Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

I want to start my contribution by referring to Senator Abetz’s answer to the question I asked him as the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Vaile. It is interesting that Senator Abetz read the brief he had been given. One would have thought that the furthest thing from the mind of CASA, under the instruction of the minister, would have been anything which might have affirmed that we would move to what to most pilots seems an appallingly ridiculous position where copilots could be trained so that they would be required to have only 10 hours actual flight experience with the balance of their flight experience being obtained in a simulator. Of course, having obtained their standards, pilots update their experience with the new technology of certain aircraft flying in simulators, but frankly the best experience for pilots, according to information that I have been given by pilots, is that they actually fly aircraft—that they learn how aircraft react to turbulence and other circumstances.

The most appalling thing about this regulation is that new copilots will sit next to pilots on aircraft such as the 737, the 747, the A350 and the A380 when it comes on line. That is what this regulation is talking about. As at midday today, CASA says that ‘new licences will provide better training for copilots flying large passenger jets’—that is, instead of having 100 hours flying time in real aircraft, in the air, that they would be better off spending their time in a simulator pretending to fly. I find that amazing; certainly Australian pilots find it amazing. Why do we need to adopt the standard which some countries adopt because they cannot get enough pilots—which is probably why ICAO is considering it—when we have some of the best aviation standards in the world? And why do we go in that direction—that is, reducing the amount of flying time we require our commercial pilots to have before they can be copilots of major aircraft—when at the same time we have our own drivers on Australian roads being required, before they obtain a licence, to have up to 120 hours experience. That is certainly the recommendation that TAC have in relation to any young person newly obtaining a drivers licence.

We had a bit of spin in the minister’s answer, the spin to cover the activities of CASA while it goes through a process of promulgating a regulation which will reduce the requirements for training time. I can see a quizzical look in the eyes of a number of senators opposite who travel regularly, as I do. They are wondering: ‘This cannot be so. We cannot be going through a process which will reduce by 90 per cent the actual flight experience for some of the people who could be flying us and the rest of the public around this great nation.’ That is what the ICAO recommendation provides for from 23 November.

It was pleasing to hear for the first time—and this has not been stated before by CASA—that there is now a commitment to a full safety case being conducted on this matter. If CASA is fair dinkum, a full safety case will compel people to throw this matter into the dustbin. I am not confident that, having conducted a full safety case, CASA will not find a way to promulgate the regulation nevertheless. That is why I say that it has to be an absolute commitment from this government that there will be a full public and open inquiry into this matter before it is promulgated. The only way that is going to happen is if it is properly conducted by an independent committee of this parliament, preferably a Senate committee which is not dominated by someone acting on the instructions of the minister. I think it is appropriate that we proceed very cautiously in this regard and I think the minister needs to give a commitment that safety standards will not be reduced, that they will be maintained. (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I wish to focus on the issue of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. May I say at the outset that I welcome the announcement that has been made today and I am aware that the ABC will be releasing its revised editorial policies which I understand will come into effect on 1 March 2007. As the minister said, whilst the reports on these revised editorial policies are just general accounts that we have seen in the press, I understand that they have been revised following extensive consultation with ABC staff, managers and the board.

Comments have also been made about alleged knowledge of this government—in particular, the minister—about the contents of these revised editorial policies. Can I remind the Senate that this has been an issue in relation to the ABC and its lack of adherence to unbiased and balanced reporting, and it comes particularly through the work that has been done in Senate estimates. I particularly mention the work that Senator Santoro has done in estimates in raising issues relating to bias and unbalanced reporting in the ABC and also the work that Senator Ronaldson and I have been doing since earlier this year in raising with the ABC clear instances where the ABC has failed to adhere to the provisions of its charter.

I remind the Senate that the ABC’s charter is a very clear one, and its responsibility is to provide broadcasting services to all Australians in a balanced and unbiased manner. Sadly, the public broadcaster has failed on many occasions in this regard, and therefore I think it is important that its editorial policies have been revised. I hope that there has been substantial revision of the ABC’s policies to make clear the issues that are important, particularly in providing broadcasting services for the benefit of all Australians and not just for the benefit of a limited few with a particular left-wing leaning or left-wing bias. I understand the managing director will be briefing the staff today, and I look forward to hearing the address that he is making this evening.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hasn’t he already told you?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he hasn’t, Senator Campbell.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn’t he in the same branch of the Liberal Party as you?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure about that, Senator Campbell. Perhaps you ought to ask Mr Scott that at the next estimates hearings. I believe there will be some significant changes to editorial policies. The ABC will demonstrate impartiality at platform levels, and it is important that it will be done across ABC Television, the radio network and ABC Online for opinion, topical and factual content. This will mean that the ABC will provide its audience with a range of different perspectives on the subject under consideration.

There have been many instances when I have written to the managing director pointing out instances of bias and where broadcasters have clearly taken a partisan opinion on important issues and categorically failed to give the alternate opinion. I think it is time that the ABC’s editorial policies were revised so that the ABC goes back to what it is intended to be, and that is a public broadcaster for the benefit of all Australians that is required to deliver services in a balanced and unbiased manner.

I understand there will also be a new content category called ‘opinion’, meaning content presented from a particular point of view about a particular matter of public contention. It really is about time that the editorial policies were revised so that the ABC does not become a propagandist. How many times have we seen the ABC, particularly in the last year— (Time expired)

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take note of the answer from Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, to the question I posed today relating to renewable energy and wind farm issues. Whilst it was in the context of Senator Abetz representing the absent-with-leave Senator Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Abetz well knows the issues relating to renewable energy and particularly wind farms, given that, like me, he comes from Tasmania.

The policy adopted by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, and the Liberal government has been highly damaging to wind farms in this country for two reasons. One is the failure of the Liberal government, and particularly the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, to ensure the mandatory renewable energy target, MRET, which provides an incentive for the establishment of wind farms to provide power to our power system within Australia. The second is the direct and capricious actions of Senator Ian Campbell that were made notorious by his refusal to allow the Bald Hills wind farm in Victoria to go ahead on the quite spurious grounds that one orange-bellied parrot in 1,000 years could be killed.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How do you know that, Senator Sherry?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the scientific estimate; that is how I know. That is the scientific advice on which he based this incredible decision to block a wind farm from proceeding in Victoria. It is these two areas of concern that I went to in respect to my question to Senator Abetz. The minister and the policy that he has recommended to this Liberal government mean that the wind farms that were to go ahead at Heemskirk, on the north-west coast of my home state of Tasmania, and also a wind farm to be located at Waterloo in South Australia will not go ahead. That is a direct result of the policy adopted by this federal Liberal government and, in particular, by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell.

On top of that is the uncertainty created by the capricious, illogical and irrational decision that I referred to earlier—that is, the decision by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to block the wind farm at Bald Hills on the basis of the so-called threat to the orange-bellied parrot. The scientific advice on which Senator Ian Campbell based his decision to block that project from going ahead was that one orange-bellied parrot in 1,000 years could die.

What I sought from Senator Abetz was an explanation as to why we have the Liberal government discouraging investment in wind farms in this country, leading—in the cases I have cited—to the loss of up to 100 jobs in my home state of Tasmania. We know that on the north-west coast of Tasmania, Vestas, which is a manufacturer of wind farm components, is to cease operation by December. That will mean a loss of between 60 and 70 jobs. Also, a company which I think is known as Aus-Tech, which makes subcomponents for Vestas, will also have to retrench probably 15 or 16 workers as a direct consequence of this change. So up to 100 direct jobs are to be lost, in addition to the wind farm projects that were planned around Australia, as a consequence of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, and the Liberal government’s policy.

So why is the minister in China, opening a wind farm in China, directly encouraging jobs in China, but at the same time making these dreadful decisions in Australia which mean the shutting down of wind farm projects and the loss of jobs in Australia? We have an incredible position where the Australian minister is in China, promoting jobs in China in the wind farm industry, but making decisions back home in Australia, in my home state of Tasmania, which are costing up to 100 jobs. What an absurd situation, when an Australian minister has cost Australian jobs and goes to China to promote job creation in China in the same industry. (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, this afternoon. One of the greatest challenges that this government has taken on is to make sure that this country receives the very best broadband opportunities possible. We are a very large country, and the challenges of that mean that there are some areas where there is great commercial value and great competition in the provision of broadband and in other areas there is basically market failure due to very high costs.

I think the latest OECD broadband figures are fantastic news for this country. They show that, in comparison to other OECD countries, we are embracing broadband at an extraordinary rate. We remain in the top five OECD countries in terms of the growth of broadband take-up, and the OECD report singles out Australia as an example of a country which is connecting broadband at a very high rate. Indeed, the report indicates that Australia and several other countries have added more than six subscribers per 100 inhabitants during the past year alone. Our broadband subscribers are now above the OECD average. At the end of June this year, there were some 3.5 million premises connected to broadband, and it is my understanding that now, on 16 October, we will be at or close to breaking through the four million mark. It is a great achievement, but it has come through good policy.

Broadband has been a national priority, and so it should be, because it is critical to Australia’s future, but the best broadband policy involves a mixture of private sector broadband rollout and targeted assistance, as I said earlier, for areas of market failure. Last week we saw the launch of Telstra’s Next G mobile network. According to Telstra, the network will provide high-speed coverage to an estimated 98 per cent of the Australian population. Where it is not economic for the private sector to invest in broadband, this government has been providing targeted subsidies to ensure that all Australians have fair access.

This government is investing billions of dollars—$3.1 billion, in fact—to stimulate sustainable broadband infrastructure development and to eliminate mobile phone coverage black spots, via the Connect Australia package. It is interesting that the debate about T3 and broadband media coverage in the last couple of weeks regrettably has failed to talk about this $3.1 billion program, which is the single largest investment in telecommunications in this country’s history. It includes the $878 million Broadband Connect program and the $2 billion Communications Fund to deliver an income stream to fund upgrades of rural telecommunications infrastructure into the future.

That is where the coalition is in relation to broadband. That has to be compared, I am afraid, to the Labor Party’s again failed communication policy, this time in relation to broadband. It is ironic that this broadband policy, which was to last seven years, lasted about seven days, because Labor’s broadband policy required the involvement of Telstra to ensure that it worked, that it could be delivered. Telstra made it very clear, shortly after the announcement of the Labor Party’s policy, that they would not be participating. Once that occurred, I am afraid that the Labor Party’s policy was dead and dusted, because it cannot be delivered. The great tragedy about the Labor Party’s view on this is that they gave some indication that there would be Australia-wide fibre to the node. In fact, we found out that it is not. It is based on (Time expired)

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I too take note of answers by Senator Coonan to questions relating to broadband. I would like to start by saying that Senator Ronaldson has just exposed his complete ignorance and indeed the one-eyed Telstra-centricity of the Howard government’s thinking when it comes to telecommunications policy, because they cannot think of telecommunications policy without thinking about Telstra, without thinking about the Telstra privatisation and how they will help Telstra in the marketplace, as they have done for many years despite all the arguments they have had recently.

In this year’s budget reply speech, a Beazley Labor government committed to improving regulatory settings to encourage private sector investment on a pro competitive basis through a government-industry joint venture. Labor also committed to drawing on the $757 million Broadband Connect Program funding to provide an equity injection from the $2 billion earmarked for the Communications Fund in order to deliver the public funding of this partnership with the telecommunications sector. Despite Senator Ronaldson’s earnest assertions, Telstra does not equal the telecommunications sector. There is far more to the telecommunications sector than just Telstra; indeed, Telstra’s assertions at the time show how politically motivated they were in cosying up to the government to facilitate the privatisation agenda.

I would like to go back to some of the key points about the broadband debate. It is a very interesting study in how statistics can be abused when you review Senator Ronaldson’s comments today. The facts are that the OECD report released shows that Australia is ranked 17th out of 30 countries surveyed for the take-up of 256 kilobit broadband. This is despite growth off a low base, which I presume is the top five figure promoted by the government when they talk about the take-up of broadband. But Australia’s relative position in relation to broadband take-up has not changed for the previous two years.

The World Economic Forum ranks Australia 25th in the world in terms of its available internet bandwidth, and it ranks our network readiness at 15th and falling. So how come this does not add up? It is because the government continue to couch their interpretation of the statistics in the best possible light. The real story is clear when you look at this cross-section of overseas studies that continually rate Australia poorly. I will give another example: a recent World Bank study confirms that Australia’s average ADSL speed of barely one megabit per second is one of the slowest in the world, behind countries like Britain, at 13; France, at 8.4; Germany, at 6.85; Canada, at 6.8; and the United States, at 3.3 megabits per second. The Internet Industry Association of Australia is calling for 80 per cent of Australians to have access to 10 megabits per second broadband by 2010. The association says that the only way we will get there is through ‘significant and meaningful changes in attitude and leadership from the government and policymakers’.

The whole world looks at Australia and sees how poorly we have been performing. They look at the policies of the last 10 years, they look at the pathetic shenanigans of recent times in the lead-up to this final privatisation tranche that the government is attempting to put in place and they see a government that has neglected some of the most fundamental economic infrastructure for the 21st century. It continues to be neglected as the government flounders around, with funds sprayed all over the place and making no real impact on the real life experiences of home based businesses, small businesses and residents right round this country. I can tell you, Mr Deputy President, that I know this because I get a lot of feedback from people right round the country about the poor state of the network.

I would like to comment on things locally. Kevin Cox, who is a member of the Gungahlin Community Council, questions this latest promotion of Telstra and its Next G network. It was said by him and other experts that what is needed is fibre-to-the-home or fibre-to-the-kerb network that can have that massive increase in bandwidth as the demand arises, not the half-baked, stop-gap technology that Telstra puts in on the cheap and then pitches up to the Australian people and argues that this is somehow what we need. The fact is that we need real broadband. We will not get it under the Howard government. Only Labor’s policies will deliver the sort of economic infrastructure that this country deserves for the 21st century.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of Senator Abetz’s answer to Senator Sherry’s question on Senator Ian Campbell’s visit to China. I note with interest that Senator Campbell is going to China to open a Roaring 40s wind farm. It is a great photo opportunity for Senator Campbell but what the media has failed to report is that the construction of this wind farm in China has got zero to do with federal government policy, absolutely zero. The federal government has not put a cent into it. AP6 is a mirage; the Asia-Pacific partnership for the export of coal and uranium to India and China is a mirage in terms of technology transfer to China. Roaring 40s was driven offshore by the government’s failure to extend the mandatory renewable energy target, and Senator Ian Campbell is now going for the photo opportunity of opening the wind farm in China, in spite of the fact that his government’s policies have driven this company out of Australia.

This is an absolute disgrace. He has taken the jobs from Roaring 40s out of Tasmania and out of South Australia to China, just as he has driven Vestas offshore. Now we have the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Abetz, standing up and defending the fact that the government did not extend the mandatory renewable energy target, saying that if you support renewable energy development it will cost jobs and will increase costs. Senator Abetz, the minister for conservation, is a climate change sceptic. He made a complete fool of himself at the Australian Weeds Conference in Adelaide recently, called ‘Managing weeds in a changing climate’, which might have been a bit of a clue for most people. The minister said at that time:

I’m not going to get into the debate about whether the current drier-than-average season that most of this country has experienced this year is the result of man-made climate change, or simply natural variation.

He went on later in his speech to talk about the ‘the unclear danger of climate change’. He concluded his speech with another statement:

It’s no good talking about what climate change might or might not do to Australia’s biodiversity in 100 years ...

Senator Abetz is wrong. Climate change is happening right now, and the government’s policies are making it a lot worse.

All of those people out there in the bush suffering in the drought at the moment should be shutting the door in the government’s face when it turns up with its supposed concern. In this year’s budget, Senator Minchin, there was not even a mention of climate change. Treasury papers did not acknowledge the impact of climate change or the onset of drought. In fact, they projected that agricultural figures would be the same. How is that? How can it be that Treasury did not wake up to that in May this year, when every scientific institution in the country was warning the government?

The fact of the matter is that the Howard government did not take climate change seriously, does not take climate change seriously and is now scrambling about to adopt the rhetoric as it realises that the country is drying out, that we are going to suffer the most extreme drought this summer, and that we are going to suffer extreme bushfires. When the communities turn to the government and say, ‘What have you done about climate change for the last decade?’, the government is going to be bereft of an answer—absolutely bereft of an answer.

Perhaps Senator Ian Campbell can come back into this House and go out into rural communities and explain why he is actively opposing the development of renewable energy in this country and why the government is actively opposing putting a price on carbon. Senator Abetz’s answer was all about power prices going up if we invest in renewable energy. What he failed to say was that power prices will go up when there is a price on carbon because the government did not get out of coal fired power stations when it should have and did not get into renewable energy when it should have.

It is because of the government’s recalcitrance in dealing with climate change, because of its love affair with the coal industry, that we are going to see Australians suffer even more than they are suffering now. I am sure that out there in rural Australia people who have known—who are living—the effects of climate change will feel enormously resentful that the minister who is supposed to be responsible still doubts whether climate change is real or whether its impacts are going to occur within a hundred years. Senator Ian Campbell’s being in China is a fraud on renewable energy, because right here in Australia he and the Prime Minister talk up nuclear power while trying to talk up renewables in China and undermining them in Australia. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.