Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this consideration in detail, one of the things that the opposition and the parliament are interested in is the current nature of Australia’s deployment in East Timor and the circumstances which gave rise to that deployment. Obviously, having visited East Timor myself, I know the Australian Defence Force are doing well on the ground and are dealing with a difficult and dangerous situation which presents itself. The task for which they were sent was to ensure that civil war did not erupt between the disintegrating elements of the East Timorese defence force and the East Timorese police force. On that score, their job so far has been well executed. Of course, when it comes to the law and order function within Dili itself and beyond, that more properly is a function which should be given to the police. One of the problems that the Australian Brigadier Mick Slater has encountered on the ground is not having those police resources at his disposal.

The debate, though, which legitimately arises from the nature of Australia’s continuing commitment—in budgetary terms as well—to East Timor is how we have ended up in a situation where this deployment has become necessary. There are a couple of questions I would therefore appreciate the minister providing us with some enlightenment on. When it comes to the question of the wind-back of Australia’s participation in the UN peacekeeping force in Timor from 2003 onwards, on what basis did the government in 2003, with the consideration of UN Security Council resolution 1473, begin a process of winding down Australia’s military commitment? Did the UN Secretary-General, in the consideration of that UN Security Council resolution, have a different view? Was a different view put by the government of East Timor at the time when that resolution was passed by the council?

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

Does the minister wish to reply now or wait till the end?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will wait.

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

Has the member for Griffith got other issues he wishes to raise?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to the East Timor question, I am happy for the minister to respond as these things unfold. There are a number of UN Security Council resolutions which then followed between 2003 and 2005. When you look at UN Security Council resolution 1543 of May 2004 you will see that again the question is: why did the government make a decision to further reduce Australia’s military commitment to that peacekeeping force? What particular representations—and these are questions to the minister—did he or the government make through our mission in New York to the United Nations on the composition of that force, any reduction to it or any change in the scope of its operations? Did the government of East Timor at the time of Security Council resolution 1543 in May 2004 express any contrary view about the need to retain the force as it was prior to that date?

Finally, on the question of East Timor, we come to the most recent resolution—UN Security Council resolution 1599 of April 2005. This is of course where we see the radical wind-back of the remaining elements of the military commitment to East Timor and a number of statements were made at that time about whether or not that was a wise course of action. One thing which has struck us, and which I would appreciate the minister’s response on, is: given that those forces were finally withdrawn in about May 2005 and given that we began to see the outbreak of significant instability in the East Timorese defence force by the end of that year or early the following year, does the minister regard that as having been a wise course of action given the role played by the PKF over a long period of time in stabilising arrangements on the ground in Dili—a stabilising force both in the perception of various sides of East Timorese politics and in the capacity of the East Timorese defence force to continue to resolve their own internal difficulties in the absence of the stabilising presence of the United Nations peacekeeping force which had been there from 2002 onwards?

Again, in the consideration of each of the Security Council resolutions of 2003, 2004 and 2005, the question arises: why did the government on each of those occasions decide to roll down Australia’s military commitment? Did the government of East Timor, in the consideration of any of those individual resolutions in New York, express a contrary view about that roll down? Did the foreign minister of East Timor express a contrary view, and why did Australia decide ultimately to pull its troops out, given that instability erupted so soon after?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If that is the end of the East Timor issues, I am happy to deal with a few of those issues without going into all of the details of consultations and discussions that there have been over those few years, including with Security Council members—in particular, the five permanent members—and with the East Timor government. Let me just make a broad point about this. I think we quite rightly took the view—and I feel very strongly about this—that a country like East Timor has got to learn to stand on its own two feet. It has got to learn to take responsibility for its own actions and behaviour. Political leaders in East Timor cannot expect the international community to be investing very heavily in their country, as well as in other countries which have difficult security or political situations, and to hold their hand indefinitely. I think one of the problems we have today in East Timor is that the East Timorese leadership are looking too much to the international community to solve their problems and not enough to themselves and are not taking responsibility themselves for what has happened in their country.

The purpose of the peacekeeping force was to deal with the problem of the Indonesian backed militias which were in East Timor—transgressions across the Indonesian border and the continuing activity of Indonesian backed militias—not to deal with political malfeasance amongst political players in East Timor. That was not the purpose of the peacekeeping force. The changes that took place in Indonesia, the work that the peacekeeping force and the UN more generally, the United Nations police, have done in East Timor had, for all sorts of reasons, absolutely solved the problem of Indonesian backed militias in East Timor. In the context of the current crisis, I have no evidence that those Indonesian backed elements have been involved, that Indonesia has any part to play at all in the activities that are occurring in East Timor.

With respect to the decisions that were made, the East Timorese have always wanted more support from the outside world than the international community has been willing to provide, but the fact is that the support in the context of Indonesia and the militias was decreasingly needed, and the decisions which were made at that time were the right decisions to make. What has happened recently is an entirely home-grown disaster. It is a disaster of the East Timorese’s own making. This is where I would quite strongly disagree with the opposition: the opposition’s proposition here, which I think is muddle headed, is that the international community should, in effect, take responsibility for East Timor and the East Timorese. I think, now that the country is independent and it is free of negative interference from the outside world—in particular from Indonesia—that the East Timorese should take responsibility for their own affairs. The current catastrophic situation in East Timor is brought about by poor management by the East Timorese of their own affairs.

As I said to Jose Ramos Horta only last night on the telephone, we have been prepared to help out, given that the alternative, which was to do nothing, would have been catastrophic for the people of East Timor, but they must sort out their political problems themselves. They must learn to do that. We look forward to the East Timorese sorting out their political problems, because we have had troops there for a little while. We are, as the honourable member for Griffith is suggesting, going to send police. We have nearly 200 police there already. More police will be sent; there will be around 500 international police when they reach their full strength. But, at the end of the day, the East Timorese need to come to a political accommodation. They need to find political solutions and they need to deal with the problems of what are called the petitioners—the 595 people whom they sacked from the army and those other elements known as rebels who have left the army and who support the petitioners. They have to sort those problems out themselves. This notion that somehow we should have had hundreds upon hundreds of troops permanently in East Timor— (Time expired)

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

The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The notion that we should have kept peacekeepers, that the United Nations should have kept hundreds of military in East Timor in case their politicians behaved badly, is muddle headed. I don’t think that was the right thing to do. I think the sooner the East Timorese take control of their own affairs, the better off that country will be.

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

I am pleased to speak today in my capacity as the federal member for Ryan, representing the western suburbs of Brisbane. Many of my constituents have a very deep and abiding interest in the foreign policy of this country. At the outset, let me commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs on his stewardship of the foreign affairs portfolio. I suspect history will judge him as this country’s finest foreign minister.

With my own interest in foreign policy and international affairs, I want to make some comments and ask the foreign minister about the Howard government’s relationships with our Pacific neighbours, how we are promoting our interests—

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

I remind the member for Ryan that we are looking at how estimates money has been allocated to certain things. This is not an opportunity to make a speech; it is for questions on estimates.

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

I am getting to that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am going to the topic of the amount of financial support which the Australian government is providing to our Pacific friends. Our bilateral relationships with countries such as the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea are very extensive and diverse. On behalf of the electorate of Ryan, I am very keen to hear from the foreign minister about the nature of our support for those countries. Also, from the budget delivered by the Treasurer last month, what sorts of aid measures are we putting in place to assist the countries of the Pacific, particularly the Solomon Islands and PNG, where I grew up and in which I have a very strong interest? How are we playing a role? How are the taxpayers of Australia strengthening the corporate governance of countries like PNG and the Solomon Islands? How are we helping their young people through mechanisms such as scholarships? How are we helping disadvantaged people in those countries through aid in health and education? We all know that HIV-AIDS is a tremendous issue for Papua New Guinea. Our own nation has an obligation, I feel, to help as much as we can. I am keen to hear from the foreign minister about the measures that the government is putting in place to promote some of the issues I outlined. The people of Ryan are very keen to hear how Australian taxpayers’ dollars are spent in strengthening the countries of the Pacific.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Ryan for his excellent contribution. Firstly, I can give him some numbers. We will be spending an estimated $332 million on assistance to Papua New Guinea during the course of this year. This money is increasingly focused in areas such as governance. As the honourable member will know, we have established the Enhanced Cooperation Program with Papua New Guinea. That involves sending not as many police as we had originally hoped; we were hoping to have police on the beat. That was impossible to do as a result of a challenge in the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea. It is simply too complicated to change the constitution to provide for the legal protections that our police would need. Nevertheless, we have a considerable police presence there and that is being enhanced. In fact, only yesterday I met with Ministers Willie and Kimisopa from Papua New Guinea. We are taking a number of different initiatives to enhance our police cooperation and contribution. In the area of law and order, under the auspices of the Enhanced Cooperation Program, we are providing very significant additional assistance to Papua New Guinea.

Law and order is a big issue around the Pacific. In the rest of the Pacific we are spending around $434 million and are providing a lot of support, particularly to local police forces, to improve their capacity. In Fiji, for example, the police commissioner is an Australian, Andrew Hughes, whom some members here—I think the member for Maribyrnong—may have met. Andrew Hughes is doing a simply outstanding job. We have the police commissioner in the Solomon Islands, who is doing what could only be described as a courageous job, and a number of Australian police are helping in countries around the South Pacific.

We have also been focusing very much on governance. One of the arguments that we put in our white paper on aid, and one of the arguments I have made for a very long time, is that the reason many countries are struggling is that they are badly run. It is as simple as that. It needs to be said and it needs to be understood. How can we help? We can help to improve the quality of governance. We have a series of programs around the Pacific in which Australians are assisting in improving the operation of government departments and the operation of service delivery mechanisms, particularly in areas like health, education and so on.

The last point I want to make is that it is probably worth reminding the Committee that we are in the process of establishing an Australian technical college for the Pacific, and we will have more to say about that soon. I know members opposite favour the labour mobility proposal. The Labor Party’s position—and I think I have this right—is to allow unskilled workers from the Pacific to come to Australia. I think we should have more of a debate about that because it does not sit very comfortably with the new position of the Leader of the Opposition to keep migrants out of Australia. In relation to the Pacific very specifically, this is a position where we bring people in. I do not think the public know enough about that, but I am sure I will find the opportunity during the next week to draw their attention to it.

We think the challenge is not to bring unskilled labour into Australia; we think the challenge is to improve the skills of the people in the Pacific and to set up a technical college there. We have not announced yet where the college will be located or the detail of how it will work, but we have done a lot of work ourselves on that and will have more to say about it soon. I think that will make a very solid contribution to improving the capacity of the people in the Pacific to build their economies and build their welfare.

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

May I remind members that this process is about expenditure and that it is important to go the line item of the part of the budget that has the expenditure on the questions asked.

Bob Sercombe (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Overseas Aid and Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would certainly welcome a debate with the minister on a broad range of matters. On questions of expenditure in relation to aid to the Pacific Islands, could the minister confirm that total funding for Papua New Guinea and Pacific programs has fallen by 12 per cent in this budget, and specifically in relation to PNG by 34.1 per cent? I note that the failure to pick up implementing the Enhanced Cooperation Program mark 1 and the withdrawal of most Australian police would clearly explain a significant proportion of such a drop. Nonetheless, a drop of some 34 per cent is massive, particularly for a country which in the Pacific context is our most important neighbour and geographically our closest neighbour. Given the enthusiasm of the member for Ryan and the minister on the importance of programs, it seems somewhat anomalous that there is such a substantial drop when there are so many pressing needs in relation to development assistance in PNG.

The minister might also confirm that funding for the Solomon Islands is down by 11.8 per cent in this budget. Once again, given events in April, in particular in the Solomon Islands, that drop would also seem to be somewhat anomalous. I ask the minister to give us some further information as to how he sees the ongoing development of RAMSI and related programs in the Solomon Islands. I have had the opportunity on three occasions over the last 18 months to have discussions in the Solomon Islands with RAMSI staff, and I have to say that in general terms it is an outstanding program and one which clearly continues to have the support of the majority of Solomon Islanders. Having said that, the Solomon Islands is facing within the next decade potentially catastrophic economic circumstances. Therefore, whilst law, justice and governance programs are fundamental, against a backdrop where the Solomon Islands economy is facing a cliff because of the fact that the place is almost logged out—and logging is its principal source of foreign revenue—it would be useful to know how the minister sees the socioeconomic future of the Solomon Islands and the RAMSI context to that. Would the minister agree with me that there are deep-seated and serious long-term problems for the Solomon Islands economy and how does that sit with the government’s cut in aid funding to the Solomon Islands by almost 12 per cent?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to take up the points that the honourable member has raised and take the opportunity, too, of acknowledging the real interest he has in the Pacific. He has travelled there a lot and I think he has done a very good job in focusing on a lot of those issues. The parliament is grateful to him for the contribution he has made.

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

It’s a shame he’s gotta go!

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pity that Labor Party branches are not so grateful, as the member for Ryan points out. I think the member for Maribyrnong has been treated abominably.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Ryan knows a lot about branch stacking—he’s Brisbane’s biggest branch stacker!

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

Envy is terrible.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure the member for Griffith has done a bit of stacking in his own time too! While the pot is calling the kettle black, let’s move on.

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

Order! This debate is about expenditure.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not wish to generate disorderly conduct in the chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker. The numbers have changed in relation to Papua New Guinea because of the anticipation that we were going to deploy police, including into community policing positions, so that was built into last year’s budget. Of course, we were not able to do that, so that expenditure is not going to take place. We would not just spend money willy-nilly on anything; we had the money set aside for that and the program has been much reduced, and that is the explanation. If you take the overall expenditure on the Solomon Islands, of course, I think you will find that, regardless of what the budget numbers say, there has been a rather substantial surge in expenditure in the Solomon Islands as we have deployed quite a number of Australian Defence Force members and, from recollection, we have had to deploy an additional 70 or so police, mainly but not exclusively from the Australian Federal Police. So we will have to look at those numbers in time, but we are not running general cuts in the budget to those countries.

In the context of providing aid, I am not of the view—as are, in particular, people on the political left around the world—that the measure of success is the amount of dough you spend. The measure of success is the efficacy of the programs you run, not how much they cost. You have to provide money to run the programs, but the benchmark for good aid should be good and successful outcomes and a tightly focused program, not just unloading bucket loads of money into the Third World. On many occasions, as the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and I were agreeing yesterday, it can actually cause quite substantial economic problems for a country if you just unload too much money into that country. For example, it can have significant exchange rate implications, thereby in fact having the effect of undermining its economy.

The honourable member raises some very important points about the Solomon Islands more generally. Suffice it to say that we have been concerned about its economy. My recollection is that in 2003 the Solomon Islands’ GDP—somebody may correct me here—declined by about 14 per cent in that one catastrophic year. In the last year, though, the Solomon Islands’ GDP grew by around four per cent. On the face of it, the honourable member might think that that is not such a bad figure and he might be pleased to hear that, and he should be. But it is not a great figure, because, to put that into some context, the Solomon Islands became independent in 1978. So, if you take 1980 as the benchmark for the Solomon Islands economy and work on the basis of a four per cent rate of growth—and, of course, there will be some disruption to economic growth caused by the events of a couple of months ago—the Solomon Islands’ per capita GDP will not return to what it was in 1980 until 2025. That is quite an alarming figure, so the honourable member is quite right to point to some of these issues and ask from where it will generate its economic growth.

Obviously, industries such as the timber industry, sustainably developed, and tourism have good potential—tourism has great potential in the Solomon Islands. If they could reopen the Goldridge mine, that, of course, would have a very substantial impact. That is potentially a good mine, but the political issues surrounding the mine need to be resolved. Solomon Islanders have to play a key part in resolving that, but those issues are being worked through and there is some prospect of that mine reopening. The mine made a major contribution to Solomon Islands’ GDP. I think it contributed a quarter or a third of its GDP; it was something in that vicinity. I think it has very good prospects. I can see my time is running short, so I will leave it there.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the question of the government’s allocation of $43.6 million in aid to East Timor—more broadly, allocations which relate to East Timor—I should have acknowledged before that the minister’s presence here is, of course, welcome. I have been attending this chamber now for four years for the consideration in detail stage, and I think this is the first time the minister has graced us with his presence.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary came before.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is unfortunate that the minister has not been present until now and that he has brought with him his own professional filibusterer, the member for Ryan, to consume opposition time.

On the question of East Timor, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, the matter we were discussing before you came into the chamber to assume the chair was the appropriate function being performed by a peacekeeping force under the United Nations flag and whether in fact that had any broader function than policing the border. I think it is fair to say that the minister characterised as ‘muddle-headed’ a view which suggested that this sort of peacekeeping force had any function in the broader security of East Timor itself other than policing the border. I think that is a fair characterisation of the minister’s position.

That being the case, it would make entirely muddle-headed the government’s current deployment because that is exactly what the government is now doing. The current force, in being on the ground in East Timor, is precisely dealing with how to resolve tensions arising from a failure in the East Timorese political process—tensions which have a capacity to spill over into the fragmented nature of the East Timorese defence force on the one hand and the East Timorese police force on the other. So if it was muddle-headed—this is a question for the minister to reflect upon and I would appreciate his answer to it—to ever have a view that the peacekeeping force prior to 2005 had such a function then presumably it is muddle-headed, in the minister’s argument, for them to be performing any function like that now. Of course, the reality is that, when we are dealing with complex matters on the ground in East Timor, there are a range of impacts which security presences on the ground perform, one of which is to provide broader stabilisation and the other to provide a confident environment in which the political process can operate.

The first question I would appreciate the minister considering in response to this intervention on East Timor is: again in that period 2002 to 2005, did the minister, in making decisions about the draw-down of Australia’s military presence under successive UN security council resolutions, receive any advice from his department, or did the government receive advice more broadly, as to any consequences which would flow in terms of East Timor’s internal security? The second question it would be useful for the minister to reflect upon is: did the government receive any advice, given its responsibility for the training, primarily, of the East Timorese defence force, as to whether that defence force could effectively operate and manage any tensions within its own ranks once Australia withdrew from the field altogether? These are live considerations. The third question I would like the minister to address is this: in considering this draw-down of Australia’s military commitment to Timor between 2002 and 2005 and, furthermore, the consequences, effective or otherwise, of our training of the East Timorese defence force over that period of time, did the minister also receive advice in terms of Australia’s other military needs?

It needs to be registered—and I would ask the minister to reflect on this in his response—whether Australia’s military requirements in Iraq and in Afghanistan at this time had a direct bearing on the government’s decision to cut and run from East Timor at this time. It is quite plain that the intense commitments arising from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 were of significant moment within the ADF and the resources available for deployment. Furthermore, when Australia had initially cut and run from Afghanistan at the end of 2002 and then recommitted, after pressure from all sorts of quarters, a year or so later back to Afghanistan, was that also a material factor in the government’s consideration of how to sustain a military commitment to East Timor during that period of time? We all know that there are constraints on the defence budget. Therefore, I would appreciate the minister answering whether, over that critical three-year period which saw the successive drawn-down of Australia’s military commitment, he was in receipt of any advice or recommendation from the government as to where Australia’s military resources were better deployed vis-a-vis Iraq and Afghanistan. (Time expired)

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I think I have canvassed the issue of the decision that the United Nations Security Council made to downsize the UN presence in East Timor. Of course, there has been an ongoing UN presence there in the form of UNOTIL and that has included a small number of military advisers and UN police advisers. The Security Council made that decision for the reasons I described earlier, so I will not bore the Committee by going back over that.

In relation to the East Timor defence force, which the honourable member raises, I suppose it is fair to say that this is a point of some disagreement between us. I am not sure about advice from other people, but as the minister I am entitled to my own view—funnily enough. All sorts of people give me advice. You should see some of the advice you get from the opposition. My view has been that it was a mistake for East Timor to have a defence force at all. The reason I think it was a mistake for East Timor to have a defence force is that a defence force in an emerging, developing country can have implications for internal security. I rest my case: my advice and my view were right—it has had implications for internal domestic stability. The East Timor government sacked 595 members of the East Timor defence force. That is two-fifths of the East Timor defence force. The implication by the opposition that somehow Australia, of all great countries—or, for that matter, the United Nations Security Council or Kofi Annan—is responsible for what has happened in East Timor is simply preposterous, as everybody knows.

I was not in favour of them having a defence force. The East Timorese wanted a defence force because they wanted to ensure that the Falantil people, the people who were on the military wing of Fretelin and had been fighting in the hills against the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, had a role. Those people wanted to be in a defence force, so that is why they did what they did. But it was the wrong call and now they are stuck with a defence force, or what I could only describe now as the remnants of a defence force, and with those remnants they are going to have to work out what they will do. The East Timorese must take responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions. The East Timorese are responsible for the fact that they have a defence force. They are responsible for the sacking of 595 members of that defence force, not the United Nations and not Kofi Annan. Not even George W Bush is responsible for that, funnily enough. The East Timorese are responsible for that.

The third question is the old canard about Iraq. We actually had 2,000 troops in Iraq during the initial invasion, not 20,000. Of course there was no advice that we should downsize in East Timor because of our commitment to Iraq. We progressively downsized—I think the largest number of troops we had there was around 5,700 at one stage. The opposition may think we should have kept 5,700 troops in East Timor. If they do not think that then they must have been in favour of downsizing. They were in favour of downsizing but not of downsizing so much—not that they ever said so or ever criticised the downsizing or the decision of the Security Council at the time. No, not at all. In fact, when it comes to Afghanistan, the opposition leader put out a press release congratulating the government on its decision to withdraw the special forces we had in Afghanistan at that time. Governments make decisions on the basis of the information they have at the time and judgments they make at the time. If we were all able to foretell the future—all of us—we probably would not be here; we would probably be at the races. This kind of constant strategy of the opposition saying, ‘We, the opposition, were able to foretell the future; the government wasn’t,’ is summed up in one word: childish.

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

I have a few questions for the foreign minister in relation to our commitment to the Pacific region and territories. When I visited Vanuatu and Kiribati some years ago, I noticed that the Australian government provided a substantial patrol boat program. In fact, the economic zone around Kiribati is, I am told, as large as that of Australia. As a result, the patrol boat program to patrol their territorial waters had been seen to be somewhat welcome, but one of the criticisms was that, rather than actually using these patrol boats for the function for which they were intended, they had become interisland ferries. As a result, the actual patrol work was not being done and the local business people raised the issue that poaching was happening on a large scale, which had an effect on their fishing stocks

Minister, could you provide me with any information, if you have it readily available, as to the current status of our commitment to the patrol boat programs to the Pacific island nations that I have referred to? Are we upgrading these fleets, and do we have an ongoing commitment? I noticed when I visited Honiara, for example, that there were two patrol boats in the harbour and apparently they had not left for some time. So I am interested in whether it is a good program that we should continue, given its lack of activity.

The other issue I would like to raise is the activity of the Chinese and the Taiwanese governments in these island nations, which has also been under some scrutiny, for all the reasons that we are aware of. Also, there appears to be a large amount of Japanese investment in places like Kiribati and Tuvalu. Given the fact that we are endeavouring to seek their support on whaling, the Japanese seem to be providing similar support. The cynic in me tells me that Japan has probably very little interest in whaling around Tuvalu, for example, but is endeavouring to provide some economic enticement for their vote. Do you have any details which might support that view of mine? If so, could you outline what the extent of the dollar value of projects may be and what Australia is doing in response in economic aid to counteract that?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first point in relation to the patrol boat program is that this is part of the Defence Cooperation Program in the Pacific. Some years ago—I think it was during the life of the Hawke government; either the Fraser or the Hawke governments—the Australian government donated patrol boats to just about all of the Pacific island countries, including the countries mentioned by the honourable member. That program is now going through a process of reinvigoration and renewal in that these patrol boats are being refurbished and rehabilitated.

Some of them have been quite well looked after and some of them less so. Under the Defence Cooperation Program we have people from the Australian Defence Force in a number of countries in the Pacific solely to assist with the maintenance of the patrol boats. I note the honourable member referred to the fact that in Honiara the two patrol boats sometimes sit in the harbour. I would have to say I am pleased to see that because I recall a couple of years ago that one of those patrol boats went down the Weather Coast and a little bit of machine gunning of the shore and people on the shore was done from the patrol boat. So the fact that it is tied up at the moment is not necessarily all bad news.

In the case of Kiribati, the honourable member is right: the area for patrolling is simply massive, but the fact that they have some patrol boat capability is, at least, a minor deterrent to people conducting illegal fishing activities. These countries in the Pacific do not just depend on patrol boats; they also get assistance from the Royal Australian Air Force and the New Zealand Air Force and, if I recall correctly, the French Air Force, based in New Caledonia, who do aerial surveillance. The patrol boats can act on information that is provided to them. Illegal fishing obviously is a problem for the region. I would not put it in the same league as in some other parts of the world. The honourable member is from Perth, and off the north-west coast of Western Australian and across the north coast of Australia the illegal fishing problem is a very significant one. What happens out in Kiribati, I suspect, is a relatively small problem on that scale.

As far as whaling is concerned, we obviously provide aid programs to these countries and not in order to win their votes in international fora. To be fair, I suspect the Japanese are not motivated, at least solely, by trying to win their votes in the International Whaling Commission or other fora in the provision of their aid programs. Japan is a big aid donor in the Pacific and we are grateful for the work that the Japanese do. A lot of it is done in cooperation with us. There are allegations about some Japanese activities in some countries, not just in the Pacific but in the Caribbean and in other parts of the developing world and Africa. Obviously, in rounding up the votes in the International Whaling Commission, it is a fierce contest. We depend heavily on the votes of countries such as Luxembourg, San Marino and Andorra—and their fishing fleets are not big, I think you probably realise, if you think about those countries. The Japanese obviously work very hard to get votes as well in their own way.

One final point I would make about this is that the argument that the Japanese have been putting to countries like Kiribati, whatever else may be behind the way they vote in the International Whaling Commission, is that whaling is important in the conservation of fisheries. They have been led to believe that the whales come and eat fish. It might not be an argument that appeals to us or to environmentalists, but it is an argument that has been sold, for example, to the Kiribati government, so you hear that from time to time. I thank the honourable member for his contribution.

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

I will permit a final intervention from the member for Griffith but I would ask, in the constraints of time and the next portfolio to be dealt with, if he would mind keeping it short.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is regrettable that the minister has had to rely upon two professional filibusters to consume the opposition’s time. The first question relates to the government’s allocation of funds to the—

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

Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. By indulging in allegations of wasting time, you are indeed wasting it. If you keep the intervention short, we can proceed.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the remonstration, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is always appreciated. The Australia-Indonesia relationship contains within the allocation to the aid program $165.9 million in 2006-07. The question to the minister in the short time remaining is: have you obtained from the Indonesians an assurance and a guarantee that Abu Bakar Bashir will be placed under 24-hour a day surveillance from this time on and have you obtained from the Indonesians a guarantee that if the religious schools, to which he has now returned, continue with anti-Australian and anti-Western incitement those schools will be closed? The second question I would pose to the minister in the remaining time is with regard to the allocation of $1.64 billion on the Iraq war so far. Can the minister confirm to the Committee the precise number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed since the commencement of hostilities in March 2003?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not got a number in relation to the second question, but I can say that not all but almost all of the Iraqis who have been killed have been killed by the insurgents and the terrorists. I think it is extremely important that that point—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can’t you give us a number? In 3½ years you can’t give us a number.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that case I will not bother with the rest, because I can see the honourable member just wants to talk over everybody in the chamber. The allegation that two members of the Liberal Party are not allowed to make speeches and are just sneered at as conducting filibusters—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Rudd interjecting

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

We are interested in hearing the response from the minister. The minister can proceed.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think is outrageous. Let me try to get my point across through the fusillade of gabbling coming from the member for Griffith. In relation to Abu Bakar Bashir, the Indonesians have made a very clear commitment to the United Nations Security Council in resolution 1267 and the decision of the 1267 committee to register Abu Bakar Bashir as a terrorist. Having done that, it means that it falls upon the Indonesian government to fulfil its obligations under that resolution. Those obligations include freezing the financial assets of Abu Bakar Bashir, which is obviously welcome, to ensure that he has no access to military equipment of any kind. The Indonesians have been working very hard in the area of counter-terrorism, including endeavouring to ensure that the messages taught in and sent out from the pesantren, the Islamic schools in Indonesia, are moderate and are broadly based messages.

The suggestion that the Indonesians are soft on terrorism is quite wrong. The Indonesian government has done an excellent job in fighting terrorism. In relation to Abu Bakar Bashir, it can only be repeated that the government is deeply disappointed by the shortness of the sentence. The sentence was much shorter than we and the international community would have liked to have seen, and I think the Indonesian government shares that view. Contrary to the implication of what the honourable member has said, the Indonesian government is very concerned about Abu Bakar Bashir and his activities. The honourable member may have overlooked this, but the Indonesians themselves have suffered grievously from acts of terror by Jemaah Islamiah, and the suggestion that somehow they do not care about that, I think, is a little offensive to them.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Health and Ageing Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $4,442,462,000.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by noting that once again the Minister for Health and Ageing has refused to attend for consideration in detail on the appropriations for the Health and Ageing portfolio. He is clearly in the parliament. Indeed, both he and I were just in the House dealing with a piece of health legislation. There is no reason why he could not have taken the same walk up the stairs that I did. The consistent refusal of the minister for health to defend the appropriations for Health and Ageing, I think, reflects poorly on his competence and on his understanding of the importance of parliament and is obviously meant to shroud from the opposition’s inquiry the appropriations in Health and Ageing. If he is too incompetent to defend his appropriations, one wonders why he is drawing a ministerial salary.

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

I remind the member for Lalor that this is a question on the detail of the appropriations, and it must be connected to the financial matters or policy. We have had the introductory remarks. I remind her that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing is present and that that is perfectly appropriate. Perhaps she could proceed with her questions.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We will ask some questions of the parliamentary secretary for health, but of course much of what we would have wanted to question him on he will say he is not responsible for. This is just a mechanism to avoid accountability. Having said that, I will direct some questions on mental health to the parliamentary secretary, and I would appreciate very detailed answers to them.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as you are aware, the Howard government has announced additional expenditure in mental health—$1.05 billion appears in the forward estimates of this budget—but none of the measures in the government’s mental health package have an implementation date. Will the parliamentary secretary, who is responsible for mental health, detail when each measure that the government has in its mental health package and which is the subject of appropriations in this budget will commence? Very little detail has ever been given about the measures that are the subject of the package. Given that detail must still be in the stage of development because it has not been publicly released, will the parliamentary secretary indicate whether it is the Department of Health and Ageing or the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that is the lead agency for the development of that detail? I also ask: will the parliamentary secretary indicate what mechanisms are in place to ensure coordination with the states and territories on mental health issues?

One of the measures is to allow Medicare rebating for mental health services. A fact sheet released by the government says that in the fifth year of operation it is expected that 35,000 people will see a psychiatrist under this Medicare rebating program and 400,000 Medicare services will be delivered by psychologists. I note that this compares with 100 million GP services and 20 million specialist services a year, so in the scheme of things it is not a large number. Will the parliamentary secretary at the table confirm whether or not psychologists will have direct access to Medicare—that is, will a GP referral be required? Can he indicate whether psychologists will have direct access to Medicare for all services that they provide? Will every psychologist in the country have direct access to Medicare or will there be some credentialing process in order to get access, which means some psychiatrists may not qualify?

Will the parliamentary secretary at the table confirm whether or not it is the intention of the government to scrap the Better Outcomes for Mental Health program? Will he confirm the average out-of-pocket cost now experienced for a patient seeing a psychiatrist? What average out-of-pocket cost is it that the government factors that patients seeing a psychologist under this new program will experience in using the program?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To facilitate the shadow minister, if she wants to continue to put her questions sequentially, I am happy for her to do so, rather than to be constantly interrupted. What would you prefer to do?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you—so we can see whether we are getting the answers.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right. I thank the shadow minister for her questions. I am delighted to be asked questions about mental health because, as she would know, mental health is my primary area of responsibility as the parliamentary secretary. I think the government has a very good story to tell about the mental health package in this budget. I am happy to answer her questions. I do not think any of them go to secrets that cannot be revealed. If it will assist her in promoting and supporting the government’s mental health package, then I am very happy to oblige.

As to the lead agency responsible for implementing the mental health package, there are a number of government departments that are responsible for different aspects. So, when the shadow minister says the funding is about $1 billion, it is just over $1 billion for Health and Ageing. But of course the whole package is worth about $1.9 billion and it is spread across a number of departments. FaCSIA’s role is one of the largest in the mental health package but DEWR also has a role. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet forms a large part of the discussions that are going on about how to implement the package. The Department of Health and Ageing obviously has a major role in implementing the package. We are working closely with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as one would expect us to do, because the Prime Minister has a particular stake in this package through the COAG process. He has been leading the mental health reforms in Australia. The Commonwealth government was the first government to put its package on the table. We expect the states to respond generously and we hope they will match the $1.9 billion.

The Prime Minister has a large interest in how this program is rolled out and how this money is spent. This was discussed in February at COAG and will be discussed again in July at COAG. I note that Victoria and New South Wales have put some new money on the table, but it is a long way short of what one would expect if one were providing $1.9 billion pro rata across the states. The New South Wales government has attempted to pretend that it has matched the funding at the Commonwealth level, but a large part of the expenditure that New South Wales has announced is a restatement of previous announcements, and Victoria is the same. One would have to say that at least they are trying, whereas in the Queensland budget last week there was not one extra dollar for mental health. They have made no attempt at all to match the Commonwealth’s very generous package. South Australia’s budget will not be handed down until September. That has been delayed, and they have shown a real lack of understanding of how the process works. It will be discussed again at COAG.

In terms of the coordination of the states, I think I have answered that question: it has been coordinated through the COAG process. In July the national mental health action plan that was discussed in January will hopefully be signed off by the Commonwealth with all states and territories. We would expect all of those states and territories to make real commitments of dollars on the table for the mentally ill. I do not think the commencement dates of the various programs are a secret, and I am happy to tell the shadow minister. New early intervention services for parents, children and young people, at $28.1 million over five years, are expected to commence on 1 July 2006. The new funding for mental health nurses, the nursing care and support services, commences from July 2007, with a funding commitment of $191.6 million over five years. Improving the capacity of health workers in Indigenous communities, which is $20.8 million over five years, begins on 1 July 2006. Support for day-to-day living in the community, which is $46 million over five years, begins on 1 July 2006. Better access to psychiatrists, psychologists and general practitioners through the Medicare Benefits Scheme begins on 1 November 2006 and is expected to cost $538 million over five years. (Time expired)

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 Canning.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could the shadow minister please complete his answer? I know he had not quite finished—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m not the shadow minister, Jill.

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

Could the parliamentary secretary answer—

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

The honourable member for Shortland will resume her seat. When the time is appropriate again for the parliamentary secretary, he may use that time as he sees fit.

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

Further to the point of order—

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

What is the point of order, and which is the standing order you are speaking under?

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

I just wish to draw your attention to the fact that—

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

I am sorry, that is not a standing order. The honourable member will resume her seat. I have ruled on the matter. I call the honourable member for Canning.

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

I would like to address some comments and a question to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. They relate to autism. If those opposite consider this filibustering, then they reflect on all parents with autistic children and on a community that is suffering from this huge issue of increased autism—

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We agree with that, thanks. And we work with the Autism Council, so don’t slur us.

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

In fact, I praise the member for Holt again for his support for autism in the Committee the other day. In terms of my interest in autism, I support a local group called the Unique Mothers, for mothers of children with autism in the Canning electorate. One problem is that people with autism suffer greatly because, as I understand it—and the parliamentary secretary can confirm this or otherwise—autism receives less funding than other areas of health because it is not considered a syndrome. Because it is not considered as a specific syndrome, it does not receive funding as such.

I know that this is an area that comes under the responsibility of the parliamentary secretary. I receive many representations from parents of children with autism. For example, in Canberra there is a group called A4, which is very active in contacting us in relation to further funding and resourcing for parents of children with autism. My question to the parliamentary secretary is: what programs and funding does the federal government continue to assign to autism? One of the areas that parents of children with autism are continually seeking support on is early identification and early programs. The earlier you take on the role of identifying and then working with children with autism, the better the results are.

One other area of great need for parents of children with autism is respite. It is not just about respite; it is about flexible respite. By way of an aside, in an adopt-a-politician program in Western Australia, which is largely unique to Western Australia, I have adopted a boy with autism. I went through a formal adoption process in the state parliament to do so—along with other members on both sides of parliament, state and federal—to help people with disabilities. I would recommend to the parliamentary secretary that this program be funded so that it can become an Australia-wide program. It not only helps awareness but also helps the parents involved in many different ways, which I will not go into now because of time constraints.

Flexible respite is needed for when a parent is absolutely at their wit’s end. We know that in the past some parents have actually harmed their autistic child because they cannot take it any longer. Flexible respite is something they crave. There is no point in saying, for example, ‘You have a respite time next Sunday between the hours of two and six,’ because you might not need it then. You need respite when the child is absolutely out of control or the parent has had enough. This stops harm. In fact, I understand there have been cases where parents have caused the death of their child. That is how serious the matter is. I ask the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the parents of children with autism: what programs and funding have we allocated in this budget and what can we do into the future for this very needy program?

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

Before I call the parliamentary secretary I would point out that it is up to him whether he responds after every question or wishes to answer at the end of the session. Probably after each intervention is wise on this occasion.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to respond to the member for Canning’s query. It is well known in this place that the member for Canning has a particular interest in autism, and he has lobbied me on a number of occasions about autism. He will be very interested to know that the meeting I had immediately before coming to the Main Committee was with Bob Buckley from A4 and ASA, the national autism organisation. Bob Buckley is an extremely passionate advocate for parents, particularly, and children with autism spectrum disorder. I wish we could do all the things that Bob wants us to do but, of course, there are issues to do with state responsibilities and Commonwealth responsibilities and amounts of revenue available to spend on every problem that could be fixed.

Having said that, now that the mental health package is being bedded down and we have had a substantial injection of funds into mental health, I was happy to tell Bob this morning—and I am happy to tell the member for Canning now—that my goal in next year’s budget is to work on a substantial autism package to address what I think is a glaring difficulty in the community for parents of children with autism and the children themselves falling through cracks and not getting the early intervention that is needed, not getting the correct early diagnosis and therefore not being saved from a difficult life when they could have a very productive life. One of my goals in the next 12 months is to work on an autism package.

In this budget, though, I am pleased to tell the member for Canning that the mental health package item to do with accessing psychologists through the Medicare Benefits Schedule means that, after referral from a GP or psychiatrist, psychologists will be able to be accessed by children with autism spectrum disorder. This is an improvement for them and means that they will be able to see psychologists on the MBS when they have been referred by a GP or a psychiatrist. That is a substantial step forward, and Mr Buckley was very pleased to hear that.

In last year’s budget, the member for Canning may remember, we altered the requirements for access to the carers allowance and the carers payment. Many children with autism spectrum disorder were falling through the cracks in the various definitions in the criteria and we enabled the carer of any child with autism spectrum disorder to have access to carers allowance and carers payment, so that was an improvement for them last year. We are making gradual steps forward in each budget, but I would like to be able to do more for them in next year’s budget.

One of the difficulties with autism is that it falls between many stools. There is no one department in the Commonwealth government which is responsible for autism spectrum disorder. So FaCSIA has significant responsibilities, DEWR has responsibilities and the Department of Health and Ageing has responsibilities. We are trying to narrow that down so that one area has more responsibility and control. The member for Canning would remember that we had a conference here last year, which I initiated with the member for Casey, who is also a passionate advocate for services and support for families with children who have autism. That conference came up with a number of recommendations, one of which was a research project to drill down into what sorts of services would be useful for people with autism spectrum disorder. That has been funded and is nearing completion, and we will soon have the response from the research that arose from that conference we held last year.

So we are making steps forward. We could do a great deal more in terms of respite. One problem with respite, of course, is that the services are largely provided by the states under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Unfortunately, because of that, the Commonwealth have little control over how that money is spent. We would like to have a lot more control. I think there is a chink of light for us in that area, because the mental health package also contains support for 650 new respite places for people with mentally ill children. Therefore, I guess we have broken the dam wall a bit through this mental health package, and we might look to see how we could do that further in areas that affect families with children affected by autism.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, can I reiterate—and it relates to the program that was the subject of the last discussion, prompted by the question from the member for Canning—that we are seeking details of the operation of the Medicare rebate by psychologists. My question once again is: under this measure, will all psychologists have access to Medicare for every service they provide? If it is not for every service, what services is it for? If it is not for every psychologist, how will psychologists have such access determined? Will psychologists have direct access to Medicare or will there need to be a GP referral? Is the government intending to scrap the Better Outcomes for Mental Health program? That ought to be capable of a yes or no answer. Does the government have an average figure for out-of-pocket costs paid by patients who currently access psychiatrists who are entitled to Medicare rebating? If so, what out-of-pocket cost does the government project that people will be required to pay for accessing psychologists with the benefit of Medicare rebating? To pick up the point of the member for Canning: it is one thing to say that people will get access to psychological services and have a Medicare rebate to support them, but if the remaining out-of-pocket cost is still prohibitive then that obviously creates an access issue. We would like an answer to that question from the parliamentary secretary.

Given that the spatial distribution of psychologists and psychiatrists in this country is very much confined to major cities—indeed, very close to the centre of capital cities—how will Australians in regional, rural and remote areas benefit from the Medicare rebate arrangements for psychiatric and psychological services? The parliamentary secretary would be aware that funds are provided under the budget to increase access to treatment services provided by workers such as psychologists, social workers and mental health nurses in rural and remote areas, but the delivery mechanism for this funding is not at all defined. How will these services be delivered? Will it involve Better Outcomes for Mental Health—once again, that relates to whether or not that program is going to still be in existence—or will the delivery mechanism be the More Allied Health Services Program? Will accessing the services of a psychologist, social worker or mental health nurse require a GP referral? How many services are expected to be delivered each year under this program? What types of services are going to be funded and provided by these health professionals?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I was up to commencement dates when I was answering the member for Lalor’s previous questions. I think we are up to the better access to psychiatrists, psychologists and general practitioners through the Medicare Benefits Schedule, to which many of her questions related, so I will return to that. The start-up date is 1 November 2006 and the amount of money is $538 million over the next five years. Funding for telephone counselling, self-help and web based support programs is expected to begin on 1 July 2006. There is $56.9 million over five years for that. Assistance for the national telephony system is one payment this financial year—that is $2.4 million to Lifeline.

Alerting the community to links between illicit drugs such as cannabis and mental illness is a matter which I think Deputy Speaker Bishop is particularly interested in and speaks on regularly. I think she has played a significant role in ensuring that money has been put aside for this issue. That begins on 1 July 2006 and it involves $21.6 million over four years. Improved services for people with drug and alcohol problems and mental illness starts from 1 July 2006 and involves $73.9 million over five years. Increased funding for the Mental Health Council of Australia commences in the 2006-07 financial year and involves $1 million over five years. Mental health services in rural and remote areas commence on 1 November 2006 and will have $51.7 million over five years. The additional education places, scholarships and clinical training in mental health commences in 2007 and involves $103.5 million over five years. Mental health in tertiary curricula commences in 2007 and involves $5.6 million over five years. There are a lot of programs and you did ask for the commencement dates. I am sorry if that is taking a bit longer than you expected but, of course, it is a very big package and therefore will take some time.

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

Should nobody else rise at the end of your five minutes, you may have another five minutes.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The expansion of suicide prevention programs commences on 1 July 2006 and will get $62.4 million over five years. That is the end of the package. I am happy to answer some of the other questions that the member for Lalor asked.

In terms of the MBS items, which relate to the substantial change to the way we are structuring Medicare, I think it is a very welcome change to allow psychiatrists to access the Medicare Benefits Schedule. It has certainly been very well received by the psychology organisations that I have had discussions with and by psychologists generally who have talked to me. It is the substantial item in the package—it is $538 million—and I think it will make a substantial difference in access to psychiatrists, GPs and psychologists, as psychiatrists are able not to clear their books but to ensure that patients who are better seen by psychologists can do so effectively—and have the financial access that the member for Lalor also craves—and therefore allow psychiatrists to see the patients who really need to be seeing psychiatrists, rather than those patients who do not need to see psychiatrists but sometimes are.

The member for Lalor asked if a GP or psychiatrist referral will be required to see a psychologist. The answer to that question is yes. Psychologists will only be able to access the Medicare Benefits Schedule on referral from a GP or a psychiatrist. Psychologists who will be able to be referred to will be a certain category of psychologists. Not every psychologist in Australia will be able to receive a referral from a GP or a psychiatrist; they will have to meet certain criteria. We are working through those criteria at the moment with the stakeholders, obviously, to ensure that those people who see psychologists under this Medicare Benefits Schedule item are ones who have practical clinical experience rather than every psychologist who currently has qualifications, of which there are many, many thousands, not all of whom—in fact, less than half of whom—would have clinical experience in recent history. So we want to make sure that those— (Time expired)

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I think I might do in view of the time—I trust that the parliamentary secretary is going to answer the remainder of those questions, because they are of importance—is, whilst we are on the mental health topic, put some additional questions to the parliamentary secretary. Perhaps in the next five minutes he can conclude his previous answer and ensure that these questions are answered too. The parliamentary secretary made reference to the web linked services and the call centre services in the mental health budget appropriations. I ask the parliamentary secretary: what proportion of the total Lifeline budget is now supported by government funds? What proportion of the total Kids Help Line budget is supported by government funds? How will the services provided by these two agencies be linked to the mental health services to be provided as part of the National Health Call Centre Network? Is there going to be integration of those services or not?

When the parliamentary secretary refers to web based support programs, is he aware that there has been previous funding given to a successful web based support program known as depressioNet? Why is there no inclusion of a continuation of this initiative, given the desire for web based support programs for people with mental illness and that this has been a successful one? Will there be any initiatives that would link depressioNet, a current and successful initiative, to the new system?

On the question of the new mental health workforce, which the parliamentary secretary has also referred to, there is funding, as he would be aware, for new mental health nurse places and new clinical psychologist places. There is also a reference to full-time and part-time postgraduate scholarships for nurses and psychologists. Can he give us the breakdown of what funding will be directed to scholarships for nurses as opposed to the funding that will be directed to scholarships for psychologists? As he would be aware, the scholarship initiative is just bundled together. Given the significant educational costs faced by those who do not access scholarships—the parliamentary secretary is aware that the cost for someone who seeks to be a mental health nurse, given mental health nursing is a postgraduate course, is in the order of $50,000 a year and in the order of $20,000 a year for a person who seeks to be a psychologist—how many scholarships are going to be provided in each category and how many places, therefore, will be left without the benefit of a scholarship, leaving people to face those sorts of costs in order to access the course?

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

Before I call the parliamentary secretary, I point out that this session was due to end at 11.30 am, but as we were running 10 minutes behind on the initial program this morning, we can proceed for another 10 minutes.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In continuation of the answer to the member for Lalor’s question, I think we were up to access to the MBS item by psychologists and I had said that a certain criterion would be applied. They will require a GP or a psychiatrist referral and not every psychologist will be able to simply access the MBS item. The member for Lalor also asked whether psychologists should be able to access the MBS item for all the services they provide and the answer to that is no. They will be able to access only the MBS item for services referred to them by a GP or psychiatrist. How that will be done in detail I cannot tell the shadow minister at this point, but I can certainly go into the detail that answers her question, which is that they will be able to access the MBS item for a service that has been referred to them by a GP or a psychiatrist but they will not be able to unilaterally apply the MBS to all of the services they provide.

The member for Lalor asked whether we are scrapping the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care program, which surprises me because we have absolutely no intention of scrapping it. That program continues and I am not aware of why the member would think we are scrapping it. It is possible that she has information which has not been provided to me and I would be more than happy to receive that information if she wants to write to me or to ring my office. I am sure we can facilitate a discussion over that matter. She may want to provide me with that information because I have no instructions that that is the case. The government is a very enthusiastic supporter of the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care package. We think it is making a substantial difference. Certainly the number of GPs who are being trained in mental health and all the stakeholders are happy to see it expand rather than not so. In the Youth Mental Health Foundation measure which was announced before the budget $15 million of the $69 million was put aside for GPs to work through the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care package in order to help young people, particularly with early intervention. There is no enthusiasm on the part of the government for the scrapping of Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care. I look forward to that continuing as a vibrant and active part of our arsenal of activities with which we seek to help people with mental illness.

The member for Lalor asked about the level of rebate. I think that is what she was getting at in terms of psychologists being able to access the MBS, therefore how much out-of-pocket expenses clients would be expected to provide. I can tell her that we are currently working closely with stakeholders on what the rebate should be. There is obviously a divergence of view, as the member for Lalor would expect, between what  psychologists would like to receive and what GPs and psyhiatrists and others think psychologists should receive. I am not in a position to tell her today what the rebate will be but we are close to finalising those figures and that will be announced well in advance of the 1 November start-up date on which we expect this new MBS item to come on board.

The member for Lalor asked about the distribution of psychologists across the country. I obviously come from an inner-city suburban electorate and we do not have quite the same difficulties as other members would have. In fact, I think everyone currently in the chamber is in the same position as me, except perhaps the member for McMillan, who has a more regional based electorate and might have issues—

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

I am hardly inner city.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not exactly in the country either. Regarding the distribution of psychologists and how that will work, as part of the mental health package we will provide $51.7 million for mental health services in rural and remote areas. We anticipate that some of that money will be used to ensure that mental health nurses coming on stream are placed in rural and remote areas and that the changes to the way psychologists are treated are rolled out in rural and remote areas. (Time expired)

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps it will suit the convenience of the chamber if I briefly outline some additional questions to the parliamentary secretary and then the remaining time can be taken by the parliamentary secretary in reply. There are some outstanding workforce issues which I asked about and which have not been answered. I will turn briefly to an alternative topic and seek answers to the following questions. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that the only current Department of Health and Ageing initiative which directly addresses the issue of childhood obesity is the $15 million Healthy School Communities grants initiative? Can the parliamentary secretary tell us how many schools have applied for grants under this initiative and how many schools have received funding? Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the department’s website pages on overweight and obesity have not been updated since September 2002? Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the department’s website pages on nutrition and healthy eating and Eat Well Australia have not been updated since 9 October 2003? Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the department’s website pages on the National Child Nutrition Program, which was funded in 2001 to provide three-year community grants, say that half of the 110 projects funded will be completed by the end of 2003 and that summary reports will be available, but there is exactly one summary report on the website? What has happened to the more than 100 others that are missing? I ask that the parliamentary secretary, in the time remaining, address those questions and the remaining mental health questions.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will attempt to respond to those questions in the very short time that is still available. I think I was up to the distribution of psychologists. The answer is that this $51.7 million is designed to assist in the roll-out of psychologists and mental health nurses to rural and remote areas. We expect that that will assist. We understand that the ‘spatial distribution’, as the member for Lalor has coined it, is not as perfect as we would like it to be. That is why the Minister for Health and Ageing has a number of programs in place to try and address that issue.

The member for Lalor asked what the mechanism for the roll-out of these extra services under the mental health package would be in rural and remote areas. The member for Lalor would probably like to know that we intend to use the existing Australian Divisions of General Practice to roll out these services. In those areas where that is not appropriate, we will use the services that are there. In some areas Aboriginal health services will be used and in other areas regional health services will be used. Obviously, whatever service that is available and appropriate in the area will be the one that the Commonwealth puts to use for this program, but our leading area of rolling this out will be through the Australian Divisions of General Practice, in which we have great confidence.

I think the issue of web link services was the next item the member for Lalor raised. I am pleased to say that we are putting substantial funds into internet, telephone and counselling services. The member for Lalor would know, as would most members of the House, that the first source of treatment or advice for teenagers and young people is not going to be their parents or even their peers. If they have concerns about their mental health, they will happily go to the internet for advice—and, to some extent, self-treatment—because it is anonymous and they can find out a great deal of information. So the Commonwealth is putting substantial funds aside for the internet to try to reach young people. Some excellent websites are already in existence, such as MoodGYM, which is run from the ANU, and there are other sites that I have visited. We expect those to expand.

I cannot answer the question as to the proportion of the Kids Help Line budget or the proportion of the Lifeline budget that is Commonwealth funded. That is a question that is best put to Lifeline and the Kids Help Line. It is not something that I would necessarily know. Therefore, the member for Lalor might wish to approach Lifeline and the Kids Help Line. I am sure in their annual reports she would be able to find the answers to those questions, but I am not going to answer them because it is not part of my particular responsibility.

The member for Lalor also asked about depressioNet. DepressioNet was given extra funding last year by the minister for health. DepressioNet is perfectly able to apply for funding under this mental health package. DepressioNet has not been singled out for mention in the budget; neither was MoodGYM or any of the other web based services that are available. Like them, depressioNet is more than welcome to apply for funding under the package and if it is successful in achieving it then good luck to it.

The breakdown of the scholarships between nurses and psychologists is a question that I do not have a specific answer to. I am happy to take it on notice and ask the department to see whether they can come up with a breakdown. I imagine that, because these are not commencing until 2007 and many of the other parts of the program are commencing in July 2006, the specific breakdown of scholarships between nursing and psychology has probably not yet been decided. It is a matter that will obviously be decided before the end of this year and the member for Lalor will be one of the first to find out, I am sure, as will the institutions that are providing this training to the 420 new nurses and 200 new clinical psych places that the Commonwealth has put aside as part of this mental health package. As the member for Lalor and other members of the House would know, there is a chronic shortage of the labour that is required in the workforce in this area. The Commonwealth is moving to make a difference in that area even though many would say that the states bear a substantial responsibility for the workforce situation.

The member for Lalor also asked a number of questions about nutrition and obesity. I would point out to her that the minister for health has primary responsibility for those areas and, as a consequence, I am happy for him to answer those questions if he chooses to do so.

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

The time allocated for this section of the debate has almost expired, but I will allow one more question.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the parliamentary secretary, if he is unable to answer the questions on childhood obesity, whether he could commit to procuring an answer from the minister for health, who is not here and ought to be here, and that that answer be provided to us in writing. In the same vein, I ask: if he is unable to answer this series of questions, will answers be procured for us? This series of questions relates to the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. I would seek an answer from the parliamentary secretary as to whether or not the screening program is on track for an August roll-out as promised or whether that promise is about to be broken and an August deadline not achieved. Are there agreements with the states and territories about the National Bowel Cancer Screening initiative? If there are, when were they signed? If there are not, when we will they be signed?

Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that what will actually happen is not a national roll-out but a region-by-region roll-out? Is it correct that this will not include major parts of the country? If so, which parts of Australia will miss out and when will there be a national program? Is the limitation on the roll-out because there is currently no way of ensuring that people who get a positive first instance test result will be able to get access to a colonoscopy? What procedures are in place to ensure that everybody who gets a positive first instance test result will get a colonoscopy in a reasonable time frame? How will this work for patients in remote and rural areas? Who will bear the medical indemnity implications if a patient with a positive first instance test result then does not get timely access to a colonoscopy? Is it correct that programs to ensure Indigenous Australians get access to bowel cancer screening are still only at ‘a fairly early stage’, as we were told at Senate estimates?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure the member for Lalor would be well aware that the areas that she has asked about are specifically matters to do with the Minister for Health and Ageing. I have, for almost an hour now, been happy to answer questions generally in the department of health, but I thank her for asking questions specifically in my areas of responsibility so that we could have a useful exchange in this part of the parliamentary process. But, for those areas which are the particular responsibility of the minister for health, such as nutrition, obesity and the like and the cancer-screening program to which she has referred, I am happy to refer those matters to the minister for health. How he chooses to respond to the member for Lalor is best placed in his hands.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Defence Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $17,540,556,000.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of questions I would like to put to the minister. The minister will be aware that I have been fairly complimentary of the job that he has generally done since he was appointed. I think that complimentary approach has been warranted in some areas. However, there are other areas where I would really appreciate some direct answers in relation to a couple of issues.

You would be aware, Minister, that one of the great areas of consternation within the current serving and broader veteran community is the issue of the recently announced Australian Defence Medal. I want to refer to a press release which was put out by the Hon. Mal Brough on Saturday, 26 June 2004. I will quote three parts of that. He says:

The Howard Government has today announced the intention to establish a new medal that recognises volunteer service in the Australian Defence Force.

It goes on to say:

Mr Brough said the Australian Defence Medal would be retrospective … However, those who completed National Service would not be eligible unless they subsequently volunteered and completed the requisite six years volunteer service.

In conclusion it says:

Nonetheless, the Australian Defence Medal provides the Government and the Australian people the ability to recognise those service men and women who do volunteer and serve the flag in a variety of roles and are prepared, should the call come, to put their lives on the line.

I want to ask the minister why the criterion of this medal was changed from one, importantly, of recognising volunteer service, following the recognition of national service with the previous National Service Medal. Why was it changed from a volunteer medal? Minister, who did you consult in the process of making that change?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Cowan, and I thank him also for his warm-up kind words. I was pleased to open the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service in Perth and—it must be a mutual love-in society—I was pleased to praise the member for Cowan for his contribution to VVCS. Thank you for that.

On the issue of the ADM, the Australian Defence Medal, the government did vary the eligibility entitlement. The member for Cowan rightly outlined the initial announcement at that time. For completeness, I should emphasise that quite a deal of consternation followed the announcement of the initial eligibility criteria, to the point where the government engaged in quite an extensive range of consultations with ex-service organisations, and I can provide a list of those. That occurred largely before my appointment on 27 January, which I am sure the member for Cowan is aware of. There was also consultation and discussion within the government.

The topics that arose were not limited solely to the question of national service. There were issues around particularly women. Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, you may have had representations, as I had, that the actual period of initial enlistment for women was in some cases under the minimum eligibility criteria for the medal. There were also other issues we characterised as employment related policies within Defence. For example, if a female member serving in the defence forces fell in love, she was invited to leave. If she was married, she was invited to leave. If she became pregnant, she was invited to leave, and some other relationships that she may have been involved in also could have meant there was an invitation to leave.

In that light, the review was carried out. The defence chiefs were involved; the government revisited that eligibility criteria. The member for Cowan is quite right: the emphasis on ‘volunteer’ was removed because the focus of the ADM, and the announcement that I made on behalf of the government, went to the question of service and all of the things that the member for Cowan mentioned about a preparedness to serve, to be called upon, to defend the country and to be involved in other defence related activities in the national interest.

A view was taken that if an individual had planned as part of their career to be a member of the ADF and had served out their initial undertaking, they were very deserving of the award of an ADM. The view was also taken that people might have had other career plans for their lives. They might have wished to do other things with their lives, but they were called upon through national service to also serve and, if they fulfilled that obligation appropriately and satisfied the enlistment period, they were equally deserving of having their service recognised.

The key issue that has caused some contention is a view amongst those who volunteered during the period of national service that the nashos have received double recognition; that they have received the National Service Medal and they are eligible for the Australian Defence Medal. This is true; it is a cause of consternation and it has been raised with me. What I have emphasised is that the ADM is to recognise service, and service has been provided and deserves recognition, regardless of the pathway that brought people to serve our country, and to serve well.

In relation to the National Service Medal, this is a commemorative medal. It is a ceremonial medal, not an honour or an award, yet many are saying it is still a medal, and some of the volunteers feel quite strongly that they have not been given the level of recognition for their voluntary service. I have met with a number of veterans organisations recently, and I am sure the member for Cowan would know they have put their views quite vigorously to me, and some points of view I have taken on board. The eligibility criteria for the ADM are sound, principled and, I think, entirely defensible. They will not be changed. The question of whether someone who was a national serviceman is receiving both the ADM and can claim the commemorative National Service Medal relates more, in my view, to the issue of the commemorative National Service Medal than the merit or otherwise of the eligibility criteria of the ADM.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to come back to that, but time absolutely precludes me from doing so, so I will conclude by commenting on two further issues. Firstly, I encourage the minister to look at the reason why there are such long delays in the provision of this medal, and why there are anomalies arising where people with the same sorts of service eligibility are being, on the one hand, rejected, while others in exactly the same situation, on the other hand, are being approved. Something is wrong here and the minister needs to get a handle on it.

The last question I will ask the minister relates to the bravery awards following the Battle of Long Tan. I know the minister is aware of this issue, and I want to ask him whether he feels that the officers who actually fought in the battle have been treated fairly. I want to know whether he feels that the downgrading of their bravery awards was a fair thing to have happened at the time and, particularly in this year—the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan—what action he intends to take to review those bravery awards, which were given to the officers who actually took part in the battle—the trigger pullers, the men who fought the fight? I want to know what steps he is going to take to rectify what is now becoming a longstanding embarrassment to our honours and medals system.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cowan asked two questions. The first one related to the issue of medals. I think there have been about 7½ thousand Australian defence medals issued within about eight weeks—but I will check the exact number. My sense is that, with all the medals that have been issued in recent times, the ADM experience would be at the high-water mark. But, if the member for Cowan is aware of some eligibility issues or some anomalies in the implementation of what I think is a sound and principled eligibility framework, I would welcome receiving that information. I am encouraged by the turnaround time in applications, and the way defence honours and awards are processing those medals is a credit to them. We are still working through a considerable backlog with other awards, and I am encouraged by the whole team’s effort to get those awards out to people who so richly deserve them.

On the second point, the member for Cowan knows that I have some incredible sympathy for those people involved in the battle and the circumstances surrounding the recognition of their service, their gallantry and their honour. He knows how I feel about that. Dave Sabben is a man whom I greatly admire and count as a friend. I receive much wise counsel from him and, via him, some advice and thoughts from the individuals involved in the battle. One of the things that I have turned my mind to is what I can do about the feelings and residual sentiments of those individuals about how they were treated some 40 years ago. One of the issues that I confront is that I am not able to change the history of the time. There were some decisions made at that time by people in the command structure who were not immediately part of the action but who were close to it. I am not sure how safe it is for me to second-guess judgments made by serving members of the ADF who, in all the circumstances of that battle and our engagement in Vietnam at that time, arrived at some conclusions that differed from the immediate hierarchy of those very brave men involved in that incredible fight.

Member for Cowan, my issue is that, having recognised my sense that there has been an injustice here, my second step is trying to find a positive way of responding to it without inadvertently bringing into question the judgments about the medals, honours and recognitions not just from that battle but from the Battle of Coral and all the other conflicts that were part of our Vietnam engagement. So I have sought some advice on that. I have spoken widely about it. I am seeking wise counsel from people about what I am able to do, given the current law. I am keen to see what I can do. Precisely what that is, I do not know just yet. I am not sure.

There are issues about imperial medal systems that we do not have with us any longer. There are issues about reopening some assessments made at the time, on the ground, by people directly involved in full recognition of all the circumstances. As someone who was barely a pup when that battle happened, how wise is it for me to revisit some of those judgments? If they were to be revisited, what is a fair and equitable way of honouring the services of the people involved while not in some indirect way dishonouring the services of others who were involved? These are the things that I am grappling with. Frankly, I would welcome a chat with the member for Cowan if he has some views on that, because I share his sentiment. The road forward to remedy it, though, is less clear.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very brief, given the time. I have two questions for the minister. Firstly, can he provide any detail to the House regarding what commitments have been made with respect to funding for the children of Vietnam veterans health study? That is an issue on which I can assure him there is cross-party support. Secondly, the minister would also be aware there has been quite a furore in elements of the veterans community regarding comments attributed to him in the Cynthia Banham article in the SMH some time ago. I would like to give him the opportunity to clarify that on the public record.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an unfortunate episode the article in the Sydney Morning Herald represents. At no time have I discredited nor will I discredit the service of previous members of the ADF or serving members of the ADF. In fact, that rather long interview was about carrying forward the best military traditions of the ADF and recognising the demands placed on serving members, past and present—that it is a place for high-calibre individuals. The Sydney Morning Herald, in trying to summarise a 45-minute interview in a summary paragraph of its writing, not mine, left some with the impression that I was discrediting past or serving members of the ADF. I have taken that issue up with the Sydney Morning Herald. To the credit of the Sydney Morning Herald, they have quite accurately said that I never said that any serving or past members of the ADF were misfits. I never said that and the Sydney Morning Herald has made that clear. I welcome the opportunity to again make that point, as I did to the national congress of the Vietnam veterans in Nerang. I would welcome anybody who is interested in the circumstances of that to contact me because that is so at odds with everything I have said and everything I believe. I am grateful to the member for Bruce for giving me the opportunity to put that on the record.

The second area he asked about was the sons and daughters of Vietnam veterans health study. He would be aware that the feasibility study has now been completed. There was some considerable discussion, debate, disagreement—argy-bargying, if I could put it that way—in the preparation of that feasibility study, involving a scientific advisory committee and a consultative committee. The report that has come to me points to some risks, some concerns, some hazards about undertaking certain kinds of research and proposes that we undertake a pilot study, which of itself would take a number of years to complete, just to see if the methodology that people think might work will actually reveal some new insights.

What I know is that there are sons and daughters of Vietnam veterans who need help now. To sit back and procrastinate for a number of years in the hope of a full study that may lead to some new insights I think is to do a disservice to the Vietnam veteran community and their sons and daughters. What I have targeted is a more staged approach that can get earlier insights sooner, that enables us to respond to those insights as they arise, adapt and change our services to meet those new insights, and then go further on with the research. This is a stepping forward process. That will get us meaningful results sooner and we can better target our health and support programs for the sons and daughters of Vietnam veterans and we can extend that study as far as it needs to go to find the insights that we are looking for to make sure that we get services delivered and parallel research as well.

One of the things that concerned me about the scientific advisory committee’s analysis was questions about control groups and whether a safe scientific research project would possibly exclude members of the Air Force and the Navy. I am not going to agree to a study that risks treating serving personnel differently on the basis of the service that they undertook. I am also not going to conduct a study which may not be helpful to the veterans community because it has not taken account of the healthy soldier effect. The shadow minister would know that we only recruit healthy people. If we cannot find a comparative group that takes account of the fact that we start with a healthier cohort in the community of the serving personnel than the broader community then some of those analytical comparisons might mask the very insights we are looking for.

I have been in extensive discussions with members of the scientific advisory committee, my own department, the Repatriation Commission, some of the individuals, Mr and Mrs Parker as an example on the consultative committee, saying, ‘Here’s how I think we can move this forward.’ I have been encouraged by their response and they tell me they are encouraged by my desire to get something constructive happening. One final comment, though, is that there is a body of non-veteran related research too which I think might be instructive. How do we make sure that insights gained in the broader community can be brought to bear on what is very much a veterans related body of work helping the sons and daughters of people who served in Vietnam? That is where that is heading and I am happy to keep you informed of the progress.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the time available, I would like to ask the minister about a few issues in respect of the budget allocation, in the order of $340 million, for our ongoing commitment in Iraq. The minister announced in a media release on 31 May the commencement of new training roles for our troops in Iraq. The first one is at a basic training centre and another will be at a counterinsurgency academy. The first issue I wanted to ask is: roughly, how many of our troops will be involved in those training tasks?

The second question is: what will then happen to the bulk of our troops in Iraq in terms of a security overwatch? Is the minister able to explain a little more as to what will be involved in that security overwatch? In particular, where will our troops primarily be allocated, how many roughly will be involved, who will we be with and what backup resources, importantly, will be provided to our troops in that role? In particular, there was a controversy regarding the provision of helicopter support in the Al Muthanna province. Will that similar sort of support be available and will it be in the context of the British retaining an involvement, presumably in an area in southern Iraq, or will it be in the context of the British actually scaling down their contribution?

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, in relation to Iraq, we budgeted $392.7 million over the three years and, as the member for Barton can see, we have budgeted for the continuing Al Muthanna rotation through to the end of the financial year. From that, it should not necessarily be concluded that they will definitely be there for that period of time, but the government has chosen to responsibly budget for it, and the Al Muthanna contribution component is approximately $198 million.

What I have announced so far is that we are going to deploy 30 of our troops to the basic training centre, which is at Tallil, just inside the border in Daiqa, the large American air base. We will also send three of our highly specialised people to the counterinsurgency training centre at Taji, which is about 20 kilometres from Baghdad.

As far as Operation Overwatch is concerned, it relies very much on the decisions that are going to be made by the Japanese. In Singapore on the weekend before last, in a meeting with Minister Nukaga, the Japanese minister, I again made it very clear to him that, whilst we are very supportive of supporting the Japanese engineers, who have done a tremendous job in Al Muthanna, clarity on their future would be greatly appreciated by us in terms of future planning. The Japanese minister has made it clear to me that one of the things that is important to Japan, apart from supporting basically what we are all trying to achieve in Iraq, is that the move to the Iraqi national government and the appointment of key ministers, and then the transfer to provincial Iraqi control in Al Muthanna, will be key milestones in their own decision making.

Operation Overwatch is yet to be clarified to our full satisfaction. We are disposed to redeploying the approximately 460 Australian troops who are currently protecting the Japanese engineers in Al Muthanna to other tasks in the southern part of Iraq. We are not at this stage prepared to specifically nominate where they will be predominantly based, because we are negotiating that with the Iraqis, the British and our other allies, including the Italians. We are, however, certainly not disposed to being based in Basra, which seems to be occupying the minds of certain people in the media—if not the opposition.

The nature of the tasks that we envisage undertaking in Operation Overwatch is, as I say, the subject of negotiation, but will primarily involve training. We have already provided training to the Iraqi 2nd Brigade of the 10th Division and the Iraqis in Al Muthanna province are themselves already providing security forces and protection. Apart from training, mentoring and working cooperatively with the provincial Iraqi government and the Iraqi security forces, we envisage that, along with our coalition partners, we will be in a position to provide direct assistance to the Iraqi security forces should it be absolutely necessary to do so—in the same way that our own defence forces in Australia might occasionally, but very rarely, be required to provide aid to the civilian community. We are at the moment having detailed negotiations with the Iraqis and our coalition partners as to the terms and conditions under which we would do that. It is absolutely essential to the Australian government that we have that clearly defined before we move to that phase of our support in the southern part of Iraq. This will be one of the issues I will be discussing with the US Secretary of Defense when I see him in just over a week or so. It will also be the subject of discussion with the British Defence Secretary, Des Browne, when I see him a few days later.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. He made a point about the Japanese having mentioned the transition to the new ministry—I surmise, the interior minister for defence—which, I understand, has recently been appointed after a gap of several months following the election in Iraq. In that context, has the Australian government voiced its concerns regarding reports that militia connected in particular with the minister for the interior may have been involved in—and it would be naive to assume that they do not continue to be involved in—sectarian violence? To what extent is that a concern of the Australian government? It is at least perceived that militia connected with the government have been involved in sectarian violence. Insofar as it seems that this new role would be a security overwatch role more closely connected with the Iraqi security forces, to what extent should we question at least in part the connection of the Iraqi security forces with elements involved in sectarian violence? To what extent would that make Australian troops subject to retaliation? What precautions will be taken to protect our troops in the event that they are the focus of attacks by elements within the Iraqi population—namely, those more aligned to the Sunni elements?

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not able or prepared to discuss things that involve intelligence and operational things in detail. I know you are not asking for that. The issues that the member for Barton raises are very much the subject of discussion between us, our coalition partners and the Iraqis. A lot of what we will be doing involves mentoring, training and support, and it has been publicly reported that there are elements involved, perhaps even insurgencies, who seem to have infiltrated sections of the Iraqi security forces, particularly the police forces. We are very aware of that. Before we make the final commitment to Operation Overwatch, that and quite a number of other issues will be settled to our satisfaction.

At the risk of sounding flippant, Iraq is a war zone and a dangerous place. We have undertaken a very thorough risk assessment in terms of what our ADF personnel may be doing in the next phase in southern Iraq. The next phase is going to be very dangerous for some of the reasons which the member for Barton raises and, indeed, for a lot of others, but it is the next very important phase in the campaign in the sense that provinces in southern Iraq, in Al Muthanna in particular, will be moving to provincial Iraqi control with their own government, security forces and so on. I can only say by way of reassurance that that is one of the priority issues which we are actively discussing at the moment and, whilst we are in principle disposed to redeploying to this particular role known as Operation Overwatch, we will not do so until we are satisfied that the risks have been managed to our satisfaction.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that context and in the time available, perhaps by opening with a political comment that the minister may or may not want to respond to, we would argue that it seems that the Australian government is almost looking for things to do in Iraq after the Japanese depart and after the British hand over authority in the Al Muthanna province to Iraqi security forces. It would seem to us that we are actually looking for things to do when there are pressing issues in our region. That is not so much a question and the minister may or may not want to respond to it.

In the context of the pressing issues in our region, most urgent of course is our involvement in East Timor. I understand there is a total of some 2,600-odd members of the ADF there. The total number of troops is in the order of 1,400 on the ground. I have questions with respect to East Timor. To what extent has there been an analysis of the adequacy of the skill sets of our troops—that is not to demean their professionalism or dedication—in terms of controlling civil unrest and the capacity to quell riotous behaviour? Has there been an assessment of whether there was a need to, or whether there may be a need to in the future in similar situations, provide troops with riot gear, such as shields, riot helmets and so forth? To what extent will there be an evaluation as to whether we need to focus on that broader crowd and riot control skill set in the ADF? It has recently been pointed out to me that we have a military police battalion in the Victorian police that is trained to a riot control standard. To what extent, if any, has consideration been given to either expanding the capacity of that battalion or creating a similar skill set? That is not simply for a response in East Timor but, presumably over the next decade, may be required should a riot erupt in the Solomons or, regrettably, in some other country.

I acknowledge that this is with the benefit of hindsight—and temper my political remarks by that opening—but it was suggested in the Bulletin of 6 June that the training provided by Australians—we say by the Australian government—to the embryonic East Timorese defence force was inadequate. In particular, there was a reference to an allegedly secret memorandum—which the minister may not want to comment on—suggesting that as early as 2001 there were reports of the risks of the then embryonic East Timor defence force being susceptible to infiltration by criminal elements and also the potential for the former guerrilla fighters to fracture on the basis of ethnic and geographic lines. To what extent will the Australian government review the adequacy of training that we provided to the East Timorese defence force with a view to identifying whether it could have been done better and, indeed, with a view to looking at how we may wish to do it in the future in East Timor or other countries in the region?

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, in relation to Iraq, I can assure the member for Barton there is no shortage of things to be done that require a military presence from those who are committed to seeing that these people have no less a right to self-determination than we or the East Timorese may have. I note in that context that on 9 June, in an interview with Sky News, the member for Griffith said:

I would say to anyone thinking of going into this total war zone—

that is, Iraq—

unless there is some overwhelming family reason to be there, just don’t.

In other words, his assessment, at least, is that there is plenty to be done. With respect to the skill sets of MPs, obviously the member for Barton has taken a much more active interest in what has happened in East Timor than perhaps the average everyday Australian whom we all represent. But if you look at the circumstances which led to our predeployment and then the deployment of our Defence Force, it was obvious that we needed a military presence and we needed it there quite quickly once the events rapidly unfolded. What happened, as is our experience, by virtue of the presence in considerable numbers of Australians, Malaysians, New Zealanders and subsequently Portuguese is that the gun battles in the streets, which we had immediately preceding the deployment, stopped and we moved then into orchestrated gang violence, arson and a range of things which clearly required a police presence.

Australian soldiers, in my opinion, are the finest in the world for all kinds of reasons and in all kinds of ways—I know the member for Cowan knows this very well—but they are not policemen. One of the discussions I had with the Chief of the Defence Force and also with Brigadier Slater, who is commanding the joint task force in East Timor, was that I certainly did not want to see, nor did I want them to have, rules of engagement which basically saw them using extreme force for what ought to be policing activities. The government made a judgment just before the deployment that we would not immediately deploy Australian Federal Police. We have subsequently done that; we have almost 200 there now. We have 250 Malaysian police arriving, and then obviously the Portuguese—the GNR. We would expect that we will have a United Nations policing presence there.

As is frequently the case, we have seen on television one small part of a broader picture of what has actually been happening in Dili. Australians have been led to believe that the entire city has been hostage to this kind of behaviour. Whilst there have been a significant number of incidents, they have declined rapidly over the three weeks of our deployment.

One of the things that I have discussed with the Defence military leadership—because, of course, we do have military police—is whether some sort of military policing capacity is necessary and appropriate. Whilst we have discussed this, we have no specific plans to develop it. As an Australian, apart from being the Minister for Defence, I do not particularly want to see Australian soldiers doing police work. Both of those roles are important, but they are quite different. I think what we are focused on is the capability of the deployable arrangements in our AFP to complement what our military may be doing, particularly in our region. That, of course, is a matter for the Minister for Justice and Customs.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I can only say, in relation to the training that has been provided by the ADF to the East Timorese. The Australian government, I am advised, gave advice through our ADF to the East Timorese sovereign government about the nature, size and composition of its security forces, both policing and military. The East Timorese government, as it is perfectly at liberty to do, chose a particular path and we provided training. In the future, which is probably now more of a focus, I think Australia has the right to be more assertive about what we view might be appropriate in providing advice to the Timor Leste government—and indeed the UN, should it take on the role that we expect. In training, I think we need to focus a lot more on leadership. Leadership is at the heart of everything that succeeds and everything that fails. (Time expired)

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

I draw the minister’s attention to a statement he just made where he referred to the member for Barton having ‘taken a much more active interest in what has happened in East Timor than perhaps the average everyday Australian whom we all represent’. I want to bring the minister’s attention to some average everyday Australians whom I represent who are taking a very keen interest in what is happening in East Timor. They happen to be very good friends of mine—Bruce and Lyn Boyd. Bruce is our local police sergeant at Toronto. All of their three children are in the Navy. Brendan is on the Parramatta, Michelle is on the Melbourne and Michael is on the Manoora. The minister’s decision about East Timor not being declared a war-like zone has an impact on pay levels and conditions, and on whether or not a member of the ADF will be entitled to an active service medal and be eligible to join the RSL when they return from particular service. Bruce sent me an email asking me to explain something to him which I could not explain. I take this opportunity to ask the minister to explain to my dear friend, who writes:

Kel,

Please explain to me this.

When Brendan went to the Persian Gulf in October 05 the war was over. But it’s still regarded as a war zone and rightly so. But according to Mr Bush the war was won. Supposedly some form of law and order prevails in Iraq even with the suicide bombings going on each day. There are still relatively safe zones within the country and with Baghdad itself. This is probably because the ADF with their coalition partners are attempting to STOP THE VIOLENCE AND BRING SOME TYPE OF ORDER TO THE NATION OF IRAQ.

When Michael went to East Timor May 06 all law and order had broken down. Police officers and civilians were being murdered by the army and other ethnic groups and no-one was available to stop it. So in come the ADF. No law, total civil disobedience, armed offenders all about the place and no place safe to hide. Their job is very simply to STOP THE VIOLENCE AND RE-ESTABLISH SOME TYPE OF ORDER TO THE NATION OF EAST TIMOR.

It seems like one of those cartoons where you have to spot the differences. I must be missing the point. I can’t see the difference.

Mr Howard’s work choices legislation takes away entitlement from the workers of this nation. Perhaps this is just his militarised version of INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

All I can say is it’s a disgusting decision.

Bruce

To put this family and personal issue into context, he is now considering applying for a position as an administrative sergeant in East Timor. I am sure that Lyn and I and all of his other good friends will try to talk him out of that. Here is a whole family who give their service to the protection of us all.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question relates to exactly the same issue. Minister, I am appalled by the decision that the government took not to make this warlike service, and I say this very strongly in the context of the message which was delivered to the soldiers and to the families by you, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and by the Prime Minister, when in the parliament the Prime Minister gave rise to the dangerous nature of the deployment and told the House and the people of Australia and the soldiers who were going there that we could expect casualties. Minister, I ask you one simple question: why did the government not immediately declare the deployment to be warlike and then review that warlike designation perhaps four or six weeks into the deployment? Why did the government not give the benefit of the doubt to the troops? They went there expecting dangerous situations and casualties and they went there expecting to operate in a warlike environment. Why didn’t the government recognise that up front and then take the opportunity to review that decision once things had settled down?

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Charlton and the member for Cowan for (a) their concern and (b) asking the question. I cannot express enough my admiration to Bruce and his family for their significant contribution to our country. It is extraordinary. In terms of warlike or non-warlike, the definition of what is warlike or non-warlike occupied the mind of the then Keating government in 1992. It then spent a long time working with the Australian Defence Force in developing definitions for conditions of service for ADF personnel who would be deployed. There were essentially six categories that were defined and approved in 1993 by the then Keating government, three of them falling into warlike and three of them falling into non-warlike.

A warlike deployment is one where there is a declared state of war, where ADF personnel are engaged in combat, or perhaps they are involved in a peacekeeping operation under a chapter 7 resolution of the United Nations Security Council where in that peacekeeping operation they are the target of some kind of military style of attack. The way the definition or the recommendation works is that there is a Strategic Operations Division in the Australian Defence Force. It comprises a variety of people from the ADF, who themselves have significant deployment experience. Two principal things are taken into account. One is the military risk and the other is the environmental risk. The military risk involves the threat to life that is presented by the military task that lies ahead, and there is also environmental risk. For example, the maintainers of our C130s in the Gulf States have to work with icepacks because they are working in 57 degrees Celsius to maintain planes. They have to work for 20 minutes and have a 40-minute break, and that is a significant environmental risk, as you could imagine.

The Chief of Defence recommended, on behalf of the Australian Defence Force, that this be classified as non-war-like, and, yes, it was considered to be very risky. In fact, before the deployment, the Prime Minister said, and I think I may also have said, that it had the potential to be riskier than it was in 1999. As you know, we had then, and we still have, renegade rebel groups of armed soldiers, and possibly civilians, up in the hills. As you know, on the day prior to the deployment we had—and it will be the subject of an investigation—what would appear to be the murder of unarmed people on the streets of Dili.

The recommendation was, as I say, non-warlike. That was accepted by me and it was a whole-of-government decision that it be non-warlike. Were we to take the advice of the member for Cowan, as distinct from the Australian Defence Force itself, and declare it to be warlike prior to the deployment, I cannot begin to imagine the environment that would have been created by the government establishing something as warlike and then having to present to the Australian Defence Force why the definition and terms of deployment and conditions of service would suddenly change. Further to that, the conditions of service are paid from the day of deployment. So in any real sense, whatever the ultimate decision made is, the conditions of service and the money that is paid to the Defence Force personnel remain as whatever the determination of the ADF, supported by the government, is.

I think it was the member for Charlton who said it was the picture that is the difference. It is interesting that the Daily Telegraph, when reporting this, had a photograph of a burnt-out car in Dili and a photograph of a burnt-out car in Baghdad with an armed Australian soldier standing in front of it. It said, ‘What is the difference?’ The difference is that in Baghdad the car has been the subject of an attack, probably using an improvised explosive device, possibly a suicide bomber, and anywhere from a small number to 30 people will have been killed. The target of that attack is coalition forces, of which the Australians are but one. In Dili, the burnt-out car is the result of an arson attack by a group of vandals and youths who are in organised gang related attacks. It is a different environment. (Extension of time granted) East Timor is very dangerous, but the target of the attack is not the Australian soldier. The member for Barton said to Mike Carlton on 2UE that he agreed with the proposition that people were shooting around our soldiers. They are not shooting at our soldiers. Under no circumstances would I or anybody else seek to diminish the threat to their safety in Dili, but it is different from the threats to their safety in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

I also point out that the deployment allowance for Dili is $78.60 a day. In the Solomon Islands—and there are soldiers serving in Dili today who served in the Solomon Islands—it is $44 a day. This reflects the assessment that the risk to our soldiers in the Solomon Islands is lower. In the Sudan, it is $69 a day. In the Middle East, it is $61 a day. It is $78.60 a day in Dili to reflect the higher risk. I also add that the field allowance in Dili is $42.80 a day. In Iraq, it is $25 a day. The field allowance is higher in Dili because environmentally, as distinct from militarily, it is a more difficult place for our soldiers to be living.

I go back to the statement made by the member for Griffith, who described Iraq as a total war zone and said, ‘Under no circumstances go there.’ The same member for Griffith went to Dili as a private citizen and demanded not to have any military support, protection or anything of the sort. In fact, he wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to that effect. He has made a very clear distinction between risk in Iraq and risk in East Timor. The allowance for our soldiers in East Timor is $128 a day for a soldier with dependants and $121 a day for those without dependants. In addition to that, from day 91 every dollar is tax free. The deployment allowance is $78.60, which is tax free from the day that they arrive. The tax free arrangements from day 91 apply from the first day of deployment. As you are aware, the soldiers will receive an Australian Service Medal with a Timor clasp. The veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan that are serving in Timor are also aware of the difference in risk between the two. As Neil James from the Australian Defence Association said, this is not something that ought to be politicised in the way that it is.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.