implement a resale royalty scheme under that convention. In fact, other member countries, such as the United States of America—which has a very deep concern for its indigenous artists—and Switzerland, have also chosen not to adopt a resale royalty scheme. No doubt, like us, they are concerned to deliver the best advantage to indigenous artists.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, I thank you for the opportunity to be here for these portfolio discussions and consideration in detail. At output 3.4 of the Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio there is a total price for outputs of $13.819 million. Output 3.4 is entitled ‘Strategic advice, activities and representation relating to Australia’s development as an information economy, nationally and internationally’. Amongst the notes in this document for the development of the ICT sector is the following:

... promoting skills development and facilitating infrastructure development (including advanced networks capabilities).

This is something that Labor believes the government has been tardy on. I particularly wish to talk about Labor’s proposal to roll out the next generation broadband infrastructure. But in doing so I say that one of the great problems for an electorate like Scullin, which is on the outer urban fringe of Melbourne to the north, is that we have suburbs and new estates coming on board that will be about 22 kilometres from the CBD and they do not have access to the present broadband ASDL optic fibre that we see as the standard. The point is that Labor is not just talking about rolling that out and providing access. We are talking about next generation which will give access to greater speeds. Of those people in the city of Whittlesea who have a connection to the internet, 53 per cent still have dial-up. That is fairly antiquated.

As an anecdote and slightly by digression, when I was a councillor for the Shire of Whittlesea, one thing I could not work out was why we were not getting the call centres and access to things that were hanging off the copper wire infrastructure which was going to the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The then shire engineer explained to me that our telecommunications infrastructure was not good enough. We have caught up with that 20-year lag. We now have call centres in the north, but we do not have access to the greater optic fibre. We do not have enough exchanges that bring people close enough to use ADSL and we have companies that cannot compete on the global stage simply because they cannot use IT that is comparable to the IT of those whom they are competing against.

I would hope that the government would step back and embrace a holistic approach to nationally rolling out the next generation of broadband infrastructure, to bring all the interested telcos together and say: ‘We really have to organise this better. But it will not happen through competition, because there will be cherry picking of the best markets.’ That is simply unfair to the regions. I know that the parliamentary secretary, representing a distinct region of Victoria, understands the importance of regional efforts.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister!

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, through you, my humblest apologies. I do not think I have caught my breath from racing up here earlier on. I do this all the time: I do not catch up with the elevation from parliamentary secretary to minister. The Minister for Workforce Participation is a great champion of regions, anyway. The northern suburbs of Melbourne are a very distinct region as well. Often, I think some of the regional and rural members have an advantage because they can clearly define their regions much better. But in the northern suburbs of Melbourne there are impediments because of a lack of infrastructure, such as telecommunications infrastructure. We have made advances because of the way in which road infrastructure is improving, as well as private transport—we really need to have a greater commitment to public transport—but on this occasion we are talking about communications. I would hope that the government can embrace a national approach to ensure that we can be fully competitive in IT based industries.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I became the member for Murray in 1996, like other members, perhaps, I had all these calls to my electorate office from my constituents complaining about mobile phones not working or there being no coverage and about ancient exchanges where you could not get a fax to work. In 2006, all that has changed. We have had the most phenomenal—I would call it a revolution—upgrading of telecommunications right across Australia, especially in rural and regional Australia. Thank goodness the Howard government was elected in 1996, otherwise it would have taken us longer to catch up as we were so far behind the eight ball. I doubt that even 15 years of effort would have brought us to where we are today. As the member for Scullin said, we were in a 20-year lag. We have now caught up substantially.

Australia in particular continues to record very strong broadband take-up. The member for Scullin is most concerned about broadband. During the 12 months to December 2005, the number of broadband subscribers increased 85 per cent to 2.8 million. This is the most amazing increase of 1.3 million subscribers from December 2004. Most recently Telstra celebrated its one millionth broadband customer. That is the most extraordinary uptake. If we, in a country as large as ours, do not have the world’s best telecommunications then we will never be the clever country that we can be and are fast becoming.

The latest OECD figures show that our broadband penetration has moved amazingly from 21st to 17th place overall. Australia is the fifth fastest growing broadband market in the OECD. As at December 2005, 5.7 million Australians had access to broadband at home. Regional uptake of broadband increased by 137 per cent—twice as fast as the metropolitan uptake. The member for Scullin is most concerned about the outer suburbs. I agree that, in the past, they have been the poor relations. But no more. In the 12 months to December 2005, regional areas had a 137 per cent uptake and metropolitan areas had a 63 per cent uptake. I have to confess that we had problems before 1996. Telecommunications across Australia were not adequate. We were hamstrung and stymied. It was a joke. Before 1996, you could not run a home business using IT in Australia. But now you can.

Labor has produced a broadband plan. It says that, in government, it would spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to subsidise broadband in metropolitan markets—including Sydney and Melbourne, where it has happened commercially anyway. We were a bit concerned that, within a week of introducing Labor’s broadband plan, Senator Conroy was not sure about the total cost of the proposed new network. He said that would be worked out later.

We share the member for Scullin’s concern about all Australians having access to the world’s best broadband and other telecommunications systems, whatever they might be—and we are not even aware at this moment of what they will be in the future. It is our government’s intention to prepare the telecommunications market in Australia to be the most competitive possible, and that is why we are progressing down this path. We have had the most extraordinary uptake of broadband, and may it continue. Certainly my electorate is applauding the day the Howard government got into power and could do this.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to draw the minister’s attention to the fact that the Telstra fibre-to-node broadband plan currently being discussed is going to be limited to the five mainland cities. That means cities like Hobart, Newcastle, the Central Coast, Ballarat and Townsville will miss out on this new technology and increased broadband speeds. Could the minister please give me a reason and rationale for this?

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is focused on supporting the roll-out of affordable broadband services as the major element of the $1.1 billion Connect Australia package. These measures include $878 million for Broadband Connect, to provide Australians in regional, rural and remote areas with affordable broadband services; $113 million for Clever Networks, to fund broadband networks to improve health, education and other essential services—and I am most pleased about that—and $90 million for Backing Indigenous Ability, which will amongst other things improve internet services for remote Indigenous communities.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about my area?

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I strongly suggest that you talk to your local Telstra Country Wide regional managers. I am sure you will be pleased to hear where you will be fitting into Broadband Connect—the $878 million—and Clever Networks.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Hall interjecting

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have to allow members to ask questions. If the minister responds to your question, that is not counted as a question from the other side. I call the member for Ryan.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the Minister for Workforce Participation on her fine stewardship of the portfolio and on her deep interest in the Green Corps project. I have a very deep interest in the Green Corps project and the Australian government strongly promotes it.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Mr Johnson, but I thought you were wishing to ask a question. We are considering the appropriation bills and we are currently dealing with the Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio. Is your question pertinent to that particular area?

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I misunderstood the current circumstances.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to draw to the attention of the minister who is here representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts my question, No. 3642, on today’s Notice Paper in the House of Representatives. In this chamber earlier today I drew the attention of Deputy Speaker Causley, who happens to be a member of the National Party, to it. It is yet another question that I have placed on the Notice Paper, and this is yet another occasion when I have raised grave concerns on behalf of my constituents and the wider community in relation to the reform options discussion paper issued by the minister for communications, Senator Helen Coonan, Meeting the digital challenge: reforming Australia’s media in the digital age, which was circulated in March 2006. It should be renamed ‘Concentrating media ownership in Australia’.

Since that paper was issued in March, there have been over 200 submissions made to the minister in respect of this matter; not one of those has been made public. All the consultation in relation to this very important issue for the public interest and the future of our democracy has been conducted by stealth. I ask the minister to rule out the prospect of further concentration of media ownership in Australia when the government’s draft bill comes back to the House of Representatives. As I understand it, the bill will return some time between now and the end of the year and be put through the parliament in the early part of next year; but I am only relying on what I have read in the media.

This is a very serious issue, and I would like an answer from Senator Coonan. Will she rule out the possibility, in the worst manifestation of concentrating media ownership in Australia, of PBL and News Ltd merging? She has said that that will not happen, but she has never said that she will guarantee, ensure or legislate so that such a merger could not occur. It is unbelievable that the government would not rule out the prospect of our two biggest media companies hanging on to all their existing media assets and being allowed to own more. The Meeting the digital challenge reform options paper clearly indicates that the government is prepared to threaten the public interest and our democracy by further concentrating media ownership in Australia.

I have spoken about this issue ad nauseam for the last five years and it only seems to be getting worse. The government is proposing, as I understand it, to allow further concentration of media ownership. It is unthinkable that either one of the two biggest media companies in Australia could own television stations, radio stations and newspapers at the same time that they already enjoy ownership of monopoly pay television. And there is no indication that there will ever be a fourth free-to-air television network in Australia. This is a serious issue; irrespective of one’s politics, it cannot be allowed. I was heartened to read in yesterday’s Fin Review that Senator Barnaby Joyce and the member for Hinkler, Paul Neville, were expressing their grave concerns with this legislation—hence my question on today’s Notice Paper.

For the past five years I have been asking the minister’s predecessors and this minister to guarantee that there will not be concentration of media ownership in Australia and to rule out the possibility that the existing two largest media companies will be allowed to hang on to all of their media assets and be able to own even more. It is slaughtering the public interest and attacking our democracy to allow these two big companies to own even more of the media. I want an answer and I think the people of Australia deserve an answer.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the minister acting on behalf of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I am sure she will convey questions that you are putting to the senator in that respect.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lowe raises some very important and in fact key issues that the government is very conscious of and aims to address in a very comprehensive way. Of course, the government has committed to reforming Australia’s media ownership laws while protecting the public interest in a diverse and vibrant media sector. The discussion paper that the minister has released outlines proposals to reform media ownership laws as part of a broader reform package relating to new digital services and other key broadcasting issues. She is currently considering submissions on this discussion paper.

The minister has proposed the removal of current cross-media and foreign ownership rules, with diversity protected by a floor under the number of media groups permitted in a market to prevent undue concentration of ownership. This floor of four voices in regional markets and five in mainland state capitals seeks to find a balance between establishing too high a threshold that would prevent any mergers taking place and ensuring protection for a minimum number of voices and media outlets. This floor would not include national daily and out-of-area newspapers, the ABC, SBS, pay TV, the internet and other potential new services over other platforms, which would all continue to supplement the commercial platforms to deliver a wide range of information, entertainment and opinion.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority would have the power to grant an exemption certificate where a cross-media transaction did not breach the floor. The Trade Practices Act 1974 would continue to apply to media transactions and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission would play a critical role in assessing competition issues associated with mergers. I can assure the member for Lowe that this is a critical issue for government and in fact to the nation as a whole. The government’s policy has not been finalised. The member for Lowe should continue to pay very close attention to this issue. I am sure he has already put in a submission or he may still be in the process of putting in a submission to this inquiry. I have every confidence that the minister will take his views on board.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The proposed expenditure to be agreed to is that for the Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. Although we are scheduled to finish this portfolio at 4.30, it is not strict and we will take a further question from the member for Kingsford Smith.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The budget contains $7.2 million for the community broadcasting sector. Labor supports the community broadcasting sector, recognising that it has experienced significant growth over the last four or five years in particular. It is a particularly important area for rural and regional Australians, as I am sure the minister is well aware. Some 70 per cent of the community broadcasting reach is in rural and regional Australia. They are not-for-profit communities who receive an extremely small amount of their total budget outlay—some four per cent only—from government funding. Of course, as the minister would be well aware, the work they are doing the diversity of services they provide is particularly important to the print handicapped, youth, Indigenous people, Christian broadcasting and a number of other areas.

I draw the minister’s attention to the fact that the funding for the Community Broadcasting Foundation itself, which disburses moneys to community broadcasters, whilst it was renewed, has remained stable for I think the last 10 years, despite the fact that growth in the sector has been considerable. A start-up grant for a new community broadcasting station is approximately $20,000, but the first-off amount is now capped at about $7,000. That puts additional pressures on the communities who want to see community broadcasting stations initiated in their area.

It is of great concern that the Australian Music Radio Airplay Project funding was not renewed. Amrap, as this project is called, has been going for a number of years. It is widely supported across the sector by a variety of community broadcasters and particularly enables young Australian artists in rural and regional Australia and in cities who have written and produced music to have their music played on community broadcasting networks and further afield. It is of great concern to those young artists and to the community broadcasting sector in general that the funding for Amrap was discontinued. I draw that to the minister’s attention and am keen to hear what she has to say in response.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, like the member for Kingsford Smith and the minister, agree most profoundly that the community broadcasting area in Australia is of critical importance, particularly to rural and regional Australia. So many young radio journalists began their lives in community radio. Indeed, a lot of our Work for the Dole projects are taking place in community radio stations, giving people a real opportunity to grow their self-esteem and find work in a very challenging area.

Our minister was successful in renewing the budget’s targeted funding of $7.2 million for the Community Broadcasting Foundation over four years from 2006-07. This is targeted funding for ethnic community broadcasting, information technology initiatives and satellite services, which were first provided in 1996-97 and were renewed in 2002-03. The funding will be used to develop ethnic community broadcasting. In particular, it will support ethnic youth programs, new language groups and new and emerging communities. The honourable member is particularly concerned about the Amrap program; I will need to take that on notice. I cannot give him specific details about that program but let me say that we understand that the community broadcasting sector is unique. It is probably unique to Australia in the way that it has grown. We want to retain its diversity and its independence. We are highly committed to it and, more than any previous government, we have committed funding to this sector. We have demonstrated as a government our commitment to a healthy and vibrant community broadcasting sector. Over the last 10 years we have tried to make the sector much more sustainable. We will certainly give the honourable member more information about that particular program.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Murphy interjecting

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said we would go until just after half past four. We have other people who are waiting to move on to the Industry, Tourism and Resources portfolio—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that it is the prerogative of the chair to take time on a portfolio, but we have an allocated period for which we have brought people in. They and I have other appointments to go to and we would hate to short-change the parliament.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I hear the point of order and I think that the honourable member for Lowe has had an opportunity. We will move on to the next item.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a further follow-up question because my question was not answered. With respect—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am ruling otherwise. The honourable member for Lowe will take his seat and we will move on.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Industry, Tourism and Resources Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $1,034,533,000.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in the parliament again. First of all I want to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources on the fine job he is doing. I have a particular interest in the portfolio in its tourism capacity and its scope, and I am certainly interested to hear from the parliamentary secretary some comments on how the government is furthering opportunities for international tourists to come to Australia.

The tourism industry is, of course, of immense significance to our economy. It is worth some $75 billion. It is responsible for more than half a million jobs—indeed, 550,000 Australian jobs are in the Australia tourism industry. It is a tremendous earner for our economy. We can all be very proud of the unemployment figure of 4.9 per cent that was announced recently. No doubt many of the new jobs that were created in recent times to contribute to this very historic, three-decade low figure will be attributed to the tourism sector. Members of the Howard government can be very proud of this. It is a sign of confidence in the national economy. It is a sign of confidence in the Howard government. Many Australians will be affected by the stability and the strength of the tourism sector in our economy.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary, in terms of his portfolio responsibilities, about the Howard government’s contribution to promoting the tourism sector and the initiatives in the budget that promote that. The funding of several million dollars, in particular, to strengthening our relationship with China and promoting our country to Chinese tourists is enormously welcomed. If anything, it is on the low side because China is a country with enormous growth rates. We know that it is a country with a growing middle class of some 400 million people. We have a very strong relationship with China. We are, of course, benefiting from our exports of iron ore and coal to China.

I am particularly keen to hear what the parliamentary secretary might have to say to the people of Australia and, indeed, of the Ryan electorate, which I very proudly represent in this parliament. I know that many of my constituents will be very proud of the 4.9 per cent unemployment figure that was recently announced. Indeed, we can go lower, of course. Many of them will be associated with the tourism industry. Many young Australians living in the Ryan electorate will be working in the hospitality sector—in the hotel industry and in restaurants and clubs throughout the Ryan electorate.

Many international visitors to Brisbane do indeed come to the Ryan electorate. We have an outstanding tourist facility in the Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary. I have had the opportunity of taking many family friends who have come to visit Australia to the Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary. It is a very successful tourist attraction. I am very interested to hear from the parliamentary secretary how the Australian government can encourage more Asian visitors to our country, because we need them to spend their dollars. So, of the parliamentary secretary, I inquire about the Howard government’s initiatives in the budget handed down by the Treasurer last month.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I say to the member for Ryan, thank you for the question. He is a man very much in touch with his community. The fact is that 5.9 per cent of the total employment in his electorate comes from tourism, with some 4,272 people being employed in the tourism industry. Whilst that figure ranks two percentage points above the national average, it is below the Queensland average of 6.7 per cent. But because of the location of Ryan and its centres, such as the Indooroopilly shopping centre, in particular, it remains strong.

The member for Ryan has asked about the investment by this government in tourism. Over the next two years, $325 million will be invested by this government in tourism, and that is on the back of perhaps one of the most successful advertising campaigns for inbound tourism ever. Who would have thought that the simple statement, ‘Where the bloody hell are you?’ would have had that effect on the international stage? We heard—and I know the member for Ryan was in attendance that day—Prime Minister Blair, who was so enthralled by the statement, raise it here in the House.

The member for Ryan also asked about other initiatives. In fact, we have decided to commit $3.9 million over four years to strengthen the Approved Destination Status scheme with China. I know of the fine work that the member for Ryan does with members of the Chinese community, promoting—and never denigrating—Australia at every opportunity. For that this country is grateful, and I know that people in his community are grateful to have China in the approved destination scheme. The approved destination scheme is a bilateral tourism arrangement between the Chinese government and foreign destinations, which allows approved countries to host Chinese groups of leisure tourists. In fact, in 1999 Australia and New Zealand became the first Western destinations to be granted approved destination status by China. The market in China is enormous. It is estimated that $7.1 billion in Chinese tourism exports can be achieved by this country by the year 2015.

As I said, the member for Ryan is an outstanding member of parliament. He works particularly hard in his community across all the issues in his electorate. It is a great joy to work with him.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to begin my remarks by focusing on the important area of innovation and asking the parliamentary secretary for some responses—firstly, on the government’s changes to the Investment Innovation Fund program which were announced in the budget last month. Is the parliamentary secretary aware of criticism of the innovation fund program, including that the funds cannot be more than $100 million, that investment will not be allowed in companies with more than $50 million and that the Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnerships must divest holdings once the assets of the investee company exceed $250 million? It is quite clear to me that this is a significant disincentive to invest in this important area. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could respond to the criticisms of these changes.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Prospect for his question. There are two key areas that he has raised: one is increased funding for Invest Australia. In the 2006-07 budget, this government has provided increased funding of around $73 million for Invest Australia over four years to boost international efforts to further foreign investment in Australian industry. Australia has always been one of those countries that have required an injection of capital to promote, support and develop industries. Not since the days that we rode on the back of the sheep have we had enough capital to run this country. The fact that we attract investment into this country says a lot about the economic position that Australia is in. Over the last 10 years, we have been able to ride through the recessions of other countries—for example, through the Asian meltdown—and, through that, we have developed an ability to invest in Australian industries ourselves.

The other issue that the member for Prospect raised was venture capital initiatives. The government announced three key reforms in the 2006-07 budget in response to the venture capital review undertaken by an expert group chaired by Mr Brian Watson and including Mr David Miles and Mr Gary Potts. The export group presented its report to the government in December. There are issues in relation to venture capital. The government has committed $200 million worth of funding for a further round of the Investment Innovation Fund Program. The new round will appoint up to two new managers on a competitive basis each year for five consecutive years, with $40 million per annum in funding available for successful managers. Government funding will be matched dollar for dollar by the private sector.

We are seeking to bring about a partnership between government support and finance and private industry. The idea of government being the sole investor in innovation is deplorable. The fact that this government has been able to sit down with industry and attract industry to the table means that we can more forward.

Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to return our attention to the issue of tourism. I congratulate the government and, through the parliamentary secretary, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, on our heavy commitment to this multibillion dollar industry—an industry worth $75 billion a year in GDP, $18 billion a year in exports and half a million jobs. The $320 million we will spend on tourism over the next two years is to be greatly appreciated.

I particularly want to contrast that with the dismal effort of the New South Wales government. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to comment on that. The New South Wales budget just last week ripped another $1 million out of its state promotion of tourism. That just adds further to the problems of the last three or four years—

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This goes to the question of relevance. This is about the consideration of the Australian government’s budget. We are permitted only a very short period, and I think that the member should be drawn back to the issue before the us.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will rule on the point of order. He is being perfectly relevant to the question, which is dealing with expenditure relating to the Industry, Tourism and Resources portfolio.

Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am comparing the New South Wales budget with the federal budget and its impact on tourism in my electorate. In my electorate, over $100 million in tourism revenue is generated in the Blue Mountains and, equally, in the Hawkesbury, and 6,400 direct jobs and tens of thousands more jobs are generated indirectly. I am appalled that the New South Wales government cut spending on tourism from $56.9 million in 2002 down to $50 million last year, and it cut it even further this year. The federal government are doing our part to promote tourism and jobs in regional areas such as mine, and the New South Wales government is undermining that at every turn. I ask the parliamentary secretary whether he is aware of what the New South Wales government is doing in tourism and how we might put pressure on it to take its responsibility seriously so that it does not undermine the very positive benefits of the federal government’s budget in this respect.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Macquarie is a passionate advocate, and I can understand that when I look at the Megalong Valley and see the tourism opportunities in that area. The member has asked particularly about funding. I notice that the member for Hotham opposed the fact that the member for Macquarie dared to raise the funding—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was the member for Batman. The parliamentary secretary will just continue.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One thing that the members opposite should realise is that a large part of the state’s funding actually comes from federal government money that has been directed through. As part of the tourism allocations for state and territory tourism agencies, the New South Wales government, which the member raised, dropped funding by some 6.1 per cent from 2005-06 to 2006-07. In fact, not since 2002-03 have they had a higher amount of money. They pull this money out at a time when we hear state governments talking about economies falling off and about their increased debt. They do not understand that one of the greatest employers and contributors to economic benefit in this country is in fact the tourism industry. I am surprised at that. The member for Hotham over there kicked in and said—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Batman.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Batman, I am sorry. Well, we are so fond of the member for Hotham! Perhaps what the member for Batman would like to take back to his friends in Victoria is that, back in 2001-02, they actually kicked $52.2 million into the promotion of tourism, wound it back to $38 million, then back to $40 million, and now they have got it up and they are very proud of having $46 million. That is a message that you could take back to your friends in the state ALP and the government of Victoria.

The member for Macquarie is quite correct: some 4.8 per cent of the people in his electorate are employed in tourism, and that amounts to about 3,300 people. So I can understand his concerns about tourism and the need to promote it. I also say to the member for Macquarie—and I do understand—that because this government has established such a strong financial position for investment opportunity there has been the recent development and investment in the new resorts being established in his electorate by Emirates. I know that he has worked hard and has encouraged them to come together to bring about further investment to create a greater number of jobs. He, like the member for Ryan, is an outstanding advocate for tourism and, more importantly, for jobs in his region.

He will benefit directly from the investment in tourism by this government of $325 million over the next two years. He will benefit from our campaigns on an international stage to promote Australia and provide further opportunities for people to come here. I refer to the Brand Australia campaign and the fine work done through Tourism Australia. Those opposite, rather than harping on about minor issues, need to get behind tourism and support it. If they want unemployment to continue to fall, one of the greatest and quickest opportunities for growth in employment numbers is through the tourism industry.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two questions relating to resources and biofuels. Firstly, in respect of the government’s encouragement to the ethanol industry in Australia, does it include support for ethanol producers in pressuring petroleum and distribution companies not to buy ethanol alone but to purchase a fuel mix which includes ethanol, so as to maximise the profits of the ethanol companies? Secondly, has the government considered the success of the Canadian flow-through share scheme for promoting exploration in Australia? If so, why hasn’t the government acted on this, given the parlous state of small and medium sized oil and gas exploration in Australia?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Batman—and I apologise for my mistake earlier about his electorate. The first issue that the member opposite referred to will be before this parliament—I think it is being introduced on 19 June—in the form of the petroleum reform package and oilcode legislation.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s not the question.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take a question from the floor, because I perhaps misinterpreted what the member asked. I understand that is permissible, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is allowed under the standing orders to seek to pose a question. I recognise that you have ceded, so I recognise the member for Batman.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue was simply ethanol promotion. Does the government policy include supporting companies which produce ethanol demanding that petroleum producers and distributors in Australia be required to purchase from those companies a petroleum mix which includes ethanol, so as to maximise those producers’ profits, or is it about encouraging the promotion and sale of ethanol to those companies in Australia?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that on board. I do not have a detailed answer for the honourable member. However, it has nothing to do with the budget for this financial year, as laid out in the budget papers. That being the case—

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The budget provides support for the ethanol industry.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Batman will take his seat. I recognise the parliamentary secretary, who may, if he wishes, take that question on notice and deal with it later or continue to answer the question.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two opportunities. We can supply that information directly or the member opposite can put the question on notice.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will wait with bated breath.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can wait with bated breath; perhaps your breath is not as good as that of some, but there you go. With respect to the flow-through share scheme, I am reminded that we did have a flow-through share scheme from 1958 to 1973 and from 1978 to 1985. So it has been part of the financial side of the Australian exploration industry. I know that it was considered for this financial year. However, it was considered that more work needed to be done. It does not mean that it is totally off the platform, but it is not something that we included this year. I do not want to be dismissive of the member opposite. It has been reviewed and looked at as part of a proposal. But when you come to dividing up a budget and looking at what tax breaks you can give, the pie is only so big and you must work within the pie that you have available.

It is unfortunate that it was not included, but our government saw the priority as being to introduce tax relief to businesses and tax cuts to families so that people could have more income in their pockets. However, the fight is not over. We understand that the Minerals Council of Australia, mining and exploration companies, the Australian Gold Council and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association are pushing this proposal. We are receptive to their inquiries. It will all be looked at in the context of the budget planning processes for next year.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask two questions, and I would like to follow on from the member for Batman’s question in relation to flow-through shares. I sat on a committee, along with the opposition spokesman on resources, in the previous parliament where this was the subject of an inquiry. I, like the rest of the committee, supported the move towards the Canadian system of flow-through shares. One of the big issues was that, under the Canadian model, much of the money in flow-through shares had been absorbed into administrative costs. The recommendation from that committee, and what I would like the parliamentary secretary to take on board and address if there is a current view, is that, should Australia consider in future the issue of flow-through shares, we look at the issue not on administration of small and junior mining companies but on the actual exploration component. If we focus on the exploration component of flow-through shares we will continue to have junior mining companies and prospective companies out in the field given tax relief, whereas if the money is allowed to be absorbed in the administrative side of junior mining companies then it is quite often seen as a rort to prop up speculative companies with executives wishing to pay themselves exorbitant salaries. In terms of flow-through shares, I support the member for Batman but I add a note of caution about the way flow-through shares will be administered.

The second point I would like to make is that I had the mayor from the City of Mandurah in this house today meeting with several ministers. One of the ministers we met with was the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. In the electorate of Canning there is a region, largely in the south of the electorate, called the Peel region. The Peel region is an ideal environment and location for tourism. It is well located on the edge of the ocean around Mandurah and the large estuary that is between Harvey and Mandurah. It provides an excellent aquatic and environmental habitat for migratory birds and fish and has tourism attractions. I know there have been many awards to local tourism operators in the area of, for example, ecotourism.

Given the fact that this region has higher than the state average rate of unemployment—currently 7.6 per cent when the Western Australian average is 3.5 per cent—I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary what figures he has on tourism in the Peel region or in my electorate and what opportunities there are for further growth of this very successful sector, which grows employment quickly and quite often faster than any other industry in my region. I would be pleased to take this information back to the delegation that came to Canberra today.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the issue of flow-through shares, it has come to my notice that there was an article in the Australian Financial Review on 18 April 2006 which said that more than 50 coalition party members had signed a letter to the Treasurer supporting the introduction of tax-effective flow-through share schemes. Also, in the Australian on 2 May it was reported that the industry department had put forward a proposal seeking the introduction of a flow-through share scheme in this year’s budget. However, there is a problem in the difference between what the member for Canning wants and what members opposite want. The Labor Party policy on flow-through shares is restricted to smaller operators. They will be picked off. The problem highlighted by the member for Canning is that some of the smaller operators are set up with no other reason than pursuing tax deductions, not necessarily pursuing exploration opportunities. I agree with the member for Canning that the exploration is what it is all about.

As I said, one of the proposals by the industry for a permanent flow-through share scheme was providing shareholders with refundable tax offsets or tax credits equal to 150 per cent of the deductions that would be otherwise available to the explorer, or equivalent to 45c for each dollar of exploration expenditure. The reality is that these opportunities are important to Australia. I know that through Geoscience Australia there is more exploration, mapping and measuring being undertaken. In fact, the department has just put out more leases for further exploration.

One of the key factors that is required in all of this is the necessary investment. One of the things that also drives investment is tourism. The member for Canning asked about tourism. I note that 5.3 per cent of the workforce in his electorate, or around 3,000 people, work in the tourism industry. One of the messages that the member for Canning can take back to those who came from Mandurah today is that the Western Australian government is one of the few governments to continually increase tourism promotion for its state. In fact, this year it has committed some $52.3 million. Compare that to five years ago, when it was putting in about $31 million. That is a substantial increase and it is why tourism is going so well and why tourism employment numbers in electorates like Canning are particularly high. It is a pity that other state Labor governments, such as that in New South Wales, do not take heed of the message from the Western Australian government.

The other thing that the member asked was what were we going to do to help them. The reality is that there are opportunities at the moment. The tourism development grants package is available at the moment. That involves $50,000 to $5 million in grants, and I would encourage you to sit down with your mayors, your tourism operators and other people in your region and find the projects that will help grow tourism in your electorate. Then you can put forward an application. One of the differences between members on this side and members on the other side is that members on this side will work with people in their communities to pursue grants and other opportunities. Members on the other side just sit there and bitterly complain when they receive nothing. There is a simple rule in politics that the member for Canning knows only too well: if you don’t ask, you don’t get. Perhaps it is time that some of the members opposite put forward applications for their communities.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a disgraceful use of the consideration in detail stage when we get those dorothy dixers from government members to take up time and waste the opposition’s opportunity to actually do this properly. But I will take my chances. Can the minister outline what initiatives in the budget will improve the level of Australia’s business R&D, currently at half the levels of other OECD nations? Can the minister outline the recommendations contained in the Watson review of Australia’s venture capital industry? Will the Watson review be made public? If so, when? Does the minister believe that the $15 million allocated for the early stage venture capital limited partnership programs will be adequate to effect any substantive outcomes? Can the minister confirm that the third round of funding for the innovation investment fund will be available to new as well as existing funds?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member opposite for his question. The reality is that the research and development tax concessions will be continuing. In fact, because we have worked hand-in-hand in partnership with industry, we have seen 18 per cent average growth over the past four years.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ripoll interjecting

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member opposite makes the former member for his seat look like an academic the way he carries on and asks questions. However, that being said, the reality is that Australian business now invests more than $7 billion annually in research and development. The research and development tax concessions have been and always will be a key part of our industrial performance. The fact is that since the 2001 introduction of the 175 per cent premium tax offset there has been a significant jump in the use of the program. During 2003-04—

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Paterson willing to give way?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not take the intervention because I am answering the question they asked about research and development.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Member for Prospect.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was not the member for Prospect’s question.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is entitled to make an intervention.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, the 2003-04 budget saw more than 5,600 companies registered under the R&D tax concession. That was a record level. In 2003-04 the business uptake of the research and development tax offset for small business increased by 19 per cent.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Participation in the 175 per cent premium research and development tax concession grew by 16 per cent, with more than 890 companies investing $2.4 billion. Mr Deputy Speaker, they asked a question. I would have thought they would at least want to listen to the answer. Research and development in Australian industry is a good news answer. The reality is that they do not like it.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Bishop indicated that she proposed to cut off this particular consideration at 5.10 pm. However, there is no power to actually do that. If it is the wish of the committee to proceed, we may, but I remind the committee that if we proceed on this portfolio we will take time from other colleagues.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, could you request that the member for Paterson table the document from which he quoted so extensively.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Better than that, I will send him a detailed reply containing that information.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just table it. That will be fine. I am only requesting that you table it.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the parliamentary secretary tabling it?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he is not. He will send you a copy.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Environment and Heritage Portfolio

Proposed expenditure $1,139,139,000.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first issue I want to raise is climate change. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that the Australian Greenhouse Office did note that Australia was on track to increase our greenhouse gas pollution by 23 per cent by 2020? Is that still the case? Can he confirm that, in the Australian Greenhouse Office report released last month into our emissions between 1990 and 2004, if you exclude land use changes, that indicates a 25.1 per cent increase in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions over that period?

I also refer the parliamentary secretary to the issue of renewable energy. I refer him to the visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiaobao to Australia and the $300 million deal that was signed by Roaring 40s, a company based in Tasmania, to provide three wind farms in China. This is in a context of China aiming to have 15 per cent of its energy needs met by renewable energy by 2020. It is the case that Roaring 40s may well be the biggest foreign renewable energy company in China. I refer him to the Roaring 40s media statement of Thursday, 11 May 2006, entitled ‘Roaring 40s halts Australian developments’. They announced that they were withdrawing the development permit application that they had before the West Coast Council in Tasmania for the Heemskirk wind farm and that they were withdrawing their application for the Waterloo wind farm in South Australia. Roaring 40s managing director Mark Kelleher stated:

The MRET measure introduced by the Federal Government in 2001 successfully kick-started the renewable energy industry in Australia ... However, without an increase in the initial target level, electricity retailers are reluctant to commit to long-term REC deals which are crucial in financing renewable energy projects. Consequently, further substantial investment in the renewable energy industry is unlikely without an increase in the target.

In what way is the government going to address the collapse in the renewable energy industry as a result of the government’s failure to increase or extend the MRET? How does the MRET of two per cent compare with international mandatory targets? What new and additional action will the government take to ensure that we do not increase our emissions by 23 per cent by 2020?

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to answer the member for Grayndler’s questions on climate change. In relation to the first two questions, each of which relates to emissions projections and emissions targets for Australia, the two items which he outlines are matters of record, so I do not seek to dispute those. They are on the public record. On both of those I do not seek to dispute that which he has already raised. But I do seek to dispute, with great respect, the context. I will come to the third item of renewable energy shortly.

In relation to the context, I respectfully suggest that what the member for Grayndler has failed to do is put into context the fact that there are a number of other activities which show that we are on track to meet our Kyoto projected goal of 108 per cent of 1990 emissions by 2012. Whatever the source which allows us to achieve that, I welcome that. I do not deny the fact that land clearing plays an important part in that. I think that is a welcome outcome. I welcome the source of that and I welcome the fact of it.

What that does, to put this in context, is put Australia amongst a very small number of annex 1 countries under the Kyoto protocol which are on track to meet our targets as they were set down. We are on track to meet 108 per cent of 1990 emissions despite more than a 50 per cent increase in our GDP over that period. Many other countries within the European Union as well as New Zealand, Japan and Canada are well and truly on track to blow out their projections and their commitments. So we have a very strong record relative to the international community, I say with great respect to the member for Grayndler, in relation to emissions.

The second point that I want to take up is in relation to his argument about renewables. We are aware of the position of Roaring 40s. It is a discussion I have been engaged in myself with the member for Braddon, who has raised it. The response is very simple. Minister Ian Campbell will himself be leading a renewable energy industry delegation to China. This is one of the issues we wish to take up.

But, again, there is an issue of context which is missing here. There are two key points in relation to renewable energy context which I wish to address. The first context point is that Australia actually has a renewable energy percentage of static energy which is approaching 11 per cent of our total energy generation. Two per cent is the additional component provided by the mandatory renewable energy target. The fact that we have a base which was far higher than that of the majority of countries which have some other form of mandatory renewable energy target in whatever form that it may take has been ignored. So, by comparison with international standards, for the most part we stand up extremely well in relation to total percentage of static energy derived from renewable energy sources. I think that is extremely important.

The second context point that I wish to make is that renewables form part of the package as to how we diminish Australia’s 560 million tonnes of CO or CO equivalent a year. We try to reduce that target through a combination of factors, of which renewables are part, but the low emissions technology development fund—a $500 million fund—is also a key contributor to the long-term actions that we will take and the long-term ability for us to beat existing projections. We believe that we will be able to beat existing projections. They take a very conservative view, and I think that that is extremely important.

The other thing which we do at the international level involves the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Australia has brought together the United States, Japan, China, Korea and India, and all-up projections by ABARE show that we are looking between now and 2050 at having a total gain, over and above what would have occurred from the project and that initiative, of up to 90 billion tonnes cumulatively of CO saved. I think no other country in the world can boast that it has contributed to such an international saving of CO over the coming five decades.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start with some comments on the parliamentary secretary’s rather extraordinary response. I note that when he spoke about the context he accepted with good grace, I must say, land clearing as being the reason why that has occurred. I might note that the only reason we will get anywhere close to meeting our Kyoto target is the decisions made by the New South Wales and Queensland Labor governments. And when the government says that we are going to meet the target of 108 per cent, we should bear in mind that we had an extremely generous target. We had the second most generous target in the world, beaten only by Iceland in the industrialised world of annex 1 nations. Iceland had 110 per cent and Australia was on 108 per cent. A last-minute concession to the Australian delegation was land use changes being included. I give credit to former senator Robert Hill on that delegation for achieving that outcome for Australia. Given that we achieved that generous outcome, for us to then not ratify Kyoto and to withdraw I think serves to rub salt into the wounds of the fact that we are an international pariah, along with the United States, when it comes to industrialised nations taking leadership on climate change.

With regard to our renewables, the parliamentary secretary is certainly right that our base was higher than the rest of the world’s, but, then again, we should have been the Silicon Valley of solar energy. We were extremely well positioned a decade ago to take advantage of our position in renewables. The rest of the world—with places like China working off a base of almost zero—is just storming straight past us. That is a tragedy. I draw his attention to Mr Zhengrong Shi. He was educated in Australia at the University of New South Wales and ANU and is now the fourth richest Australian in the world. He is a dual citizen. His company is called Suntech, and he is worth $3 billion. That gives you some idea of the opportunity that is there in this industry.

I ask the minister: given that a number of ministers in the government have said that they support a price signal for carbon emissions and that it is an important component, why is it that that price signal will not be introduced immediately? Surely the parliamentary secretary agrees that price signals are there to drive technology. You do not wait for the technology to be developed before you put the price signal in place. It seems to me to be fundamental economics that that is the case. If the government will not support a national emissions trading scheme, when it speaks about a price signal, is it speaking about a carbon tax? Because that is the other form of price signal that you can have. The Labor Party has made its position quite clear—it supports a national emissions trading scheme.

Ministers have also spoken about the need for reduction targets, and I note that the ABARE figures have been proudly quoted. They show Australia completely overshooting the mark and achieving nothing like the 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050 that I have heard the parliamentary secretary and certainly the minister repeatedly say is necessary. So isn’t that an up-front concession of defeat? With regard to the climate change pact, isn’t it the case that the United States has rejected funding of the climate pact through the congress and, in fact, that Australia is the only country that is currently funding the climate pact?

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler on behalf of the opposition raised six points which require a response. The member for Grayndler said that it was unusual or inappropriate that in some way the Commonwealth should acknowledge that land clearing is part of the total package of emissions reductions for Australia. He said that land clearing is a responsibility of the states and that it is a state decision.

There has been an increase in industrial emissions for precisely the same reason as there has been a reduction in emissions from land clearing—that is, the activities of the states. There are matters which we regulate and control, and there are matters which we do not regulate and do not control. I remind the member for Grayndler that the generation of power is an activity of the states and, whilst in many states it has been deregulated either fully or partially, when you look at Victoria you find that arguably one of the world’s most greenhouse inefficient power stations is Hazelwood. It was the Victorian government which recently issued a new 30-year approval for Hazelwood.

Around Victoria and many other states, state licensed power stations are the principal source of greenhouse emissions within Australia. Static electricity is the cause of about 50 per cent of Australia’s 560 million tonnes of CO emissions every year. The principal contributor to that is state licensed power stations, the vast majority of which have received long-term renewals of their licences over recent years from the state governments. If they do make a contribution through prohibitions on land clearance, I welcome that, but it is absolutely critical that we acknowledge that the principal cause of the emissions is the activities of the states themselves in licensing precisely the largest cause of greenhouse emissions in Australia.

The second point that was made to which I have to respond is that Australia is a pariah because of our position on Kyoto. With great respect, I profoundly, absolutely and utterly reject that proposition, and I do so because Australia, along with South Africa, has been chosen as one of the two countries in the world to lead the international post-Kyoto discussions. If we were a pariah, there would have been precisely the opposite effect to what has been indicated by this decision to nominate Australia as one of the two global-leading countries in brokering a system to bring together the Kyoto and the non-Kyoto world, which comprises 70 per cent of the world’s countries. That, I think, is a very clear position, and it is a tribute both to the minister, Senator Ian Campbell, and to Howard Bamsey, the head of the Australian Greenhouse Office, that Australia and Howard Bamsey in particular have been chosen to co-lead those discussions.

The third point made was that we have a lost opportunity in relation to renewables. In fact, what we found is that the MRET target has led to a very dramatic increase in wind energy production in Australia. Almost a gigawatt of static energy capacity through wind generation has been planned or agreed to, and almost 500 million watts or 500 megawatts of installed capacity is already in place directly as a result of the mandatory renewable energy targets. So we set a target and we are achieving it.

The fourth point is that the question remains in relation to a pricing signal. It is a matter of record that the government has talked about ‘no in principle opposition’ to a pricing signal, as long as it is inclusive internationally and it does not disadvantage Australia—and we make no apology for taking that position. In addition, we are leading the post-2012 discussions. Let us see how they pan out. I think that is extremely important. On that front—and this relates to the fifth and sixth points in relation to 2050 and the Asia-Pacific partnership—we have taken forward the most significant global initiative on climate change in the last five years. We think that nothing other than the Asia-Pacific partnership will help meet the 2050 targets. We will do our part and we urge others to do theirs.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to raise some issues on coastal policy and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage: when is it likely that we will receive the 30-year plan to save the coastline that the minister raised in public comment in July last year? For example, on the Jon Faine program, the minister said:

Let’s put a plan down so developers know where they can develop, where Government know where their future hospitals and schools need to go, but ultimately a plan that sees the coast in very good shape in 30 years’ time.

I would like to know when we can expect to have access to this plan which was much touted a year ago. In May this year the minister recycled a previous framework approach to integrated coastal zone management under the heading of  ‘A new coastal protection plan’. A couple of issues in that plan seemed to me to indicate a total lack of urgency on the part of the minister to coastal issues. Firstly, on the very important issue of the impact of climate change on coastal zones and coastal communities, I do not think the parliamentary secretary will take issue with the government’s own report entitled Climate change: risk and vulnerability, which outlines the major threats to our marine environment and coastal communities, including increased cyclone activity, storm surges and rising sea levels.

In the light of all that evidence, could the minister please explain to me why in this so-called new coastal protection plan it is indicated that in order to build a national picture of coastal zone areas that are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts to better understand the risks and interactions with other stresses in the coastal zones he is projecting a time frame of an interim report in five years time, a more detailed report in 10 years time, and a five-year time frame to undertake modelling in line with state and territory priorities at the regional scale to inform coastal zone management? It seems to me that, in the face of those obvious risks, 10 years is an appalling time frame before this government gets moving on serious coastal protection and the impacts of climate change.

Secondly, as you would know, Parliamentary Secretary, in the State of the environment report 2001 particular comment was made about the unsatisfactory performance in coastal protection based on a number of indicators. That report also indicated that development pressure is a major issue confronting sustainable management of the coastal zone. That was back in 2001. Since then, numerous bodies, among them in particular the National Sea Change Task Force, have drawn attention to the impact of the sea change phenomenon, the demographic changes that are occurring and the pressure that is putting not just on infrastructure but also on habitat, loss of amenity and a loss of many environmental features that have marked Australia’s coastline in the past.

Could you explain to me why, in light of all this evidence about the sea change phenomenon—and much has been written about it—in your so-called new coastal protection plan your intended time frame is two years to coordinate and share national research and information available about population change and long-term demographics trends in coastal areas? They are but two examples in this so-called new coastal protection plan which indicate that this government is asleep on the watch. There is no national coastal protection policy, just as there is no national cities policy. In that regard, why is it that almost a year after the tabling of the bipartisan Sustainable cities report we still have no response from government?

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to address the comments of the member for Throsby, and I hope I will do them justice in five stages. The first of them was in relation to coastal policy. The member for Throsby asked about the progress of the development of a national coastal policy. I note from the outset that one of the challenges of doing business in this area is that we work on a cooperative basis. For the most part we do not have the constitutional or the legislative authority to act unilaterally; therefore, we are reliant on working cooperatively with the state bodies and the Northern Territory. So we seek to do that as cooperatively as possible. Without casting aspersions, sometimes our interlocutors can be a little slow. From my own dealings with the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, dealing with some of the most coastally sensitive land in the country, I know that it can be incredibly slow.

Exactly on the question of leadership, despite the fact that it is not our constitutional or legal responsibility, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, has set out on a task of bringing together the disparate state divisions and the disparate views within the states to try to have a consistent approach. In practice what has that meant? As the member for Throsby said, in May we produced a framework agreement as a draft for a basis of consideration with the states. We are now awaiting responses from them. We are working as quickly as we can to encourage responses from the states and territories. If the member for Throsby and the member for Grayndler could work with their partisan colleagues to assist them to produce as fast a response as possible, I would be delighted if that were to be a positive and constructive outcome of today.

The second question related to climate change and coastal zones. I note that Professor Will Steffen, from the ANU, in conjunction with the government recently produced a report which, amongst other things, addressed some of the difficult questions in relation to climate change in coastal zones. We are operating here not just on a long-term time frame but also on short- and medium-term time frames. So, with great respect, when the member for Throsby said that there will be nothing for five or 10 years, that is false. We have already delivered part 1 on the short term. We are working on a three-phase horizon here. So we are looking at an immediate report delivered, done and on the table.

Secondly, we are looking at this in terms of figures, facts and models over the medium and longer terms. I know myself, as I have responsibility for the Bureau of Meteorology and Parks Australia, the federal parks service, that I have recently commissioned work from the federal parks service to look at the impact of climate change over the coming 10 and 30 years. I want that report in one year; I want it by 1 July 2007. So you are right to ask for short-term timetables, and we are also right to say that, in addition to the short term, we are working to the longer term. I know that in relation to the Bureau of Meteorology we recently met with both the Secretary-General and the President of the World Meteorological Organisation, again to talk about working cooperatively towards international analysis of coastal zones and the effects there. So I hope that will deal with the question of five to 10 years.

In relation to the State of the environment report and Sustainable cities report, the fourth and fifth items, we are very close to a response to the Sustainable cities report. I make no apology for the fact that we have been absolutely thorough in our response to that report. It is a good report, and I commend all those who worked on it. There are some items in it that I would personally like to see picked up, but there are couple with which we significant difficulties. This is not an area of formal constitutional or legal responsibility for the Australian government but we are willing to take steps on this. Only last week I was discussing with the minister the report and our willingness to take a direct role in helping to work on the states to bring this forward. The last thing that I want to mention in relation to coastal zones is that I would be delighted if my two colleagues on the opposite side of the House would work with the New South Wales government to help them agree to some of the propositions we have for the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. It is critical coastal zone land and I ask for their assistance.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I turn now to nuclear issues and their relation to the environment. I note that the parliamentary secretary has attempted to rule out a nuclear reactor being in his electorate. However, he did it in a roundabout way and eventually got to that position, I think. I refer also to the nuclear issue task force, which has been announced by the government. The head of WWF, Mr Greg Bourne, was invited to be a member of that task force just two hours before it was to be announced. He said no, describing the inquiry as ‘rubbish’ when it came to environmental issues.

Does that reflect a failure to give appropriate environmental consideration to nuclear issues? What are the credentials of any environmental representatives on the task force? Will the Department of the Environment and Heritage be working with the task force? If not, why not? I ask the parliamentary secretary: is the Department of the Environment and Heritage on the federal government’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership interdepartmental inquiry, given that this could see Australia become the world’s nuclear waste dump? If it is not represented, why is it not represented? Given the government stopped a wind farm in Victoria because one parrot was threatened every 1,000 years, will it apply a similarly strong test for nuclear reactors? Does the parliamentary secretary agree that, with any economic cost of nuclear reactors, as a precondition you have to determine where the reactors will be and where the waste will go? Further, could the parliamentary secretary respond to the fact that when an accident occurred at Lucas Heights reactor on Thursday, 8 June, it took six days for the public to be informed of the accident and it was only due to the leaking of an email to staff from Dr Cameron that it has now been revealed that there were radiation leaks into the atmosphere around Lucas Heights? What is the government’s position with regard to the right of the community to know when radiation leaks occur in a local community?

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the question of the possibility of nuclear power in Australia, I wish to respond to the member for Grayndler in four stages. Firstly, it is very important to put into context where nuclear energy sits within the global energy environment. To my best advice, there are about 441 operating nuclear power stations within the global environment. They cover approximately 31 countries and, significantly, they produce 16 per cent of the world’s static energy.

To put Australia’s contribution in context, my advice is that the uranium we export offsets a volume equivalent to approximately 75 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The uranium we export decreases world greenhouse emissions by about 400 million tonnes of CO or equivalent, out of Australia’s 560 million tonnes of CO or equivalent. But I respect the fact that there are people with different views.

That brings me to the second point raised by the member for Grayndler. In terms of specific questions, he refers to the Prime Minister’s task force that is to investigate the potential for Australia’s involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. In particular, he asks about environmental qualifications. I think it was a good thing that Greg Bourne was invited. I am not aware of the particular circumstances under which he was invited, but I know Greg Bourne, I respect him as an individual and I am disappointed that he chose not to be a part of the task force. I hope that he reconsiders. I regard him as a potentially very valuable contributor, which is why he was invited to participate. We went straight to the head of one of Australia’s leading environmental organisations. We cannot be responsible if he chooses not to participate. That is a matter for him.

There was also a question about whether or not the Department of the Environment and Heritage is involved in the assessment of these matters. I am delighted to inform the member for Grayndler that the Department of the Environment and Heritage has two staff members seconded directly to the task force. I think that that is a valuable contribution. We would be happy to make more staff available if more are needed, and I am very happy to be able to make that statement on behalf of the minister and the government. The two staff members seconded to the task force have the capacity and are expected to give frank and fearless advice. We want the highest standards of assessment, research and analysis to be conducted. It might be a surprise to the member for Grayndler that we have that contribution there.

Beyond the task force, the third matter raised was a question in relation to location. There are two points which I think are extremely important here. The first is in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and it is a very simple principle. Will the EPBC Act apply to any nuclear activities? The EPBC Act will apply fearlessly and appropriately to all developments that fall within its ambit. That is a very simple question. The terms of the EPBC Act are clear. The member for Grayndler is demanding that there be a particular outcome from the EPBC Act. The terms of the EPBC Act are clear, and they apply to such projects as fall within its ambit. If projects are likely to affect Commonwealth land, heritage land or other things then we have no problem with that.

There is also a very simple principle in relation to the question of location. We do not set a specific location as a precondition. The task force is looking at the principles. As for location my view has always been that it would have to be geologically stable, economically viable and socially acceptable to the community involved.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the IWC meeting in St Kitts and Nevis this Friday, I now go to the question of whales. Firstly, does the parliamentary secretary agree that at that meeting it is impossible for Japan to get a three-quarters majority to resume commercial whaling? That is the first point: that will not occur at that conference.

Secondly, does he agree that it is possible that Japan may receive a simple majority of delegates to that conference, thereby enabling it to change future procedures at IWC meetings and, thereby, undermine what conservation measures come out of the IWC meeting? Whether it receives a simple majority or not, Japan has made its intentions clear to expand its so-called scientific research, which I think we would all agree is a farce and an excuse to cover up its essentially de facto commercial whaling procedures. After the IWC meetings last year in Korea, the minister claimed a victory for Australia. But as a result of that IWC meeting there were more whales slaughtered in Australian waters this year than in previous years—indeed, more than for a decade. And regardless of the outcome in St Kitts and Nevis, there will be more whales slaughtered this season by Japan in Australian waters than last year, and Japan has made its intentions clear to hunt humpback whales this season.

Given that the best outcome that can occur from this IWC meeting is a result on which I think the government and the opposition, indeed all Australians—except perhaps for the member for Leichhardt—would unite in expressing their complete opposition to whaling, when will the government recognise that it needs to take more than simply diplomatic action? When will it recognise that it needs to take legal action before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea? I draw the parliamentary secretary’s attention to strong legal advice provided by Professor Rothwell to the International Fund for Animal Welfare. I draw the parliamentary secretary’s attention to the fact that in 1999 the Howard government’s appeal to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea against Japan on fishing for southern bluefin tuna was led by the then Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, who flew to Europe to appear in that case.

If the Howard government is serious about stopping whaling, why did it intervene in the Federal Court to stop the Humane Society International enforcing the prohibition on whaling in Australian waters by arguing that it would create a diplomatic incident with Japan? Does the parliamentary secretary agree that Australia’s credibility in arguing for strong international environmental laws is undermined with our Pacific neighbours such as Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Solomons and other Pacific island states when they look at our rejection of the Kyoto protocol and at the environment minister’s statement, ‘Let’s just hope it never happens,’ in relation to rising sea levels in the Pacific? Does he agree that that has severely inhibited our prospects of securing the votes of those nations at IWC meetings?

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the member for Grayndler’s questions on whaling, I would like to proceed on five fronts. The first is a point of agreement in relation to whaling as scientific research. We agree that the current Japanese practice of conducting scientific research is a de facto commercial whaling arrangement. We do not accept it. We do not think it is appropriate. We do not think it is a legitimate use of that terminology and we wish for it to stop. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure that that de facto commercial arrangement for whaling, under the guise of scientific research, stops. Our idea of scientific research in relation to whales is a tracking device, a film crew and a hug to send them on their way.

In relation to the outcome of the vote on commercial whaling, I do not want to make any predictions about an election process. Elections are unpredictable. We were told last year that there would be a certain outcome and that Australia would clearly be on the losing side, yet we were successful. I think it would be wrong for Australia to make any false predictions publicly—certainly wrong for me. I am not as close to this as the minister is. He has recently been campaigning in the South Pacific and doing everything he possibly could. While I do not want to pre-empt the vote on commercial whaling, it will be a difficult fight. We will see what happens. I am hopeful that we will be successful. The question of a simple majority will be an even tougher fight. We face a difficult opponent. As for us, we will operate within the bounds of domestic and international law and will do everything we can, subject to good governance, to act with as much force and effort so as to ensure that we get a simple majority.

Our capacity to influence the IWC was also raised. I suspect we would have more capacity by being there than by not being there. The advice that I have, however, is that there was never a ministerial level delegate sent to the International Whaling Commission during the life of the previous Labor government. It is a fascinating proposition that in all of those 13 years no ministerial level delegate was sent to the IWC. So let us make it absolutely clear that in the fight to stop scientific whaling, commercial whaling and the whaling of humpback whales, as was raised by the member for Grayndler, we are operating on every conceivable front.

Whether Australia would take legal action internationally was also raised. The position set down by the minister is very clear: even though our best legal advice is that it would be highly unlikely that we would succeed, we do not rule it out. That is our position and that is important. We reserve our right and our position on that front.

This leads us to the last question, which is about our international credentials. The member for Grayndler sought to draw a link between greenhouse policy internationally and whaling. Firstly, I reject the link but, secondly, of all the countries in the world Australia is one of only two that has been chosen, along with South Africa, to lead the post-Kyoto dialogue discussions. In relation to greenhouse gas credentials, we are the progenitor and co-founder of the Asia-Pacific partnership and we are one of two lead nations in the post-Kyoto framework. Our credentials on this issue are strong and I think that they strengthen our capacity to make the case on a prohibition on whaling. (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Transport and Regional Services Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $753,555,000.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Minister for Transport and Regional Services for arriving and fronting up to this meeting in person. Unlike many ministers who have sent the monkey, it is great to see the organ grinder here. Thank you and I appreciate the fact you are here in person because I think it is great to see the minister himself turning up. You ought to be congratulated for taking the time to answer these questions.

The question I have to start with—and I have quite a few, as you are probably aware—relates to what is going on with Westralia Airports Corporation and the City of Belmont in my electorate. As you would know the city has been short-changed in their rate equivalent payments to the tune of $409,000 by Westralia Airports Corporation. Firstly, you have already met, as I know, with Westralia Airports Corporation about their decision not to comply with their lease with the Commonwealth government and to refuse payment of rates to the City of Belmont. Could you please advise us when you will be meeting with the City of Belmont to discuss this issue?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you want me to reply to them individually?

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to do one at a time. There are about eight or nine.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you give us the whole eight or nine I will make a note of them.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some might need an answer to follow on from. First of all, when will you be making a decision on this issue so the City of Belmont and, in fact, communities that are affected by airports around Australia can be assured about their future revenues? Are you concerned about the federal Auditor-General’s criticism of your department’s management of leases with airports and what are you going to do about that?

Do you believe the federal government should be providing a private corporation with a tax haven, in effect—I am quoting that term ‘tax haven’ from Senator Johnston’s evidence to Senate estimates, so it is not coming from the Labor Party—that provides a significant advantage over other businesses not located on airport land? Given airports have a huge impact on communities around Australia, do you believe that airport lessee companies should be good corporate citizens and meet all their obligations to their local communities?

When did you become aware that your department was providing airport corporations with advice about the interpretation of the lease without first obtaining legal advice? I understand that that legal advice has now been made available to you, according to recent Senate estimates, and I am wondering when that legal advice can be made available to members of parliament so that we can advise our councils as to exactly what the position is. Are you aware that your department continues to have a misunderstanding that other ratepayers are able to negotiate down the amount of rates they pay? To put that into perspective, the department has said, ‘Look, it’s okay—because there aren’t certain services provided to airport corporations that would normally be available to other ratepayers, they can actually go and negotiate down the amount.’ But that prospect is not available to any other ratepayers or equivalent ratepayers in local government jurisdictions. In fact, in some cases it is prohibited by law. I quote the example particularly in Belmont, because it is relevant, where the local shopping centre provides a lot of their own services and removes a lot of their own rubbish, as the airport does, but they do not receive any reduction in their rates because of that. But the department is continually telling airports corporations that because they are not provided with all the services they can get a reduction. This flies in the face of everything else that has been provided by way of advice. Minister, I will let you have a go at those questions and I will come back with some more. Thank you.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the obligation of airport lessees to pay rates, let me make it absolutely clear that I do not accept that airports should be in any kind of favourable position, in comparison with other landowners, in relation to their obligations to local government to pay rates and other charges. There are sometimes services that are provided by the airport which would otherwise be provided by the council and in those circumstances I think it is reasonable for those kinds of amounts to be discounted. However, the fact that an airport operator may not use the swimming pool or the town hall or something like that is not a valid ground for having a rate reduction. We all know that all of us as ratepayers do not use every single service that a council provides and we do not get a rate reduction from that perspective.

I have been seeking to develop a negotiated solution between the various parties so that there can be a clear understanding of what the obligations are and then a ready acceptance of the requirement to meet those obligations. There are only two airports in Australia that have not been able to reach an agreement with their local councils about the level of rates they should pay. One of those is Adelaide and the other is Perth. In the case of Perth, from memory they have reached agreement with two of their local authorities and with the third one—namely, the City of Belmont—there remains a dispute.

In the case of Adelaide airport, an independent arbiter was put in place to try to establish a successful outcome. He made a recommendation to the Local Government Association of South Australia but, when it came to it, the council was not prepared to accept the arbiter’s ruling. So it has been necessary for my department to seek some additional clarity in relation to the legal position. That is the legal advice that the honourable member for Swan has referred to. Having received that advice, there is a further round of negotiations being undertaken with the Westralia Airports Corporation, and I am optimistic that that will lead to a satisfactory outcome. That outcome will hopefully set in place arrangements that will be accepted by all of the lessees so that rates will be paid without argument in the future.

On the one hand, let me make it absolutely clear that I expect airport lessees to pay their own way. I do not accept that any commercial or other development on airport land should get any kind of a free ride. In other words, a shopping centre built on airport land should pay the same sort of charges as if it were built across the road on land owned by somebody else. That is a fundamental principle. On the other hand, I expect councils to behave reasonably as well and not seek to extract some kind of penalty rental out of a significant business that is creating a lot of jobs in their local government area.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr, on being appointed to the Speaker’s panel. Minister, following on from your point, you have mentioned that there are certain services that are provided to other ratepayers that would not normally be provided to airport operators and that this might be some reason for a reduction. Do you think you could ask the department to come up with some examples of where that is the case? It is my understanding that councils provide the same services to Westralia Airports Corporation, particularly in Belmont’s case, that they provide to other major businesses in the area, such as the Belmont Forum Shopping Centre. Where you have a large corporation operating a large business, often they provide some of their own services but, under the rateable arrangements, they still do not get a reduction on their rates—that is actually their choice. So I am curious to find out if you could provide some examples of where that would be the case.

I know you have mentioned that there were two airports in dispute: West Torrens in Adelaide, and in Perth. You talked about the independent arbiter. I know we have discussed this previously but I have spoken to the West Torrens Council and they tell me that they know nothing about the appointment of an independent arbiter. They have received no advice that they were in the wrong or that their assessment was inaccurate. So I wonder where that advice came from, whether it was provided to them and whether it could be provided to me, because, as I said, that matter has been raised with them and they have specifically denied that that is the case.

Minister, I am wondering if you could confirm that one of the main reasons for charging a rate equivalent payment is to ensure that competitive neutrality principles apply, so that businesses operating on airport land, which is Commonwealth land and would not normally be subject to a rate, would end up having to pay the same amount as they would if they were operating in a council and therefore this principle of competitive neutrality is upheld.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The principle that the honourable member for Swan espoused at the end of his comments is basically what I was trying to say in my own comments. That is certainly my understanding of what I consider their position to be. I am a little bit reluctant to get involved in discussions about the negotiations with individual councils and individuals airports. I think that is a matter that is better addressed through commercial negotiations, and there is also the potential for legal action. So I do not wish to comment in too much detail about those specifics. I recognise the honourable member’s keen interest in this issue—and indeed Senator Johnston’s interest in this area and the interest of quite a number of other members—and I am anxious to deliver a fair outcome for all the parties and to do it as quickly as possible. In relation to West Torrens, the honourable member’s comment surprised me. I will make some more inquiries and, if there is anything further I can add, I will get back to him.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that. Minister, with regard to the issue of competitive neutrality, could I draw your attention to the fact that the Acting President of the National Competition Council, Mr David Crawford, is also the Chairman of the Westralia Airports Corporation, which has the lease of Perth Airport. I am wondering whether it is appropriate that someone who would be overseeing the whole process of competitive neutrality is involved in a corporation that is seeking to deny the residents and ratepayers of the city of Belmont their due rates under that very policy that he is supposed to be enforcing. I would think that there is a conflict of interest there, and I would be interested in the minister’s comments.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I do not accept the premise that Westralia Airports Corporation is seeking to not make legitimate payments—it is a matter for resolution in the future as to what an appropriate amount might be—nor do I accept that there would be a conflict of interest involved. If, in fact, the body referred to was required to act in a case involving Westralia Airports Corporation, clearly somebody would have to step aside and make sure that it was dealt with absolutely at arms-length. There is no suggestion at this stage that the matter is going to be taken through that kind of a process anyway.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I have three questions. Firstly, I draw your attention to Sydney airport and the plan for a 62,390 square metre retail centre and a car park for up to 3,145 vehicles and the massive objection by the state government, local government and community groups—indeed everyone but the owners of Sydney airport—to that plan that forced it to withdraw it and to indicate that it would submit a revised plan. The Sydney Morning Herald of 21 April says:

A spokesman for the minister, Warren Truss, said public consultation would be required only if the new plan was "fundamentally different" from the original.

Minister, I put it to you on behalf of my constituents that it is appropriate that there be a public consultation process after that revised plan is submitted and, if that does not occur, that there will be considerable outrage from the local community—from both residents and also businesses.

When you look at the location of Sydney airport, in the most densely populated area of Australia, I think one can see why the plan—which involved a $200 million shopping centre and a cinema complex—is regarded with some considerable objection by residents. Minister, I would ask that you give a commitment that there will be a public consultation process and that you will not simply rubber-stamp this plan.

My second question is this: is the minister aware that, in spite of the fact that there is a curfew at Sydney airport between 11 pm and 6 am, there are scheduled flights every day which breach that curfew, in particular between 5 am and 6 am, from Qantas, Singapore Airlines and airlines involved in long haul flights from LA and from London? Indeed, duty-free shopping at Sydney airport opens at 5 am, not at 6 am. Even duty-free shopping and Customs at the airport are open every day at a time when the public would expect that the curfew would be operating. As someone who lives under the flight path of Sydney airport I will declare an interest in asking this question of the minister. Can the minister look at that and confirm that that is the case and take action to ensure that, if legislative changes are required to make sure that the 11 pm to 6 am curfew is enforced, they will be taken?

My third question goes to the issue of noise amelioration for those around Sydney airport. In particular, I draw the minister’s attention to the plight of Fort Street High School, which is directly under the flight path at Taverners Hill. It is on high land a stone’s throw from the insulation zone—it is about 150 metres outside. Does the minister think it reasonable that young people’s education at that school is disrupted sometimes every 90 seconds as a result of flights going over? Will the minister take up my invitation, which I have given to him personally before, to come to that school to see for himself what the young people suffer in terms of the disruption to their educational attainment from the aircraft noise? Will the minister give consideration to taking action to ensure that this occurs, particularly given that there are no budget implications from it in that the money for noise amelioration comes from the airport noise levy, which is levied on every passenger?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are three basic questions. In relation to the proposal for commercial development on Sydney airport, let me say that since I have been the minister there have been no applications before me from Sydney airport for any kind of development. I am not aware that there are any about to come to my attention. However, if there were to be a proposal for a commercial development it would be subject to public consultation processes. There are prescribed periods and procedures laid down in the act that have to be followed in relation to public consultation, and I would expect those to be followed before an application was submitted to me for consideration, irrespective of the nature of the development.

I am not quite sure of the context of the remarks you attributed to my spokesman; I can only assume that somehow or other they have come out of context because in reality any master plan and any amendment to the master plan have to go through that kind of process. The only exception might be if something is already in the plan and therefore does not require any new approval process. Certainly a shopping centre or something of that nature would.

Some of the comments in relation to that proposed development brought out the worst of debate associated with these sorts of issues. I thought it outrageous for the New South Wales government, for instance, to suggest that a shopping centre would result in $2 billion worth of roadwork requirements. I expect again, and I follow on the comments I made to the member for Swan, that a development on an airport site should meet similar kinds of development conditions as would apply if it was across the road, and that would include road upgrades and the like. Those kinds of conditions have been imposed when shopping centre type developments have occurred in other airports around Australia. On the other hand, I would not expect that they should apply to a new freeway miles away, which seems to be the context of some of the remarks that were made at the time that development was being speculated about. I do not know that it ever got to a stage where it was seriously likely to come before me under the master planning arrangements.

Regarding the curfew at Sydney airport, I would again ask the honourable member if he could give me some names, dates, times and places. I would be more than happy to follow it up. The curfew applies, as he said, between 11 pm and 6 am—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

QF2—every day.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my understanding that scheduled services cannot arrive before 6 am. In an emergency, occasionally the curfew has to be broken, and from time to time there is a process whereby a special permit can be given to allow an aircraft to land, but, my word, that is exceptionally rare. It is not something that we would allow easily. My understanding is that some freighter aircraft, low-noise aircraft, are allowed to approach over the bay during certain times, but there should not be any scheduled services.

From time to time, I get letters from people who are upset about aircraft noise, and each of those instances is investigated. We usually send back to the constituent details about what happened on the particular day, including flight plans and paths for aircraft, so they can have an understanding of what has actually happened. I would be concerned about the issues raised by the honourable member and, if he could give me some names, dates, times and details, I will certainly follow it up.

The honourable member has raised Fort Street High School with me previously. I can appreciate that there are concerns about noise in areas where aircraft are operating. Obviously, new generation aircraft are much quieter than their predecessors. There are no marginally compliant aircraft operating in Australia anymore; they all meet the new standards. Essentially, we have a better environment now than there has been in the past. The honourable member, because he represents that area, would know even better than I that the insulation that has been provided was limited to areas where particular noise levels occurred, and the Fort Street High School does not fit within that category. It would be possible, as the honourable member suggests, to lower the criteria and then deal with all of the buildings that fit within the new criteria. That would require a substantial extension of the levy, which is getting close to the point where it will expire. Indeed, it may involve extensions for as long as 50 or 100 years. (Time expired)

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To assist the members present, we started on this process about 15 minutes late, so I give members the understanding that we will continue for an extra 15 minutes and everyone will have their opportunity.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about issues that relate to Adelaide Airport. Let me say that I am pleased that the minister is here and has fronted today to answer questions, unlike some of the other ministers who did not turn up. It certainly gives me pleasure that the minister is here so I can ask a few questions which are so important to my electorate. The airport, as the minister would be aware, is smack bang in the middle of the electorate of Hindmarsh. Adelaide Airport is surrounded by approximately 15,000 households, which means that approximately 30,000 residents, if not more, live around the airport, and their lives are impacted immensely by the activities of the airport.

The issues at Adelaide Airport that affect the residents who live by the airport obviously include noise, which the member for Grayndler mentioned earlier. Many live under the flight path, as I do. I have lived there for all my life, in fact. The impact of noise is immense on people, including shiftworkers and young families with small children. One of the questions that I am continuously asked regards the entitlement for insulation. I have written to the minister on many occasions. Many of the people just outside of the area that has been insulated feel that they have been unjustly dealt with. I can understand how they feel that way, when they see that the house across the road from their place is insulated. They miss out, yet the noise impact is exactly the same. Compared with the house across the road, the noise that is heard a few feet or yards away from their house is no different. I can understand why those people feel that they have been hard done by, and I tend to agree with them.

I would like to find out what sort of ongoing process there is to ensure that the impact of noise on these homes that are just outside of the areas that were insulated is constantly being monitored to ensure that those homes will at some stage come into those bands and perhaps be entitled to insulation. The other issue with insulation is that many people feel that there is nowhere to go and complain or to have their issues raised. They come to me, I write to the honourable minister opposite and he politely sends a letter back outlining the rules. But I think a lot of people feel that there is a flaw in process in how insulation was given out and would like their voices heard.

I would like to ask the minister whether there is any dispute resolution process, not only for the people who have quite rightly argued that they need insulation but also for other issues that affect the residents, such as the development that takes place on airport land. We have seen massive development in Adelaide. Many of the residents come to me and say: ‘Why can’t you guys stop it? Why don’t you go to the council and complain on our behalf?’ When I explain to them that it is not in the jurisdiction of local government or the state government but it is ticked off by the federal minister under the master plan, they are horrified that there is no process for them to have input.

You may say that there is process at the beginning stage when the master plan is being drawn up—and that is the case—but, if they do not agree with something that was in the master plan or they believe that the particular development that is taking place is not compatible with the master plan, they feel like there is absolutely no independent body to take up their case, to hear their views and to look into something in an impartial way that does not represent the airport or the minister. They want a totally impartial body.

The minister may not be able to answer my final question off the top of his head. We have a curfew in Adelaide, from 11 pm to 6 am. I would like to know, since the curfew was implemented early in 2000, how many times has the curfew been breached, how many of those breaches have been prosecuted and how many dispensations have been given in the period that the Adelaide curfew has been going? I know that the minister would not have the figures off the top of his head, but I would certainly appreciate an answer on behalf of the residents of Hindmarsh.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Taking the last question first, I will follow it up. I am aware of one breach where we are seeking to take action against the airline concerned, but there seem to be some legal difficulties about our capacity to do that. It is a breach, I might add, that causes me quite a deal of concern. I believe the airline have not acted honourably, and if we can find a way to prosecute them we certainly will.

In my time as minister I have only been asked to give one dispensation for Adelaide, and that was so the Port Adelaide footballers could be flown back from Perth on one day rather than having to wait to the next day to fly back, which might have damaged their chances in the grand final. I was told that they needed to do that because Brisbane Lions were disadvantaged in the previous grand final because they had to fly home late, and Port Adelaide, who got the advantage of Brisbane’s disadvantage, did not want the same to happen to them. In the event, I think the Western Australians did the honourable thing and had the game a bit earlier so that so the Port Adelaide footballers did not actually need to break the curfew. But I recall that as one request to break the curfew. However, we were looking at other ways of resolving the issue in that circumstance. Certainly breaches of curfew would be rare, but I am happy to get back to the member with more detail.

I think I have partly answered the two previous questions in my comments in response to other members. The noise contours that are followed in Adelaide are the same as the ones in Sydney. Basically, the same standards have been set at both airports, and insulation has been put in those houses and public buildings that meet the criteria. I am advised that the criteria are the same as those that have applied in other parts of the world where there have been attempts made to insulate properties from aircraft noise. We are not considering any plans to alter those contours. As I mentioned in answer to the honourable member, to do so—to drop them down, say, five decibels or so—would add very substantially to the task involved and extend the levy for perhaps as much as 50 years. That is perhaps a rather large commitment to take on.

Finally, you asked about councils and others getting a role in the development process. I have to say that I have been a bit perturbed that state and local governments have been suggesting that they have no role in the planning process. That is not true. The fact that they think they do not have a role perhaps demonstrates that we need to do more to make the guidelines clear to everyone so that the opportunities for consultation and the way in which it works are in fact effectively known to all of the interested parties. When there is a development in a local government area, it is required and it is an expectation that the airport lessee will consult with the local government and, for that matter, the state government. There have been instances where the states have not bothered to reply. I cannot take responsibility if they do not reply. But I do expect them to be consulted and to have an active opportunity to indicate areas that they think are important that ought to be taken into account in making a decision about whether a project should be agreed to.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have three questions for the minister. I do not presume that he will be able to answer all of these tonight, but he may be able to extend the answers in writing. Firstly, I congratulate the government on two feasibility studies that are being carried out at the moment. One is in relation to the north-south rail link, which also incorporates the Sydney link between Melbourne and Brisbane and, obviously, Sydney and Melbourne and Sydney and Brisbane. Another feasibility study is in relation to the Liverpool Range tunnel, which is in the Gwydir electorate but also has an impact on the New England electorate.

In relation to the north-south link, though, there have been a number of submissions put to the consultants. But there seems to be some confusion in relation to the freight task on those various routes—that is, Melbourne-Brisbane, Brisbane-Melbourne and Sydney-Brisbane. There is confusion over the numbers and actual tonnages by road and rail that are travelling between those destinations. I think they are very important in determining a route. It has importance in the Sydney-Brisbane part of that route as well. I was just wondering which figures your department uses in relation to the freight tasks between those particular destinations. Also, what is the government’s program in relation to the examination of the data that the consultants bring back on the Melbourne-Brisbane rail link? Is there a view as to when the government may act on that particular project?

I have another two questions. The minister would be aware of the issue before the parliament at the moment in relation to the taxation of compensation of water. A Regional Partnerships program grant was allocated to the Long Point channel near Gunnedah where a number of ground water users who were losing entitlement were actually granted funds to overcome that loss of entitlement by way of a channel to get water into a particular hot spot that was a problem to those people. I do not expect the minister to do it today, but could the minister inform me in writing of the taxation status of that grant in the hands of those recipients? The third and final question is: are you aware of a commitment by Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile to the Mayor of Tenterfield in relation to the funding of the Tenterfield bypass?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the north-south rail study, the government expects to receive that report by about the end of this month or early next month. Once we have obtained the report, it will be possible to make some more judgments about what further action might be required. When the whole issue of the north-south or inland railway line was first talked about, it was going to be funded entirely by the private sector. If that is still the case, there may be no further response required from the government. I have an idea that most of the proponents have now drifted away from that line a little and expect that there will be a need for some kind of public funding to make the projects viable. When we have the report it will be an appropriate time to think about what further steps might be required. There is some funding in AusLink 1 for rail upgrades but, if there is to be a substantial investment in some new rail line, that would have to be considered either in AusLink 2—assuming there is to be an AusLink 2—or through some other kind of funding arrangement.

The Regional Partnerships grants are normally taxable. If they go to a tax-exempt body, they are not taxable in their hands but if they go to a private individual they are like all grants—essentially taxable. If there is anything unusual about the particular grant that the honourable member is referring to, I am happy to follow that up. But the taxation status of the grant would depend largely on who received it and whether it was a taxable body or not.

Finally, I obviously was not privy to any conversations between the Mayor of Tenterfield and the Deputy Prime Minister, but I will ask him what commitments he may have given, and naturally, if the Deputy Prime Minister has given a commitment, that is the kind of commitment that we like to honour.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to go to two matters—land transport and regions. My question on land transport follows on from the questions of the member for New England, who champions the Melbourne to Brisbane rail link. The federal government has to see transport in a wider guise than just roads. I appreciate the comments that the minister has made about the future of funding, but this goes in a national sense to the need to have links such as the rail link from Brisbane to Melbourne, which is important for freight. The region that I live in, northern Melbourne, will become the gateway. There is already an inland port at Somerton that can link in, so potentially it will be a very big employment generator for the northern region.

When we assist in local roads, we should also understand that local roads should go hand in hand with public transport. The minister has disappointed me in public comments that he has made. He has said that he does not see public transport as a role for the federal government and that it should be a responsibility of states and territories. But he really has to look at this. If our cities are to develop in a sustainable way, the federal government will have to show national leadership and involve itself. If we are going to look at sustainable cities, we have to look at different ways of moving people around for employment, education and even for recreation. I hope that when he puts his portfolio point of view in the discussions the whole-of-government decision will be that there is a need for the federal government to be involved in a wider range of land transport than just roads.

The second issue that I want to raise touches upon the regions. I have mentioned the regional impact on northern Melbourne of the Brisbane to Melbourne rail because of the potential for us to become the gateway. In other times we could perhaps have called the minister an agrarian socialist, but now he has moved into his new liberal mode. I am not sure whether I have had this discussion with him, but National Party members have usually had an easier time discussing regional matters because they represent rural regions. As a member for an electorate in an outer urban area, I say that the northern region of Melbourne is distinct. It is distinct from the western region. The member for Holt was in here earlier. It is distinct from his region. It concerns me that under consideration is the amalgamation of area consultative councils that operate in metropolitan Melbourne. I have not looked at the performance of the Sydney consultative council that covers the whole of greater Sydney. I have briefly discussed issues concerning the one in Perth. Looking at the region that the electorate of Scullin is part of—it has only 700,000 people—it will be competing in a region of four million people with only one ACC.

I hope that the minister can see that in metropolitan areas we can define distinct regions and that the ACCs that have been operating in Melbourne do champion the cause of our metropolitan regions. I hope that that can continue. I would be concerned that, on the basis of some form of economic rationalism, we would throw out what has been a very good system in metropolitan Melbourne—even accounting for the fact that, from time to time, with schemes such as Regional Partnerships, we have been concerned at the lack of transparency. That is because some of that money has been allocated outside of the ACC processes. I think that it is very important to place on record here that in the case of the five metropolitan Melbourne ACCs we have a system that is not broken, so please do not tamper with it.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond briefly to the last point made by the honourable member. We have one ACC in Sydney, one in Brisbane, one in Adelaide, one in Perth, one in the whole of Tasmania but five in Melbourne. So, when looking at the way in which the regional programs can be implemented most efficiently, it is obvious that we would look at whether it is necessary to have five times as many ACCs in Melbourne as there are in Sydney. This proposal has been circulated for public comment, along with a number of other proposed boundary changes in New South Wales and Victoria. I am aware that there is some opposition from the ACCs in Victoria and from some of the Melbourne members about any suggestion that there should be fewer ACCs in Victoria. I will take those comments on board.

It also needs to be remembered that at least one of those ACCs has not produced a single Regional Partnerships project for the entire year. There is no real evidence that the output from the five ACCs in Melbourne has exceeded the output from the one in Brisbane or the one in Sydney. They are the sorts of issues that we have to take into account. I assure the honourable member that his views and those of others will be taken into account when a decision is made.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the previous contribution I made, and the minister’s response, regarding the curfew at Sydney airport, which exists between 11 pm and 6 am. The minister responded very genuinely, like most Australians would, by saying that when you have a curfew that means planes do not land or take off during that time. He thought it might be happening under exceptional circumstances. For the benefit of the minister, the Sydney airport website shows seven breaches of the curfew scheduled today. I assume that some of those are code share flights. Air France AF8096, through Paris and Singapore; British Airways BA7306, from Frankfurt and Singapore; and Qantas QF6, from Frankfurt and Singapore, were scheduled—I assume that is one flight—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are probably code share.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. They were scheduled to land at 5.10 am and in fact landed at 5.13 am today. British Airways BA15, from London and Singapore, code share, I would assume, with Qantas QF320, was scheduled to land at 5.15 am. It landed at 5.20 am. Lufthansa LH9780 from Singapore—I assume also code shared with Singapore Airlines SQ221—was scheduled to land at 5.55 am. According to the website today it landed one minute earlier, at 5.54 am. I draw that to the minister’s attention, to give a concrete example. That is happening each and every day. The duty-free shop there is open every day at 5 am in order to accommodate that, as are Customs and Immigration facilities. It quite clearly is a breach. I ask the minister to look at how legislation can be changed to ensure that the curfew is a real curfew, not a Clayton’s one which is breached every single day.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have offered to take it on board.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I have just a few comments to make. You mentioned AusLink before. I would like to point out that Western Australia pays $28 billion in taxes and gets only $24 billion back from the federal government. Even though you did increase some of AusLink’s funding for road and rail, unfortunately we still receive less than three per cent of federal rail funding and around eight per cent of federal road funding. It would be great if you could give us back a little more from the $4 billion dollars extra that we pay.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every state is complaining that they have a poor share.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. But Western Australia has a right to complain and the others just like to whinge. Minister, can you give us some idea of when the decision on the BGC brickworks will be made? The brickworks is in Hasluck but the airport is mainly in Swan, and people are asking me what is happening with that. I am surprised that the member for Hasluck is not here to ask that question himself.

An issue of concern to me is that, in the lead-up to the last federal election, Westralia Airports Corporation advised me that they intended to be in dispute with the council about rates. I was also advised that the reason the airport corporation did not proceed and did pay the rates is that they did not want to do that in an election year because my seat was so marginal. I find it quite extraordinary that they would play politics with something as important as this, particularly given that they would disadvantage their own shareholders by not pursuing something that they thought would be valid in terms of not paying their rates. I am very disappointed that they have been playing politics with this issue and have waited until after the election to raise the matter this year, whereas in other jurisdictions like Torrens, Brisbane and Sydney issues about rates have been raised. I am particularly concerned because Westralia Airports Corporation are one of the largest donors to the National Party. We do not have any National Party seats in Western Australia, yet they are still prepared to pay a lot of money and it would appear that they are playing politics with this issue.

Minister, have you seen the petition from the City of Belmont itself, which I tabled in the last sitting week, concerning this matter? There is also a petition, signed by 2,500 residents of Belmont, raising concerns about the rates. You mentioned that you would not want to see federal funding for freeways and infrastructure going to support the airport. I can appreciate that that should be paid for by broader areas. Local councils have to bear the burden of a lot of the costs in relation to airport operations. Perth, in particular, has a lot of road infrastructure that copes locally with the airport. For example, we have to put traffic-calming measures in local roads, because people who are trying to get to the airport will use those roads rather than the main thoroughfares. That is a major expense that councils need to pay. Whilst airports say that they are not getting these services, a lot of things are happening off the airport site that local councils have to be responsible for.

You mentioned that the airport corporation and the department will negotiate to try to resolve this issue. I commend you on that. Can you give me some time frame as to when those negotiations might take place? Legal advice was mentioned before. Can you give us some idea when that legal advice may be available? I understand that you may not want to talk about some of these issues in this forum, which might be broadcast, but I would appreciate knowing personally, if not publicly, what is going on.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we are pressed for time, let me say that I have 90 days to make a decision in relation to the brickworks. A few of those days have passed. I understand that the clock stops some time in August, so you can expect a decision between now and then. I will take into account all the matters that have been put in front of me.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his courtesy to the committee.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

243 Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry PortfolioAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $853,220,000.

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me say right from the outset that I am disappointed that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has not graced the chamber with his presence. That is no disrespect to the parliamentary secretary. I would have thought that, with an expenditure of this amount, the minister would have at least shown the parliament the courtesy of turning up to these proceedings.

Many Australian families are under real financial pressure. They have recently endured several rises in interest rates, courtesy of the Howard government, which have simply meant significant increases to their payments on their farm loans, credit cards and personal loans. They have had to bear the direct and indirect costs of petrol price rises on their family budgets. Like other families, they have had to bear increased child-care costs and increased private health insurance premiums. Like other households, they have had to get by while this Treasurer and government have had their hands deep in their pockets for a long time. Now, of course, the wives of farmers—and indeed some farmers themselves—who are working off-farm to keep their farms going will suffer at the hands of the government’s industrial relations changes. These are broad areas of economic and industrial policy that matters in this budget attempt to address at various stages of programs.

The opposition has mounted some broad criticisms of this. There is no plan for skilling the sector in this budget. There is no coherent infrastructure plan, and there is no new wave of innovation and R&B development that is going to propel the productivity improvements that the sector will need in coming decades to compete with emerging competitors. The Howard government has been fond of talking big in its budgets but actually delivering very little, and there have been significant underspends in many of the programs. This is typical of this government. It will go to the rural sector saying, ‘Yes, we’re going to spend $850 million a year,’ and then, when we go back through estimates, time and time again there are significant underspends. Of the $7.8 million allocated in last year’s budget for the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, only $1.9 million was spent. Of the $42.5 million allocated to the Farm Help program, only $11.2 million was spent. Now, the government spends its advertising dollars telling the rural sector how good it is in allocating moneys in these programs, yet we have significant underspends. Of the $2 million allocated to the HomeGrown campaign, only $540,000 was spent. Of the $4.7 million allocated last year for recreational fishing community grants, only $2 million was actually spent. There are significant underspends in around 20 items from last year’s budget.

This government is simply not accountable to this parliament, to farm communities and to the Australian taxpayer. It is arrogant, incompetent and unaccountable. I give an example. In table 2.5 on page 29 of the PBS, in the industry development section, there is a $10 million allocation for 2006-07 for ‘other decisions yet to be announced’. That is what the government says. During recent Senate estimates hearings, officials with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry were asked if a line such as this had ever appeared in previous portfolio budget statements. The chief operations officer, Mr Allan Gaukroger, gave a clear, one-word answer to this important question. He said, ‘No.’ This makes a mockery of the letter from the agriculture minister that appears at the front of the PBS statement:

I present these statements by virtue of my responsibility for accountability to the Parliament and, through it, the public.

The users guide on page 7 of the PBS elaborates on this and says:

The purpose of the 2006-07 Portfolio Budget Statements (PB Statements) is to inform Senators and Members of Parliament of the proposed allocation of resources to Government outcomes by agencies within the portfolio.

Here is a significant item of taxpayers’ money, farmers’ money, and the government cannot answer—or would not answer in the Senate estimates process—what this money has been allocated for in the budget. I certainly hope the parliamentary secretary has an answer, because we put it to the government in Senate estimates and they could not come up with any sort of explanation as to this line item in the budget and how it will be expended. This is not good enough. It is not accountable government. I ask the parliamentary secretary again: will she clarify for this parliament what that line item of $10 million is going to be used for? (Time expired)

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will attempt to address some of the points that the member for Corio has raised. He started by attacking the government in a general fashion. He mentioned interest rates, which must be a little bit embarrassing when we reflect upon the late eighties. I am sure that the opposition is tired of being reminded of it. The constituents that I represent in western New South Wales who had interest rates of between 17 and 23 per cent certainly have not forgotten—

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was that under you or us? What about the double digits under you?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was under a Labor government—

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And a Liberal government!

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me revisit some of the remarks by the member for Corio’s leader in a recent discussion of a matter of public importance. I was amazed when he talked about giving the kid in the bush a go because no kid on any farm gets a go when his old man is loaded up with an interest rate of up to 23 per cent. It is not as difficult now, although there are issues that farmers across Australia are facing that the government is managing. It is nothing like as difficult as it was then and I simply refuse to accept that criticism.

The member for Corio also mentioned the current IR changes. When the Leader of the Opposition consulted with the National Farmers Federation recently he was told in no uncertain terms that farmers approve of and are happy with the current IR changes. It is probably more about getting in touch with the rural constituency than anything else. I say to members opposite that to get in touch with the rural constituency you have to walk a mile in their shoes. Probably the member for Corio has walked some miles in the shoes of rural people but many others opposite have not.

Other points of attack concern the government’s spending on R&D. I think that it is important to note that from 1996-97 to 2004-05—since this government has been in office—we in partnership with industry have provided more than $3 billion to research and development corporations and companies for R&D investment. In 2004-05 the combination of government and industry funds supported an investment of more than $510 million in rural R&D. I am sure that the opposition understands that farmers’ declining terms of trade can only be addressed by increased productivity, the main driver of which is improved R&D. With a commitment like that and the focused efforts of our research and development corporations, the results are there for anyone to see. They certainly do demonstrate a significant government commitment and, most importantly, an understanding of the need for R&D to be moved into the sector, to be adopted by farmers and taken on as their own—and there are many examples of exactly that happening.

There was some comment about government underspend. I notice that the Farm Help package was mentioned. It is important to note that the Farm Help package and other structural adjustment assistance packages for farmers are open-ended. It is not about finding somewhere to allocate the funds, but when farmers and farming families apply for assistance and assistance is approved, then the assistance is available. Farm Help is a package like that. No matter how many people had applied, they would have received help. There would not have been a point where we said, ‘No, we have used up the funds.’ So in allocating a budget line item—and obviously it is not going to equal the exact amount that is paid out—the important thing to note is that were applications received, and I am sure that they will still be received, then the Farm Help money would be available.

Some other comment was made about a mystery $10 million budget allocation. I simply say in response to that that we as the Australian government are considering possible adjustment assistance to the primary industry sector and it is not appropriate to comment on any proposal until all details are finalised. The government is not in a position to make any announcement until it has consulted with stakeholders. That is due and proper process. Final proposals need to be approved by the Prime Minister and relevant ministers. I understand that the minister will make the necessary announcements when the necessary processes have been completed. I think that I have addressed most of the issues that the member for Corio has raised. He may have others.

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not accept that explanation. I simply say to the parliamentary secretary and the government: get your act together. You have had a long time to prepare your budget and yet you get a $10 million line item in there that you have not allocated and you tell this parliament that it is going to be for some restructuring purposes. You have had a year to prepare a budget yet you cannot tell us the details. This is typical of a government that not only underspends but also fails to deliver on its commitments. An important example of this is the mandatory retail grocery code of conduct. On 1 October 2004 the then Deputy Prime Minister issued a press release making a commitment on behalf of the coalition. Mr Anderson said, ‘Within 100 days of the election’:

A re-elected coalition government will impose a mandatory Code of Conduct on the horticultural industry.

The code will give producers a fairer deal on their terms of trade and on resolving disputes with produce buyers, which are in many instances large supermarket chains.

Yet the minister told ABC listeners on Anzac Day this year that retailers were never part of the decision. It is now more than 600 days since the election and we still have not seen a mandatory code for the horticultural industry. The question on every producer’s lips is, ‘Why can’t the government deliver on a pre-election promise that it made to rural Australia?’ There is no mandatory code on the table and certainly not within the 100 days. Can the parliamentary secretary explain? I know it is not her responsibility directly for this—it is the responsibility of the incompetent ministers who have made this commitment and this promise—but can we have an explanation for the sector as to why the government has been so incompetent that it could not fulfil the promise?

There are a number of quarantine issues that are of real concern to the opposition and, of course, the culture of Biosecurity Australia is of concern to rural producers as well as to the opposition. I want to raise with the parliamentary secretary and the minister the case of Marnic Pty Ltd. The botched management by AQIS of the process of assessing an application by this company, Marnic Pty Ltd, has exposed gross mismanagement of the quarantine process under this government. In this case, AQIS initially approved an application from Marnic for a permit to import worms for fishing bait. After going through numerous hoops, Marnic eventually imported a batch of worms and distributed them to bait suppliers around the country. It was only after the worms were distributed that AQIS finally contacted Biosecurity Australia about the case and were informed that the worms posed a risk.

It was revealed during estimates hearings last month that, prior to the botched process surrounding the application from Marnic, AQIS did not have any standard procedures in place for assessing such applications. Many of AQIS’s records, letters and emails, relating to this case had been lost. It was also revealed that until this botched assessment there was no arrangement in place to ensure new AQIS staff knew how to process an application for a permit. When it was discovered that a permit had been issued to Marnic to import marine worms without a proper assessment of the quarantine risk, there was not a thorough review of other like permits but just a discussion amongst staff about possible problems elsewhere. Does the minister think that a thorough review of all risk areas should have been done in this instance? Why did he not make sure that such an assessment was done? Hasn’t the government’s management potentially exposed taxpayers to a large compensation payout to Marnic which will probably be similar to the payments that were made to the Hewitt brothers a couple of years ago?

This is a typical case of what has happened in the whole biosecurity area in this country under this government’s management. I could go through a list of import risk assessments that are outstanding: bananas, uncooked chicken meat, apples, mangos from Taiwan, taro—I could go through quite a few. Why is it that the government after 10 long years in office cannot get on top of the quarantine task?  I would like the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the minister, to take these questions on board—simply because this is not good enough. Here we have two important agencies that are entrusted with the quarantine task simply not talking to each other. (Extension of time granted)

I understand that there are some other imperatives in this debate, but I want to turn to the issue of illegal foreign fishing as part of this portfolio. During estimates hearings last month, departmental officials said that the increased funding to combat illegal foreign fishing is expected to result in a doubling of the number of apprehensions in 2006-07. Last year there were approximately 300 apprehensions, so the government is now expecting apprehensions in the order of 600 illegal foreign fishers a year.

In answer to a question on notice, the Attorney-General advised that between 1 January 2003 and 31 March 2004 there were 1,588 sightings of vessels in Australia’s exclusive economic zone suspected of being in breach of fisheries law. So, over a 15-month period beginning in January 2003, there were 1,588 sightings of possible illegal foreign fishing vessels in our waters. Last year during supplementary estimates, Coastwatch reported that in the 2004 calendar year there were 8,108 sightings of possible illegal foreign fishing vessels in Australia’s fishing zone. Coastwatch now says that in the 2005 calendar year there were 13,018 sightings. This is a problem that is absolutely out of control. At a time when sightings of illegal foreign fishers are increasing by around 5,000 per year, the measures announced in this budget will, by the government’s own estimate, only increase apprehension by 300 a year. The government has lost control of this situation.

I have been around Australia over a number of years talking to the industry, coastal communities and state governments and their agencies about this problem. While I have been around Australia, seeing the extent of this problem and watching it grow worse, I have seen not only incompetence on the part of the government but also an actual denial that there is any problem at all. Of course, we had that famous example of a minister issuing press releases. I cannot quite remember how many he did but every one of them said we were on top of the problem and every one of them was issued at a time when the problem was getting worse. The minister was not on top of anything but his own rhetoric. We know from the migration legislation that has now been introduced into the parliament that Australia has no borders, and that is the real reason, I guess, underlying the inaction of the government. They do not see that there is a border to defend because they have basically surrendered the borders.

The simple fact of the matter is that illegal fishing poses a huge problem not only to the fishing industry but also to Australian agriculture. This parliament has heard on numerous occasions what those problems are. We all know what they are; we have known about them for 10 years. We have known about them for a long period of time. Not only is illegal fishing depleting our fishing stocks and affecting the livelihoods of Australian fishers and coastal communities that depend on this particular resource but also we know from the nature of illegal fishing that it poses significant threats to Australian agriculture, let alone the border security issues that are raised by the illegal entry to our northern borders particularly.

The government has lost control of this situation. Because of the government’s incompetence this situation is now out of control. We will support measures in this budget to retrieve the situation, but I say to the new minister in this portfolio: do not make the mistake of your predecessors in issuing press releases about how you are getting on top of the problem when we understand that, in the area of sightings, there is an increase of some 5,000 sightings a year. Even allowing for some duplication in that, there could be over 1,000 sightings. You are simply saying, ‘We are only going to apprehend 300 of those.’ I suspect the sightings are pretty accurate and understate the real extent of the problem, so we are going to have 300 new apprehensions and an increase in sightings of some 5,000. The northern borders are leaking like a sieve. It is the government’s incompetence that has caused it. In the words of the great John Kennedy, coach of an Aussie Rules side in Victoria, ‘Do something.’

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Corio for his further questions buried in the stream of invective that I have just heard. I will try to address where I can the specific points that he has raised and of course other things may be taken on notice. I will start with quarantine and with what I think is a quite unreasonable criticism of the government. We do take quarantine seriously, continuing to protect the favourable health status of our important agricultural industries and access to world markets for our products. There have been progressive increases in quarantine funding totalling more than $1.3 billion since 1996. We have strengthened quarantine measures pre and post border and we now have one of the most extensive quarantine systems in the world, as we should. Increased resources allow us to look harder for quarantine risks. It is inevitable that there will be further quarantine detections, and I think that is in itself a sign of success.

The member for Corio raised the issue of Marnic. I understand that an application from Marnic for compensation is currently under review by an independent process within the federal department of agriculture, so it is inappropriate for me to comment given that this review process is under way. A reviewer is liaising with Marnic to properly assess and determine the merits of the claim.

I should make the point that quarantine is not just about what may be coming into Australia or leaving Australia’s shores; it is about the future. It is about being prepared for pests and diseases that we may not even know about and for bioterrorism that might strike at any time. With this in mind the government has given a $16 million budget boost to pest and disease preparedness, widening the scope of the Enhancing Animal Health Infrastructure Program. We need to and we will access new technologies and science based risk assessment methodologies, support research into prevention and detection methods, educate and train people on the frontline and create an awareness of the importance of viable animal and plant health infrastructure. Further evidence of Australia strengthening its current quarantine arrangements are initiatives increasing Biosecurity Australia’s capacity to verify claims made by exporting countries, developing better systems and processes, monitoring and reviewing quarantine policies and protocols and on-the-ground overseas assessments more rigorously.

The member for Corio also mentioned the government’s mandatory code of conduct. He referred to a previous election commitment. Yes, on 23 September 2004 the government stated that a re-elected coalition government would, as a last resort, put in place ‘a new mandatory code of conduct specifically tailored for the grower/markets section of the horticulture supply chain’. The government’s commitment to introduce a horticulture code of conduct is currently under close consideration. A decision is expected shortly. The development of the code has involved extensive consultation with stakeholders, which is required as part of our regulatory impact assessment process. The government recognises that developing a code is a complex process and will make every effort to ensure that it is practical, has minimal compliance costs and best balances the interests of all parties. I think the member for Corio would agree that a voluntary code will do this more successfully than a mandatory code. The key issues being considered by the government include the coverage of the code, the nature of the trading arrangements, flexibility and the compliance costs.

The member for Corio finished, as I shall, with the issue of illegal fishing. In its recent budget the government effectively doubled the apprehension rate of illegal foreign fishing vessels in Australia’s northern waters. Funding of the order of $388 million will be provided over four years to support initiatives to deter illegal fishing in our northern waters and to ensure our northern fisheries are secure and biosecurity is sustained. Over $233 million will be provided to effectively more than double our apprehensions of illegal foreign fishing vessels each year and to manage the downstream process related to the transfer, detention, prosecution and repatriation of apprehended illegal foreign fishers.

I believe that significantly answers the criticisms that the member for Corio has made. There is no doubt that under these measures we will be able to provide for the purchase of a fast-response vessel for use in the northern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, accelerate the survey and chartering program within the Torres Strait, increase surveillance by Coastwatch aircraft, undertake efforts to bring forward the replacement of the Australian Customs marine fleet and undertake further initiatives in Indonesia to deter illegal foreign fishing operations at their source.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Attorney-General’s Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $3,349,480,000.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted that the Attorney-General is here and that we have this brief opportunity to ask some questions about the expenditure in the Attorney’s portfolio. Given that we are on restricted time, I am pleased that the Attorney has a pen and notepaper because I can quickly take him through the list of things that I want to know and he will be able to answer all of them for me.

I am very concerned in particular about the family relationship centre project, which is one that we have been supportive of and that we think could offer families a great change in the community if they are administered properly. On a number of occasions we have expressed concerns about the politicisation of that process and more recently about the implementation of the program. The Attorney would know that we have been asking questions in estimates hearings and elsewhere about a range of things that affect this. We are very concerned that the picture painted so far is that the Attorney has been much more concerned with appearances than with substance in getting these projects up and running. At the estimates hearings we learned that the contracts for the 15 centres that are due to open on 1 July have not even been signed and that some centres will be opening in temporary accommodation. We also learned that the one job that is complete is the advertising campaign that the government is going to run. So I hope that the Attorney will be able to assure me that all the contracts for the 15 centres that are due to start in just a number of weeks time are now signed. I hope the Attorney will also be able to tell me how many of those services will be operating in temporary premises.

I am also very concerned that we have recently seen a trademark protocol that will apply to the family relationship centres. It is a very prescriptive protocol that will micromanage in great detail the rules on how family relationship centres are to use the government logo, including a ban on mentioning the name of the service organisation that will actually run the service. But I must say that I still have not seen any rules of similar detail that will govern safety arrangements, staffing arrangements, quality of service, complaints processes and other matters. This is a situation in which the government is happy to claim credit for the good work that the centres will no doubt do but does not seem to be setting out any rules for the responsibility it will take if the project does not run properly. Who will be complained to? What responsibility will the government have? How will people make complaints about services if they are not running properly?

We were also told in estimates hearings that the operators were told that there was no possibility of an extension of time to give them more time to open if they were are not able to set up properly. Again I suspect that this is for the sake of appearances. There seems to be no other serious reason that the government should not prioritise doing the right thing rather than just getting them open at all costs on 1 July. So I would like the Attorney to deal with those issues. Are the contracts now signed? How many of these centres will be in temporary accommodation? What sorts of arrangements and rules are in place for safety, for staffing, for the quality of services and for complaints? I would also like to know whether the Attorney can tell me if he will be personally visiting and opening all of these centres in the first weeks of July and if that is why the service organisations have been told that there is no possibility of their opening late: because of the Attorney’s travel arrangements.

I am concerned that the Attorney advise us when and where the advertisements that have been funded will run. Attorney, when we have 15 pilot centres being pushed to open on 1 July and you have an advertising program that we were told in estimates hearings is ready to run, it is very important to know where and when those advertisements will run. Will it be clear to people that, although the government is advertising this new service, there will be only 15 centres that will be operational, so that people’s expectations will not be dashed immediately if the services are not available in their area? How does the government intend to run that?

On that issue could the Attorney also advise whether any training has been provided for either the new family relationship centres staff or the family relationships support program staff—obviously in the broader program that is already running—on family law changes that will come into effect on 3 July? Has any budget allocation been made to assist in providing information and training to staff who run these programs on behalf of the government as to how they should deal with changes in the family law area? I know that that is a long list, Attorney. It is not all of them, but I think those questions go discretely together in a group and I hope that you can answer them for the House.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me deal with the political issue first: I would love to be able to open them all but my diary does not permit me to be able to do so. That means that I will visit at an early opportunity; my program is not settled yet.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Too much time spent on the ACT legislation.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. Rather, it is associated with maintaining a good relationship with our neighbours, Indonesia, and leading a delegation of legal service providers to China, which is a longstanding engagement that I have in the first week of July. Not that I should feel any diffidence about that—I am keen to be associated with what will be a very successful program.

The fact is that the establishment of the first 15 family relationship centres is well advanced. I am surprised at how the honourable member has wanted to reflect upon the professionalism of the staff who have been engaged very conscientiously in this task of ensuring that we are ready to go. And, I must say, I am one who expected initially that it might be a phased introduction, given the timetable that we were asking them to implement. When I am able to say on the advice given to me that the first 15 are well advanced, that the operators of the centres are recruiting staff, organising their premises, commencing fit-out and on track to being able to be open on 3 July, I will.

I have personally visited the centre, for instance, in Lismore in northern New South Wales—the electorate of my colleague Mr Causley. I saw the way in which it was progressing and I saw those who had won the tender or the expression of interest. I am aware that all of the providers have been given final funding agreements and that there are no impediments to their signing those agreements, as all relevant issues have been addressed. The specific information is that 14 of the 15 have signed. The only one that is outstanding at the moment is Townsville, because there were variations that needed to be concluded to take into account the impact of Cyclone Larry. That impact suggested that they would need some supplementation as a result, and that had to be incorporated into the agreement. That seems to me to be a very good position to be in.

The fact is that the Townsville agreement is to be signed within the next few days, and that will be an advance. They are participating in all of the programs that are designed to ensure that the staff are appropriately prepared, and I think that is a good position to be in. All of the service providers selected to operate are people or organisations that have been experienced in the area and who have experienced staff. The process by which they were selected means that the people engaged should be able to undertake a centre’s activity quite well.

In relation to the particular centres, they will all be opening and operational, I am informed. They have been involved in training courses. Material has been prepared and I can get the honourable member details of that. Safety, staffing issues and complaints handling are matters to which a great deal of attention has been provided. Yes, there are advertisements; I have, I think, already seen advertisements in the print media in relation to the family relationship centre openings.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Local or national?

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the one I saw was national. But when the openings will happen will be on advice—I do not determine these matters. I understand that four of the centres may well be in temporary premises. I am not particularly concerned about that. (Time expired)

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might be able to assist the Attorney; I think he was going to answer some of the remaining questions, particularly on advertising. I have two other specific questions on the family relationships centres. Firstly, could the Attorney take me through the provisions for the service to Alice Springs? Senate estimates now have advised us that there is going to be a permanent presence in Alice Springs. The centre in Darwin is going to service all of the Northern Territory, with some type of permanent presence in Alice Springs. I am wondering how the money that has been allocated—the $1.3 million—is going to be adequate to have some type of permanent presence in Alice Springs. What will that actually be and how will the outreach work for Katherine, Nhulunbuy and other areas that will obviously also have to be serviced?

Could the Attorney also indicate whether there will be any reconsideration or money made available in the future for family relationship centres to open in the areas that FaCSIA recommended but where the government has not chosen so far to put family relationship centres? I am referring particularly to the electorates of Richmond, Bendigo, Fremantle and Alice Springs. I also ask when western Melbourne is going to get the second service, given that one was recommended in my seat and in the member for Lalor’s seat. Instead of getting two we are getting one in the member for Maribyrnong’s seat and two are going to northern Sydney. In dealing with those other questions on the advertising, can the Attorney also answer those questions on how the Alice Springs service in particular will work and whether any consideration is going to be given to funding those other services in areas where FaCSIA made recommendations?

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have lots of notes here but I hope I can do justice to them all. Let me deal firstly with those that might be in temporary premises. I mentioned Wollongong, Mildura, Strathpine and Townsville. In Townsville the reason for the change was related to Cyclone Larry. In relation to Strathpine it was that the demand for commercial premises in the area where they thought premises might be readily obtainable had so outstripped that which was available that they were unable to obtain premises. But they will be able to obtain appropriate accommodation that meets their needs on a temporary basis, and permanent premises will be later sited. Those sorts of explanations are part of the process and I am happy to give the honourable member details.

In relation to the training and the range of issues that have been raised, there is a week-long training program next week in Canberra and the week after in Perth. There are also seminars for legal practitioners that will be part of the process. Safety is a paramount issue and there have been guidelines developed on safety. Staff will be trained to deal with potential risks such as violence, which is something people are very conscious of. Things such as separate entrances have been included when centres are having their premises approved. In relation to complaints, there are capacities to complain to the family relationship centres, then to my department and ultimately to me as the Attorney if there are difficulties. These are issues which ought to be seen in context.

I know there is a desire that I should finish by 7.30, so I apologise for being fairly brief. We are having 65 centres through the three-year funding. There are almost 150 electorates in Australia. The idea of judging where centres should be placed by relating them to electorates, I was told, was very hazardous. But I notice that, out of the 65 family relationship centres, some 29 will be in electorates of opposition or Independent members, including the electorates of the members for Brand, Gellibrand, Perth, Melbourne, Lilley, Rankin and Reid, amongst your frontbench colleagues.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There isn’t one in Gellibrand, so that isn’t right.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not Gellibrand; you are right. Jagajaga was the one I intended to mention. The information that was obtained—which was part of the input as to factors that would be considered in the siting of these centres—was considered in relation to the advice that was given to me by my department. I think we have obtained the right balance on these matters. There is no electorate of Alice Springs, but there is the electorate of Lingiari. And it was always the case, particularly in those centres that were going to serve regional and more remote locations where public transport is much more difficult, that there would be a multiplicity of outposted officers to meet the particular community needs. In the case of Lingiari, it was always envisaged that the Darwin centre would make provision in Alice Springs and, because of the very large Indigenous population, it was going to receive supplementary funding to ensure that it had effective outreach services to work amongst Indigenous Australians.

The point I would make is that our belief is that each of the electorates that have been identified are appropriately serviced. There is not a centre in my electorate. There is not one in the electorate of my colleagues the member for North Sydney and the member for Bradfield. The fact is there cannot be family relationship centres in every electorate but we have done our best to ensure that they are appropriately spread.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.