Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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

Today we saw one of the worst abuses of parliament that I have experienced in a number of years. I sent, as a matter of courtesy, Senator Sherry a question that I thought deserved a serious answer. I sent that question about 11 o’clock. The convention in this place is that if you want an answer you give the minister the courtesy of sending the question. That is a convention that has been part of this Senate for as long as I have been here. But when you do give the minister that courtesy you do not expect two minutes of vitriolic abuse on a question that has very serious implications for the fishing industry in Australia. I considered it abuse, and I will certainly be writing to the President of the Senate. I thought the President should have stepped in and reprimanded the minister, or certainly directed him to the question. If we want to abuse convention in this place, it just will not work. We do not do that, because we have a consideration for the Senate and we want it to work.

The Vietnamese Prime Minister, when in Australia, made an announcement—I do not know whether he was talking with some knowledge—that the regulations would be changed to allow prawns from Vietnam to come into Australia. I spent a great number of months with my colleague Senator Ian Campbell working to stop prawns coming in from Vietnam to South-East Queensland because white spot virus is involved. It is a very important issue because if that white spot virus gets into the wild catch of Australian prawns and crustaceans, including crayfish, then it has the potential to wipe out the whole of the wild catch. In fact, there are only two countries in the world that do not have this white spot virus: Brazil and Australia.

It is so important that we maintain that disease-free status for white spot that I thought it was worth sending the question over to the minister, but we got roundly abused for our trouble. I still do not know—and I have the transcript here—what the position is, because the minister just obfuscated the question. The position that we took was that we prevented prawns coming in from South-East Asia from countries that had white spot disease. We allowed cooked prawns to come in but prevented raw prawns from coming in because they offered a real threat to our wild catch industries.

Today, the minister could have said, ‘No, we are not going to allow prawns to come into Australia from white spot countries or from South Vietnam,’ but we did not get that answer. We got some obfuscation, and I do not know at the moment whether prawns will be allowed in or whether they will not be allowed in. We will have to wait to take this matter further in the estimates committee next week. I thought it was a terrible way to answer a question, when it was an absolutely serious question that did not have any political implications in it. It was a clear and concise question: will you prevent prawns coming in from countries that carry white spot to prevent it getting into our wild catch? A number of fishermen and a number of processors are very interested in this question. We still do not know whether Senator Sherry actually got a brief from the appropriate minister or he just tried to fly it and did not know what he was talking about. (Time expired)

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the same answer as the last speaker. Of course, this is a very important issue, and it is no surprise perhaps that it should be raised in the manner that it has been raised by the Liberal Party’s country auxiliary, also going by the name of the National Party. As has been so often the case in recent days and weeks, this is an opposition, a coalition, that is in complete denial about its past, irrespective of the fact that that past is so recent and so vivid.

The previous Howard government had an appalling record in matters pertaining to quarantine and in particular on matters pertaining to prawn imports. It was, of course, the previous government that had custody of our quarantine arrangements when the equine flu entered this country, and, as a Victorian senator, I particularly recall the damage that it wreaked upon the horseracing industry in Victoria and in particular on the Melbourne Cup carnival of that year. To have the Liberal Party’s country auxiliary seek to make this issue a high-profile one at this moment is the height of hypocrisy, but of course hypocrisy is no stranger to those on the other side, as we have seen in the debate on pensions and even in recent discussions concerning the prudential regulation of our financial sector.

The fact is that the prawn and prawn products import risk analysis was first published as a draft in 2000. My point is that, when the Rudd government came into office some eight years later, all it found in the cupboard dealing with these questions of quarantine and prawn imports was a draft import risk assessment, together with some interim measures that had been put in place some eight years previously. This hardly stands up as a model for how to proceed. In fact, in the term of the previous government there was a suspected occurrence of white spot virus in a research facility in Darwin, and interim measures were put in place around that particular outbreak. But of course those interim measures were never again revisited, never again codified, and the then government completely failed to take any serious approach to this very serious question.

In fact, with respect to prawn imports in this country, the Rudd government, having found itself inheriting such a shabby set of arrangements, such an incomplete set of arrangements, from the former government, took action, as it has been doing on so many issues and on so many fronts, by initiating a wide-ranging and independent review of Australia’s quarantine and biosecurity arrangements. I am referring to the independent review that is being led by Mr Roger Beale AO. That is a very important review, and that review is filling the cavernous hole which was policy under the previous government. This new-found zeal from Senator Boswell does not change the fact that the previous government completely failed to take this issue seriously. What has belatedly brought this issue rolling onto the deck of ‘HMAS’ Boswell is the recent comments—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Feeney, I think you should refer to a senator by his proper title. I would also remind you, in the light of your earlier remarks, that Senator Boswell—if you have read the newspaper, you will realise—is a member of the Liberal National Party now.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quite right. Thank you, Deputy President. I can assure you that that is a term I will be using with zeal at the appropriate moment. The Vietnamese Prime Minister’s comments concerning the prawn risk are what brought these matters before Senator Boswell. Those comments by the Vietnamese Prime Minister were something to the effect that—and I do not have the exact words in front of me—the Australian government had agreed to review its quarantine and biosecurity arrangements pertaining to prawn imports.

This government has already clarified that in fact those comments by the Vietnamese Prime Minister are incorrect. Those matters have already been dealt with—and, I might say, dealt with quite thoroughly—by the minister in question time. The Australian government continues to maintain a strong regard for its quarantine and biosecurity arrangements. In contrast to the previous government, this is a government that has taken on both these issues generally and the question of prawn imports and prawn imports from Vietnam in particular very seriously. No shabby interim set of arrangements or draft reports will be going forward and managing this area for this government; this is a government that will be dealing with the matter in a proper and considered and holistic manner. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Mr Deputy President, in relation to Senator Feeney’s referring to Senator Boswell as HMAS Boswell, apart from the fact that you pulled him up on the incorrect title, I think an apology to Senator Boswell is warranted for that remark.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator has unreservedly withdrawn.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to that matter I would like to indicate that it was good of the minister to advise the Senate that he would take on notice the first part of my question with respect to how many very young carers existed in Australia today—people like Jazzi Pybus, who cares for both her parents at the young age of 10. The minister indicated that he was not aware of the answer to the second part but would also take that on notice—that is, explaining what answers the government has as to why the young carers are not considered important enough to have their voices heard at the federally funded Young Carers Forum.

I am advised, based on reports this week, that the federal investment in the Young Carers Forum is some $280,000. The minister indicated that he would take both those matters on notice. They are very important matters. They have been in the media this week and it is surprising that the minister does not have a brief before him to respond to those queries. I think that is a matter for the government and I hope that in future times in the Senate they are fully and properly briefed on those sorts of matters, especially when they are reported publicly in the media. In this case it was in the Australian newspaper this week. The answer to my supplementary question about what financial support families relying on very young carers receive from the $10.4 billion package announced on Tuesday seemed very limited and restricted, and in terms of very young carers there was, in fact, no answer.

I alert the Senate to the concerns raised in this article in the Australian, which said that the $280,000 in federal funding was invested in this Young Carers conference. It refers to the case of Jazzi Pybus:

Jazzi’s father, Calvin Pybus, has post-traumatic stress syndrome. Her mother was recently hit by a bus and left with multiple fractures. She has a baby brother with Down syndrome. Her friend, Angel, cares for a mum with bipolar disorder.

The girls wanted to attend the conference because they were themselves young carers: they do the washing, help young siblings get ready for bed, and manage the household. They formed a support group for young carers in their neighbourhood, outside Brisbane. They connect online, and have painted a series of artworks about their lives. The girls hoped to learn from others at the conference, too.

The report continues:

The Australian understands that Jazzi is the only young person to get in touch with Carers Australia and ask to attend the talkfest.

It is fantastic that they are making those efforts. I would like to commend Jazzi Pybus and her friends for wanting to attend and make a difference to the world. I notice that Senator Cory Bernardi, the opposition disabilities, carers and voluntary sector spokesman, said:

We should be supporting our very young carers. It concerns me that they are not receiving financial support. It’s alarming. They are a hidden group. To hear that children are banding together for support as there are no services suitable to their needs is disturbing.

It is disturbing, and I agree with Senator Bernardi and with Mr Tony Abbott’s comments. It is really disappointing that the government seems not to have addressed all of the concerns of all the carers throughout the country. They often have a go at the coalition for not doing enough.

What would have happened if it had not been for our campaign  under the former leader, Dr Brendan Nelson? I remember leading and working with the Liberal Senate team in Tasmania and forcing the government to do something to support carers in Tasmania. I worked with Janice McKenna, the CEO from Carers Australia, in Tasmania and, together with other carers, we expressed the very strong view that the Rudd Labor government were not doing enough. After weeks and months they finally acted. Of course, this is exactly what has happened with this $4.8 billion package that has just recently been announced. I call on the government to disclose the assumptions, the forward estimates, the details underlying their reasons for that package. (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak with regard to carers, in particular young carers, as raised by Senator Barnett earlier today. I do not dispute that Senator Barnett may well have been working with people recently, but the truth of the matter is that the opposition had 12 years to do something for these people and they failed to do anything. Even when they started talking about pension increases they were not going to do anything for young carers, so I am exceptionally pleased that the opposition have seen the light. As someone who has worked as a carer herself albeit in the child-care industry, for over a decade, I understand that carers in general, whether they be young carers, aged carers or child-care workers, are all undervalued by society and it is very important that we do something for them.

The Rudd Labor government is doing something for them in their Economic Security Strategy, which was announced earlier this week. As I said before, seeing the light is one thing but standing there and making derisive comments about this side and how long it might have taken us to do something when they had 12 years to do it is frankly beyond the pale. The Rudd government’s economic strategy will help encourage the economy as well and make sure it emerges in strong shape so that we can provide quality jobs and security for working families into the future.

We are delivering a down payment to pensioners, carers and people with a disability to provide them with immediate financial help in the nine-month lead-up to a comprehensive reform of the pension system. The Rudd Labor government are taking people seriously and are taking those minority groups very seriously. We are basically trying to unscramble eggs that were scrambled for the last 12 years. You cannot do that overnight. Once they are scrambled, you have to work with what is there. We will continue with this strategy and will continue to keep the Australian economy strong. In recognition of the difficult economic circumstances, we will also provide Commonwealth seniors card holders with a lump sum payment of $1,400 to singles and $2,100 to couples. So we are providing security for these people and for working families into the future, and we are providing relief right now when families need it.

We also believe in long-term planning. We are not just going issue by issue; we have a long-term strategy, a long-term plan, and it is very important for the Rudd Labor government to have this long-term plan. We are planning for the future, which is a most critical thing to do. As I said, we do not just decide overnight, see the light overnight, as those on the other side have. I did not even think they knew who the pensioners or the carers were. They have shown no support, no compassion and no humanity for 12 years to this group of people, and then they stand up and say, ‘What are you doing, when are you doing it and why haven’t you done it already?’ Well, with 12 years under your belt, I ask this question: what did you do, when did you do it, and why didn’t you do anything and take this group of people seriously?

I think next week, though I might stand corrected on that, is international carers week, and it is very important that we acknowledge the important role that carers play in the whole of the community and the whole of society. It is very unfortunate that there are young children who are put in this dilemma. I think it does rob them of a very valuable part of their life. They quite often lose their childhood. I have an ongoing interest in children and child care and issues surrounding community services, and for me it is quite sad to see. In response to that, I say that the Rudd Labor government have acknowledged that there has been this gap and we are doing something about it. We are delivering on 8 December. It is important that people realise that, although the other side stand up and proclaim that they are the new saviours of some of these less fortunate people, they had 12 years to deliver the goods— (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to this matter, let me say that there were revelations yesterday relating to the fact that Ms Forrester, from the parliamentary secretary’s office, who I gather is employed as a childcare specialist, was, until 30 September, an owner of Allen Consulting Group by way of a shareholding. This apparently was divested on 30 September, but Ms Forrester had commenced working on 12 May, so it was some five months after the employment event. I note with some interest the commentary from the parliamentary secretary yesterday in relation to this matter. It is what was not said that is probably more important than what was said. The statement says:

Upon commencing her employment with Parliamentary Secretary McKew, Ms Forrester advised the then deputy secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations of her previous employment with Allen Consulting Group.

The question would be, why was the shareholding specifically excluded from that statement? Yes, Ms Forrester was an employee, but she was also a shareholder. One would have thought that if she had advised the secretary of her department she would also have advised him of her shareholding and therefore her ownership of the Allen Consulting Group. But there was no reference to it, and we are therefore quite entitled to assume that indeed she had not advised the deputy secretary of the department that she was still a shareholder.

The person is in charge of early childhood development. There was a contract for $112,173, a select procurement contract. This tender was for developing the structure of the National Early Years Workforce Strategy—contract notice CN 118028. So there was a direct source tender contract to Allen Consulting and this employee was the adviser to the parliamentary secretary for this specific part of the portfolio. It absolutely beggars belief that the adviser would not have had any discussions at all with the department in relation to a direct source contract in relation to an area which was this adviser’s specific responsibility.

This matter comes on the back of the CMAX affair. Honourable senators will remember a matter that is still under investigation from the Australian National Audit Office, investigating the office of the Prime Minister, senior staff in the Prime Minister’s office and senior staff in the Minister for Defence’s office. So we have CMAX under investigation from the ANAO, still not completed, and we have another example of the attitude of the Prime Minister and his staff in relation to matters of integrity, probity, openness and transparency. It is another clear example that, when it comes to commitments by the Prime Minister or his ministers, they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Just out of interest, on 26 June Senator Faulkner announced a new code of conduct—with some fanfare, as with all these things that have been announced, which all mean nothing at the end of the day. He trumpeted:

The code reflects this government’s commitment to integrity across government and our expectations that ministerial staff, who play such an important role working within government, will understand and meet high standards in carrying out their duties.

I appreciate the CMAX affair occurred before this code of conduct, but most certainly this matter was post that ministerial staff code of conduct. We want some very clear answers as to whether— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.