Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

G'day. Senate Question time is fairer, more respectful and more information-based than QT in the House of Representatives - Senators even have to answer the question asked! - because the government doesn't have the numbers. Thus, though Senators vote for a Liberal President to be presiding officer, that person knows that he or she relies on the confidence of the Senate as a whole. Expect House of Reps rules and behaviour when the new Senate sits. From now on, if the Senate President is fair the government can sack him. This is the last Senate Question time of the era which closes tonight. The Rebel 4s compromise bill will also pass the Senate tonight. Fitting.

 

SENATE QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE JUNE 23

Labor - foreign debt

SHERRY, Senator Nick John, Tasmania: My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the minister aware that Australia sent $21 billion overseas over the last year to pay the interest on foreign debt? Is the minister further aware that $2 out of every $3 generated in the Australian economy is owed to foreigners? Does the minister agree with both the OECD and the IMF that spiralling foreign debt is a serious issue for Australia, even if it is driven by the private sector? Will the minister acknowledge that record foreign debt is a looming problem? What credible reasons can the government have for having done absolutely nothing about Australia’s foreign debt over the past nine years?

MINCHIN, Senator Nick Hugh, South Australia: Senator Sherry is desperately trying to support the equally desperate campaign by the failed opposition leader, Mr Beazley, to get away from the debacle of the last five weeks. The likes of Senator Conroy convinced Mr Beazley to spend five weeks trying to stop Australians getting a tax cut on 1 July. We are grateful to the Senate and to the minor parties for agreeing that Australians should get a tax cut on 1 July, and we are still waiting to see if the ALP is going to move a disallowance motion.

Having wasted those five weeks, the Labor Party now thinks that it can resurrect its position by running some sort of campaign on foreign debt over the winter recess. I regret to say that nobody will be listening. Nevertheless, I refer Senator Sherry to the answer I gave yesterday. None other than Mr Beazley indicated back in 1995 why the foreign debt question in Australia must be kept in perspective and must be considered on the basis of the ratio of government to private sector debt and, equally, the ratio of exports required to service the debt. On both measures, Australia is in a considerably better position than it was when Labor left office.

Senator Conroy: Do you know what the IMF stands for?

Senator MINCHIN: As I also said yesterday, the fact is that this is a country that will always rely on foreign funds to provide the requisite difference between our savings and our investment requirements. In Australia’s existence, there will probably always be that gap between savings and investment, which will need to be filled by foreign funds. One of the most important things for any government and, indeed, for an opposition is to ensure that Australia remains attractive to foreign investors so that we can continue to attract the foreign investment funds needed. Once those investments are made, there are obviously dividend earnings from those investments that do go overseas. For 200 years, Australia has needed that foreign investment, which must be serviced. Given that reality about Australia, what you have to ensure is that we continue to have as efficient and globally competitive an economy as we possible can to ensure that we can properly service the level of debt that we have.

Senator Conroy—So the IMF is just irrelevant?

Senator MINCHIN: I keep reminding the opposition that we are talking about private commercial transactions. The government have some 4.5 per cent of that, because we have gross debt out there. We have said that we will keep gross debt out there.

Senator Conroy—So you’re right and the IMF is wrong?

Senator MINCHIN: It is essentially a function of the private sector making commercial decisions to borrow, to invest in Australia, to develop this country and then service those borrowings by way of transactions internationally. We are satisfied that Australia’s capacity to service its position is very good. It is particularly assisted by the fact that we have taken the necessary measures on our part to eliminate government debt so that we are a net saver. That is the great difference between our period in government and what we had under the opposition. We are a net saver, and we have done that despite the opposition trying to stop us on every occasion. We have brought the government budget under control and fixed the problem that they created for us. To the extent that we have a current account deficit and foreign debt, it is a function of private sector transactions. The servicing ratio is 9.7 per cent, compared with 20 per cent under the Labor Party.

Senator SHERRY: Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Isn’t it a fact, Minister, that Australia as a totality is not a net saver? Doesn’t your complacent attitude run contrary to the views expressed by both the OECD and the IMF, who are increasingly concerned about our record level of foreign debt? Is the minister aware that, with the current account deficit running at a record level of over seven per cent of GDP, which is far in excess of economic growth, foreign debt will continue to spiral upwards? Will the government finally admit that the ballooning foreign debt is a serious problem and do something about it before Australia pays the price through higher interest rates?

Senator MINCHIN: That is a nonsense to link it to interest rates. I quote a professor of economics, Professor Tony Makin, on this very subject of the extent to which, if any, there is an issue here. Professor Makin’s article, which was in the press recently, said:

On this basis, and given the sizeable fiscal surplus at present, Australia’s current account deficit is easily sustainable...

He went on to say:

In the meantime, the high current account deficit remains the best measure of the extent to which foreigners are expressing confidence in the Australian economy. It will persist as long as that confidence is warranted.

We want to ensure that foreigners do remain confident in the Australian economy. That is why we want to reform Australia’s industrial relations system. We invite the ALP to get on board.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Conroy, in that first question and supplementary question, you interjected 15 times. I ask you to cease.

*

Liberal - Family Payments

KNOWLES, Senator Susan Christine, Western Australia (retiring tonight): My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues, Senator Patterson. Will the minister inform the Senate of how the Howard government’s strong economic management has provided benefits for families and senior Australians and provided further opportunities that will be available after 1 July? Is the minister aware of any alternatives that might be on the table?

PATTERSON, Senator Kay Christine Lesley, Victoria: I take this opportunity to thank Senator Knowles for her question and for her contribution to this place over the last 20 years. She has taken a very deep interest in these issues, health issues and other many issues. I wish her well in the future.

It was a very pertinent and important question because, from 1 July, Australian families will see more benefits from the Howard government’s strong economic management. Every Australian who pays income tax will get a tax cut. These are tax cuts that Labor has been trying to block. However, there is no move today to disallow the tax schedules, so all taxpayers will get a tax cut from 1 July. Thankfully for Australian families, the Labor Party’s campaign to stop these tax cuts looks set to fail.

These tax cuts will put incentive back into the taxation system, encourage growth and support the continuation of a strong economy—and a strong economy benefits all families. Another major change will be that, from 1 July, for the first time around five million workers will be free to choose their own superannuation fund. Despite Labor’s pointless efforts to block the abolition of the superannuation surcharge, it will be abolished from 1 July 2005. Removing the surcharge will significantly boost the incentives for around 600,000 Australians to contribute to superannuation and will improve their superannuation savings by $2.5 billion over the next four years.

In my portfolio, I am introducing new initiatives to give families real choices in how they balance their work and family responsibilities. From 1 July, secondary income earners who return to employment, including self-employment, after caring for a child will benefit from the new rules, which means that any income that they earn after they return to work will not affect the FTBB for the part of the year before they returned to work. In addition, from 1 July, as families lodge their income tax returns and their entitlement to FTB is reconciled, they will receive the ongoing benefit of the supplement of $600 per child—the $600 per child that we all remember Labor said was not real. I tell you what: when people put their tax returns in and start to get their FTB reconciled, they will find the benefits of that $600, and they will know again how real that $600 is. After 1 July, eligible families lodging income tax returns will also receive an increase in FTB part B. Due to the strong economic management of this government, we were able to bring the increase forward by six months and commence it from January this year. This means that families lodging their tax returns after 1 July will receive up to $150, paid as a lump sum.

Senator Conroy: Mr President, on a point of order: to assist you in your count, Senator Abetz has interjected three times, Senator Sandy Macdonald twice, Senator Kemp once and Senator Minchin once in the first three minutes of this answer. I just thought you might like to know.

The PRESIDENT: Their interjections are not noisy enough to come to my ears. You happen to sit a lot closer.

Senator PATTERSON: The Labor Party do not want to hear this news. They do not want to hear how families are benefiting. Senator Conroy just wants to interrupt. Senator Conroy needs to go and negotiate and deal with Senator Carr and have those issues resolved rather than interjecting and calling a pointless point of order. Families lodging their tax returns after 1 July will receive up to $150, paid as a lump sum. As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, they ought to get their tax returns in as soon as possible so they see the benefit of the $600 per child benefit that we put there, which Labor said was not real.

From 1 July, there will also be increased help for older Australians moving to residential aged care. From 1 July, accommodation bonds paid by residents living in residential aged care will be exempt from the assets test while they are in care. Before 1 July, around 300,000 self-funded retirees holding a Commonwealth seniors health care card should have received the second $100 instalment which the Howard government committed to provide during the last election. So we deliver what we have promised. Families have seen significant improvements as a result of sound economic management, unlike under Labor, who had a policy which was going to penalise low-income families, and the more children they had the worse off they were going to be. Labor need to get down and try concentrate and develop some policies and look something like an alternative government. At the moment, they look like a rabble.

*

Labor - economy

CAMPBELL, Senator George, New South Wales: My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the minister aware that the latest GDP data shows that productivity, measured by output per worker employed, declined in each of the last four quarters to be 2.4 per cent lower in the March quarter than a year earlier? Isn’t this the most significant decline in Australian productivity for almost two decades? Is the minister further aware that, while productivity contributed more than half of GDP growth over the past 40 years, it has contributed nothing since September 2003? Minister, isn’t it the case that rising employment coupled with falling output provides compelling evidence of skills shortages and supply bottlenecks?

Senator MINCHIN: I welcome a question on productivity, because that is a critical policy area for Australia’s future, together with work force participation, and one that is a key focus for this government. We would very much welcome the opposition’s concentration on the importance of improving Australia’s productivity and welcome any sensible suggestions they may have, because it is a very important issue for Australia. The facts in relation to labour productivity in Australia are that it has grown very strongly in Australia in recent years. Between 1995-96 and 2003-04, labour productivity grew at an annual average rate of three per cent, and the result is that goods and services that would have taken five hours of work to produce in 1995-96 can now be produced in four hours of work. That is quite a dramatic improvement, and that produces real wealth for Australians. Australia’s labour productivity growth was faster than the OECD average over that period and much faster than the Australian historical average over the past 30 years.

In contrast to that strong performance trend, labour productivity did fall by 2.4 per cent over the year to the March quarter 2005, and I think they are statistics that Senator George Campbell is referring to. The Treasury view is that that reflects continued strength in employment growth, which has been very strong, with record low unemployment despite the recent slowing in output growth. So inevitably there will be an impact. If you get strong employment growth but some fallback in the growth of output, you are going to have an effect on productivity per se as measured. Across the whole economy, the number of people employed increased by more than 320,000—or 3.4 per cent—over the year to the March quarter 2005, but output only grew by 1.9 per cent, so inevitably you will get that statistical outcome that Senator George Campbell seeks to identify. It does not imply that future average growth in labour productivity will be slower. Annual rates of productivity growth are volatile, cyclical and susceptible to revision. Average rates of productivity growth over a number of years provide a much better gauge.

Now Senator Campbell, in a wide-ranging set of questions, threw in as well the old shibboleth from the Labor Party about bottlenecks and skill shortages. They are desperately grabbing onto things. It is the old headless chook thing, running around, the sky is going to be falling in, it is all gloom and doom. This is the trouble with being in opposition, I accept that. You have to run around trying to find all the bad news that you possibly can because there is nothing else that you can talk about. That is a real problem for the Labor Party.

In response to this proposition that there were issues relating to infrastructure and bottlenecks, the Labor Party, I hope, is aware that we engaged some very eminent Australians to conduct a very detailed inquiry into that—Brian Fisher and Henry Ergast and Max Moore-Wilton. They produced a very good report. I trust that Senator George Campbell and others on the other side have read that very good report. It identified the issues in relation to our export performance and the question of infrastructure bottlenecks and it identified, most particularly, the problem in relation to the heavy-handed regulation by state governments, coincidentally all held by the Labor Party, that are stifling our performance. So state Labor governments I hope will read this and I hope that the Labor Party opposition will get their colleagues at the state level to read this very good report and do something about it.

Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL: Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it not the case that slowing GDP growth coupled with burgeoning foreign debt and falling trade deficits, are evidence of growing and unsustainable imbalances in the economy? Aren’t the declines in productivity and ballooning foreign debt a direct consequence of this government’s failure over the last nine years to invest in the economy’s future growth through skills development and infrastructure investment?

Senator MINCHIN: No, they are not. What they are evidence of is the critical need for an ongoing, rigorous program of economic reform. We have to continue the program of economic reform. We have given the credit to the Labor Party that they, with our support in the 80s, began the real program of reforming this country. We have continued that program of reform and, unfortunately for us, without the opposition’s support—unlike Labor; they had the opposition’s support. We have had to do our reform program despite the Labor Party. So, Senator George Campbell, if you want the outcomes you desire, join with us in pursuing strong economic reform, lowering tariff barriers, reforming the labour market, reforming product markets and getting the regulatory environment right for electricity, gas, water, all these things that your Labor colleagues at the state level have responsibility for. Join with us in making this a great economy.

*

Liberal - Skills Migration

Senator SCULLION: My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Senator Vanstone. Will the minister inform the Senate of the Howard government’s success in delivering the benefits of Australia’s skilled migration program to regional Australia. Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?

VANSTONE, Senator Amanda Eloise, South Australia: I thank Senator Scullion for the question. The government has made a commitment to share the benefits of skilled migration all around Australia and, in particular, in the regions. We have introduced a number of new visa categories aimed at helping regional employers and state and territory governments attract the skilled migrants that they need. Since 1996 about 55,000 visas have been granted under the state specific and regional migration categories. 17,500 visas have been issued so far in this year alone. That accounts for about 22 per cent of the 2004-05 skills stream.

The increases are due to two things in particular. The commencement of the skills and dependent regional visa in July last year and the anticipated 46 per cent increase in the number of visas granted this year under the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme. That scheme has the characteristics of being both employer sponsored and targeted to regional Australia and has assisted Australia’s regions in filling a range of skill capacities. I thought it might be helpful if the Senate understood just how specifically targeted some of these skills are.

Kalgoorlie, for example, has gained a specialist mining engineer from Northern Ireland who, believe it or not, chose to come to Australia because he was attracted by pictures of the Australian desert in a series of tourism magazines. That has allowed that mining company to progress. Mount Isa has got a British doctor—and I say British doctor because he is working for the Royal Flying Doctor Service and I thought it might please my monarchist colleague, Senator Minchin, on the last day of his sitting to point out that despite being a republican that my department was bringing out doctors from the United Kingdom to work in the Royal Flying Doctor Service. If you are in Mount Isa, Mr President, or anywhere near there, you would be pleased to have this man because his work ranges on a daily basis from running clinics in outlying Aboriginal communities to emergencies and car crashes and injured stockmen falling off their horses. Hobart has a power systems engineer from New Zealand and boys, she is not a boy. She has helped Tasmania connect to the electricity grid on time. Because they could not get the right engineers in Australia to do this job, we have brought a woman in from New Zealand and she has assisted in this task and is very pleased to be here.

Brighton, in my state of South Australia, now has another veterinarian. Now why did he decide to come here? He came here in 1998, I think, on a working holiday. He worked for seven months, decided he loved it, got the opportunity to be sponsored here and now there is another vet in Brighton. For any of you that have got pets, as good pet lovers you will understand that when your pet is not well you want a vet and you want one quickly. I have had that experience recently and you are glad that they are there. Launceston has a registered nurse from South Africa, working in the emergency area where none of us ever want to be. But, believe me, if you go to the emergency area you will be glad of our regional sponsored migration initiatives because there is an extra nurse there because of it. In the Barossa Valley there is a skilled hairdresser, Mr President. I do not expect you to understand the detail of this, but a skilled hairdresser is not just someone who cuts hair. Some people go to their hairdresser to get their hair curled and they might say she is a ‘perm’ resident. But actually that is not what she is. She has a specialty particularly in straightening hair and I thought Senator Natasha Stott Despoja would be interested to know that in the Barossa Valley there is now someone with cutting and straightening skill experience. (Time expired)

Senator SCULLION: Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister further advise the Senate if, when developing these excellent migration programs, the government considered any alternative policies?

Senator VANSTONE: We are always looking at alternatives in the immigration department. We are a ‘move ahead’ department always looking at alternatives. But I can assure you, Mr President, in relation to this area—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is too much noise in the chamber.

Senator VANSTONE: I can understand people opposite yelling, because they were never as successful as this. But I can assure you, Mr President, that a survey conducted in 2004 described the fact that 91 per cent of employees who were recruited under this scheme were still living and working in regional Australia, and the unemployment rate for people who come in on this scheme is 0.2 per cent. If that is not a gold star for the immigration department I do not know what is. A recent report on international movements of skilled migrants by Dr Bob Birrell has indicated that Australia is attracting increasing numbers of skilled migrants despite intense international competition. Skilled migrants coming to Australia are equivalent to 30 per cent of the increase in skilled jobs in Australia. We are attracting the skills that are needed and there was in fact a net skills gain. (Time expired)

*

Labor - Superannuation

Senator SHERRY: My question is to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Why has the Liberal government imposed a major, new and costly red-tape burden on small business with its new superannuation choice regime? Does not the new regime impose some 34 complex paperwork steps on business, including five million forms to be handed out to existing employees and over one million each year thereafter, with records to be kept for inspection by the tax office for five years and payments to be made to multiple superannuation funds, with thousands of different funds that can be changed every 12 months? How does the government respond to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s statement yesterday that they are ‘not enthusiastic about the extra cost to be absorbed by business’? Why has a Liberal government imposed a major new cost burden on Australian small business?

ABETZ, Senator Eric, Tasmania: There are a number of issues that I would raise. First of all, we as a government did not introduce superannuation choice for any reason other than to benefit employees—to benefit employees that allegedly those on the opposition benches represent. Now they are coming out opposing the benefits that will flow to the workers and employees, pretending to champion the cause of small business. Can I simply remind Senator Sherry that even his own current leader, Mr Beazley, was on 6PR not that long ago saying:

We as a Labor Party have never sought to pretend that we champion the cause of small business.

So, if Mr Beazley does not pretend to, goodness gracious, why does Senator Sherry pretend to support small business?

The choice of superannuation fund legislation will become effective from 1 July, and it is long overdue. It will rightly give employees responsibility for their own retirement planning and the choice of fund into which their compulsory contributions are made. The government appreciates the key role employers play in the superannuation system and will be making every effort to minimise their workload in implementing and applying the choice of fund requirements.

The tax office has commenced a comprehensive education campaign to ensure that employers and employees are aware of their obligations, and $19.7 million over two years has been allocated for that purpose. In designing this legislation the Australian government has been careful to balance the need to give employees choice while keeping employer costs to a minimum—a very good balance and one that is especially supported by the workers of Australia. The government has ensured that its proposal for administering choice of fund has been made available for public comment and consultation. Choice of fund will benefit the community, including small business operators, by opening up genuine competition in the superannuation industry. That is something that Senator Sherry of course does not want, because he would hate the union funds to be challenged by workers making a choice and a decision that they might be better served elsewhere than in the union dominated funds.

One of the key objectives in the final make-up of the choice of fund legislation was to ensure that employers would not have to bear any legal risk from having to provide advice or guidance to employees, which is why we now have absolute employee choice. The tax office’s choice of superannuation employer guide specifies the information that employers can provide plus the fact that financial advice can only be provided by those licensed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. From time to time government will make decisions that are for the benefit of the overall population. Superannuation choice is something that we as a government have supported. It is of great benefit to all those workers who can avail themselves of that choice to make a decision for their long-term and retirement future, and that is something that the workers have overwhelmingly supported. We on this side make no apology for saying that we support choice. Those on the other side do not. And when the people of Australia have had a choice in recent times they have decided for us, as opposed to Senator Sherry and his—(Time expired)

Senator SHERRY: Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Why must small business employers who are not licensed financial planners, if they genuinely give advice to their own employees who seek it, face a penalty of two years in jail and/or a $22,000 fine? Why is a Liberal government imposing a massive new red-tape burden as well as draconian penalties on business?

Senator ABETZ: It would be a funny thing if Senator Sherry, by implication of his question, is asserting that Labor would have a policy whereby if an employer was to misdirect and misguide a worker they should not face a penalty. That is Labor’s position, as indicated by Senator Sherry’s question. We make no apologies: we are about protecting the workers. Senator Sherry, by his question, says, ‘If an employee is led incorrectly down the garden path by an employer then the employer should bear no responsibility in that regard and the employee should suffer all the consequences.’ Is it any wonder that the workers of Australia more and more see the Howard government as the champion of the workers?

*

Democrats - Universities

BARTLETT, Senator Andrew John Julian, Queensland: My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Senator Vanstone. I refer the minister to reports that the opposition to the government’s legislation prohibiting compulsory student services fees on university campuses has been expressed at National Party conferences in three states by two incoming National Party senators—Country Liberal Party senator, Senator Nigel Scullion and former Liberal Party federal Treasurer, David Clark. Whilst I acknowledge that the government is already ignoring the concerns of every other party in the Senate, and is also prepared to ignore the concerns of vice-chancellors and campus service providers, will the minister at least listen to those concerns expressed by her own coalition partners and agree to amend this ideologically driven and damaging legislation?

Senator VANSTONE: Shouldn’t we all think every day how lucky we are to live in a country where you can have free and independent thoughts and especially to be in the Liberal-National parties where, if you have a different view, you can put it, which is not always the case, as you well know, somewhere else in this chamber. With respect, Senator Bartlett, you might have asked this question on a day when I was on leave, because I am one of the people who studied part time and got sick to death of paying union fees that gave me absolutely zip. I went out of my way once to try to use services after hours so that I could get something for my money. I am a believer that, if people want a service, they will pay for it and I think there is very good support for that. Universities get a very good deal, students in Australia get a very good deal and—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator VANSTONE: I see there is a bit of interjection opposite. Senator Bartlett, I understand not everybody agrees, but the facts of the matter are that that is the view of the government. You make the point, Senator, that you do not think this government listens to other people. I do not think that is a fair criticism myself. Plenty of people get listened to. What we do not do is give a higher hearing necessarily to our own people than to other people. All Australians are entitled to put a view before the government of the day and have that view considered on its merits. You invite me to make the reflection that, after 1 July, when this side of the chamber will have the majority in this place, some people think that that is somehow undemocratic. I think I heard one senator referring to this as a sort of elected dictatorship. I have been reflecting on that and reflecting on whether Australia is in safer hands and whether you get a better Senate because you have one person having the balance of power to say what happens in Australia or whether you have people who have the discipline of one of the major parties and, frankly, I choose the latter view.

Senator BARTLETT: Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Following on from the minister’s concerns about her ability to access services on campuses already, can she guarantee that, following the passage of this legislation, there will not be a loss of services that are currently available to students on university campuses as a consequence? And, given her appropriate celebration of the value of free and independent thoughts on her side of the chamber—a value which the Democrats share—is that an indication that there is an opportunity for free and independent votes to reflect the free and independent thoughts of all of the backbench senators on her side of the chamber?

Senator VANSTONE: I am not entirely sure that that was a supplementary question, but I will take it as one, in any event. We have very vigorous debates in our party room, and I do not think there is anybody who has an ego big enough—let me not reflect too long on that—to be elected as an Independent. It is a good job I am saying this in the early part of the day. Most of us in this place recognise that we come here by virtue of—

Opposition senator interjecting—

Senator VANSTONE: Yes, whatever skills we have, but combined with the endorsement of our parties. I think, with respect, even Democrat senators would acknowledge that as well. Look at the Greens. Senator Brown did not get in because he was Senator Brown; he got in because everyone thought he was interested in the environment and not all the other things that are in the Greens’ policy. With respect, I think you have gone a bit wide of the mark in your supplementary question.

*

Labor - Job Network

WONG, Senator Penny, South Australia: My question is to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and the Minister for Workforce Participation. I refer the minister to the Auditor-General’s report into the oversight of Job Network services to job seekers. Isn’t it the case that the report exposes serious and fundamental flaws in the Howard government’s management of Job Network? Is the minister aware that the Auditor-General found that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations was failing to ensure that Job Network members are meeting their contractual obligations? How does the government respond to the Auditor-General’s finding that the assessment of job seeker needs rarely met contractual obligations and that only 61 per cent of contacts that should have been scheduled between Job Network members and disadvantaged job seekers were actually scheduled? Given these flaws, how can parents and people with a disability have any confidence in Job Network in helping them meet their Welfare to Work obligations?

Senator ABETZ: Let us put this question into some context. Under the Australian Labor Party, we had the Commonwealth Employment Service—an absolutely disastrous organisation. It did not deliver for the unemployed and the Australian people suffered with one million people on the social unemployment scrap heap of unemployment. We came to government and introduced the Job Network. We have been able to achieve, at 75 per cent less cost to taxpayers, the wonderful results of the Job Network. I remind the Senate that in the 12 months to the end of April 2005 Job Network members and job placement organisations placed nearly $657,800 job seekers into a job—a new annual record. That is the history and the context.

If the Auditor-General had gone through the Commonwealth Employment Service he may well have found that all the processes were in place but there were no outcomes. Can Job Network improve? Of course, like all of us, it can always improve its performance.

Senator Watson interjecting—

Senator ABETZ: As Senator Watson interjects, in a very disorderly but very correct manner, it is getting better all the time. He is right on the money. Since the audit was undertaken—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Senator ABETZ: I do not know why the mention of Senator Watson’s name should cause so much consternation on the other side. Since the audit was undertaken, DEWR continues to improve contract management practices, ensuring that all Job Network members are being risk assessed and monitored on an ongoing basis. This ensures the contractual requirements in relation to minimum contact are being met, as well as ensuring a high level of quality in the services being delivered.

I stress that the best quality service is the service that gets someone a job—something which Job Network has clearly been able to achieve. Job Network will continue to deliver more opportunities to more Australians. The recently announced budget measures will create even more opportunities for the long-term unemployed as well as parents and people with a disability, with more places and targeted services such as Wage Assist and the new employment preparation service. This government is doing something about unemployment through Job Network. That is why the unemployment rate is now down to an historic low of 5.1 per cent.

Senator WONG: I remind the minister that very long-term unemployment has increased by 60 per cent in five years. I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Is the minister aware that in addition to the Auditor-General’s criticisms comes this week’s report from the OECD, which described the Job Network as ‘costly and cumbersome’, with Job Network members reporting that they spend 30 per cent to 40 per cent of their time on tasks like filling in forms simply to achieve a higher star rating? Does the minister think this time would be better spent providing service to struggling job seekers? Don’t these reports show that the Howard government’s employment services are a shambles, just like the so-called Welfare to Work scheme?

Senator ABETZ: I invite Senator Wong, during the parliamentary break that we are about to enjoy, to talk to just one of the 657,800 job seekers who has gained a job because of Job Network.

Senator Wong: I rise on a point of order. The question was about the OECD report. I ask the minister to return to the question. His answer is entirely irrelevant to the point of the question. I know he does not want to talk about what the OECD says, but that was the nature of the question.

Senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear what Senator Wong is saying because of the noise.

Senator ABETZ: The honourable Senator cannot put in a cheap shot at the beginning of a supplementary question and then ask me not to respond to it. If she wants to lead with her chin then she has got to expect that there might be a response.

The PRESIDENT: Senator, I remind you of the question.

Senator ABETZ: As I said to the honourable senator before: during the parliamentary break she should take the opportunity to speak to just one of the 657,800 job seekers who got a job—a new annual record which shows how well it is proceeding.

*

Brian Harradine's last question - PET scanners

Senator HARRADINE: My question is addressed to Senator Patterson, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. The Commonwealth government funds eight positron emission tomography—or PET—scanners in mainland states. PET scanners are a diagnostic tool for a range of cancers and Alzheimer’s disease and provide better information than other tests. But there are no scanners in Tasmania, and hundreds of patients have to travel to Melbourne for the test. How long must Tasmanians wait until they have easy access to the modern medical care available in mainland cities?

Senator PATTERSON: We would expect nothing less from Senator Harradine than a question about Tasmania for his last question. He has been a great advocate for Tasmania and he is pressuring us on Tasmanian interests right to the very end. The Australian government currently funds eight PET facilities and is providing $7.3 million over four years to fund a further PET facility at Westmead hospital. One of the reasons—not the only reason—for the location of a PET machine is population.

Currently, an application for a positron emission tomography scanner is being assessed by the Medical Services Advisory Committee for its clinical usefulness in a variety of indications. All of the currently funded sites are providing data for the evaluation. The evaluation of the various indications will be completed over 2006 and early 2007 and it will give us better information about the clinical value of PET. The government is encouraging the MSAC to complete the review as soon as possible. With the benefit of that review, the Australian government will make decisions on the Medicare future of PET. It is a very expensive but clearly outstanding technology, with a number of subsidised machines and related funding arrangements based on the evaluation results and expert advice.

I just want to add, for Senator Harradine’s benefit, that there is no impediment to state governments providing funding for PET services for public patients if they wish. For example, the Royal Brisbane Hospital and the Brisbane mater hospitals are installing PET scanners which are funded by the Queensland government. There is also a PET machine available for public patients at the mater hospital in Newcastle in New South Wales. In relation to Tasmania, the current arrangement is that access to PET is through the machines available in Melbourne. In recognising the difficulty in getting across to these machines, the Tasmanian government subsidises the travel of Tasmanians to those facilities under its patient access scheme. While not anticipating decisions, I can say to Senator Harradine that, as with the recent MRI licence round, geographical and regional considerations can be expected to be taken into account when the government makes a decision about the location of PET machines.

Senator HARRADINE: Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. When is it expected that the review will be finalised?

Senator PATTERSON: It is a very new technology in terms of medical technologies and there is, as I said, a review being undertaken of all the currently funded Commonwealth PET machines. We believe that review will be due to be completed over 2006-07. I believe Minister Abbott is encouraging the Medical Services Advisory Committee, MSAC, to complete that review as quickly as they possibly can.

*

Labor - Rural and Regional Australia Telecommunications

CONROY, Senator Stephen Michael, Victoria: My question is to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to comments made by senior National Party figures, including Mr John Anderson, reported on the weekend that the Page report on rural telecommunications deserves serious consideration from the government. Given that it has been three months since the Page report was released, has the minister directed her department to consider the recommendations of the report? Can the minister confirm comments by her department at a Senate committee this week that she has not directed the department to give the Page report any consideration and that, in the words of the department, the report has had ‘no direct impact on their work’? Has the government become so arrogant that it will not even listen to its coalition partners?

COONAN, Senator Helen Lloyd, New South Wales: I thank Senator Conroy for the question. The recommendations raised in the Page report will obviously be considered in the context of all of the issues that the government is looking at with respect to the proposed privatisation of Telstra. I am certainly committed to ensuring that, in the consideration of the competition regulatory regime, matters that have been dealt with in the Page report can be taken into account.

The Page report is not in fact a government report—it is not something that was commissioned by the government. The weight that the Page report has is as an exercise undertaken by an independent think tank—that is, the National Party’s independent think tank—and one that deserves consideration on it merits. So whilst it is not a government report, clearly it has been received by me and given to the department and it will be considered in relation to the matters that come before them. But the government will not be formally responding in the normal way it would have had this been a government report.

With the development of new technologies and services, it is important to continue to monitor and adjust the regulatory regime to ensure the settings remain effective for encouraging investment and innovation. To that extent, the government has sought a wide range of views. That is one of the reasons why the government has sought submissions in response to its regulatory review. The competition issues paper has attracted a number of submissions and is currently under consideration in terms of what the government will announce as the settings going forward for the competition regime. So it is certainly not correct to say that the Page report has either been ignored or had absolutely no impact on the government’s thinking. Clearly it is important to have a look at a number of the recommendations that have been made in the context of the report.

In considering other strategic options to promote the development of new high-capacity networks, it is very important for the government to maintain a technology-neutral approach so that you can get the very best outcomes from all the options that have been provided—the very best response in terms of the competition regime. So calls, for example, to scrap the existing copper network may be premature, with the imminent move to the ADSL 2 protocol, which will obviously deliver broadcast quality broadband services and of course appears likely to meet consumer demand. So there are a number of issues that we will take into account, including recommendations that have been made in the Page report. It is appropriate that we do so in that context and that we do not respond to it as a government report, because that is not the status it has.

But I think it is a bit rich for Senator Conroy to be criticising the government for its attitude to the Page report. He is failing miserably in dealing with his own responsibilities, let alone in criticising the government for its responsibilities. I think the advice that Senator Conroy got some time ago to go and get some work experience is exactly what he should take up— (Time expired)

Senator CONROY: Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has Senator Boswell made any representations to the minister advocating the contents of the Page report? Is this another example of Senator Boswell making his case, being rejected out of hand by the government and then rolling over to be a coalition player? Has the minister for communications ever given consideration to Senator Boswell’s comments on any issue, or is he, in the words of senator elect Barnaby Joyce, ‘a lost cause who runs around like a puppy dog, panting that “we get things done because I’m friends with John Howard”’?

The PRESIDENT: Minister, there may have been a supplementary question there, if you wish to answer it.

Senator COONAN: Thank you, Mr President. I really doubt whether that was in order. Senator Ray obviously thinks Senator Conroy is a real dill, and I think people on this side of the chamber agree with him—and that question simply proves the point.

*

Liberal - Sport Drug Testing

TCHEN, Senator Tsebin, Victoria (retiring): Mr President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask, along with Senator Knowles and Senator Harradine, my last question in this place. I am particularly pleased that my question goes to a fellow Victorian, to the very excellent Minister for the Arts and Sport, Senator Kemp. Will the minister outline to the Senate the progress being made by Australia in the global effort to stamp out drugs in sport? Are there any recent efforts by the Howard government to strengthen its antidoping regime. Further, is the minister aware of any alternative policies?

KEMP, Senator Charles Roderick, Victoria: I thank my colleague Senator Tsebin Tchen for giving me the honour of answering his last question. I might say to Senator Tchen: it has been a great pleasure to serve with you in this chamber. I have no doubt, unlike the Labor Party, that the friendship that we have will continue.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order! This is a serious question and the answer should be allowed to be heard in peace.

Senator KEMP: Senator Tchen has asked a very important question on drugs. Let me state very clearly that this government has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to doping in sport and is committed to delivering a policy that is tough on drugs but fair. Australia has a proud history of success in the sporting arena without the use of illegal and performance enhancing drugs. The Australian government is committed to protecting and enhancing this reputation by leading the international fight against drugs in sport through action at home and in various international forums, including, of course, the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Today, I am pleased to announce the government’s next major initiative in our continuing fight against drugs in sport. We will establish the Australian sports anti-doping authority, ASADA, to be up and running hopefully in the new year. ASADA will incorporate the current functions of the Australian Sports Drug Agency, better known as ASDA, and add new functions for the investigation of doping allegations and the presentation of cases at hearings. ASADA will ensure that Australian sportsmen and sportswomen are treated fairly and consistently across sports. It will balance the protection of athletes’ rights and civil liberties against the need for effective and robust investigations and hearings. The establishment of ASADA is the result of a lot of careful analysis and consultation with sporting bodies. Both ASDA and the Australian Sports Commission have played a very important role in Australia’s fight against doping in sport.

The establishment of ASADA is a world first. Nowhere in the world, I understand, is there a statutory body which fully integrates all antidoping functions—from rule setting and implementation to investigation and prosecution. This will, for the first time, establish an independent body for the investigation of doping allegations with appropriate protection for those who provide evidence and other information. ASADA will, among other things, conduct drug testing and educate athletes, investigate allegations of antidoping violations and report findings, and present cases at hearings. ASADA will have a high degree of transparency and public reporting. Athletes, coaches, administrators and the public have the right to know that doping allegations are being properly addressed.

I will be seeking to introduce legislation during the next sitting period with a view to finalising arrangements early in the new year. In taking this decision, the government has committed almost $6 million in additional funds, bringing the total commitment to antidoping policy to nearly $50 million over four years. This investment in antidoping is essential. There is no doubt that doping remains the biggest threat to the integrity of sport. There is absolutely no room for complacency in this area. This is a red-letter day for Australian sport. The establishment of ASADA will provide Australian sport with an antidoping regime second to none.

*

Labor - Iraq

BOLKUS, Senator Nick, South Australia (retiring): My question is to Senator Hill, the Minister for Defence and the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the minister aware that, on 27 May this year, senior Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said of Iraq:

Things aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse.

Does the minister share Senator Hagel’s assessment?

HILL, Senator Robert Murray, South Australia: I think the removal of Saddam Hussein in itself was a wonderful thing for the Iraqi people. When you look back on the hundred of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives that were lost due to the abuses of Saddam Hussein, to be rid of him is a good thing for the future of the country and for all Iraqi people. In terms of building the new Iraq, I think considerable progress has been made as well. We saw the unambiguous wish of the Iraqi people for a new direction demonstrated through their courageous attention at polling booths in January of this year. We have seen the establishment of the transitional government. We are now seeing the process of constitutional drafting.

To pick up a point made yesterday by Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, it is pleasing to see now the level of Sunni participation within that constitutional drafting process. We remain hopeful that it will be completed on time in August. It will then be put before the Iraqi people. They will have the opportunity, as in other democracies, of voting for their own future. Subject to the passing of that constitution, they will have an opportunity to again vote for an assembly and ultimately, through that, a government. So in terms of the political process, I think good progress is being made, and that should be recognised.

In terms of building the security capacity of the country, the army is now up to about 70,000, growing to 90,000. They have taken over part responsibility for security, or part of Baghdad for security, and are doing well. They are leading in operations. They were even able to save Mr Wood, which I think all Australians applauded. They are now doing much better in terms of their own security. They are making good progress in that regard.

In relation to the economy and infrastructure, many thousands of new jobs have been created, which is a good thing. But certainly there has not been the progress in infrastructure and essential services that we would like, because of the insurgency. In terms of education and health care there have been great improvements as well. Children have been inoculated. Kids are now able to go to school.

Senator Bolkus: Mr President, on a point of order: in nine years of questioning the minister has never given me a direct answer, but I did ask him a specific question and I would like him to get to it.

The PRESIDENT: Minister, I would remind you of the question.

Senator HILL: I appreciate that, in his last question, Senator Bolkus has given me the opportunity to tell the Senate that the courageous Iraqi people are making good progress in building their new nation—despite the cost of the insurgency and despite the efforts of the jihadists. Despite those efforts, the courageous Iraqi people are building a new nation, giving themselves the opportunity for freedom and for better living standards for themselves, their children and their grandchildren. I am one of the Australians who think they should be applauded for that, supported in what they are doing, and certainly the government that I represent is very proud of what they have achieved.

Senator BOLKUS: Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister: does he then say that Senator Hagel is wrong? As an occupying power and continuing member of the multinational force in Iraq, will the minister now inform the Senate how many foreign and Iraqi military personnel casualties have occurred as a result of armed conflict in Iraq since the conclusion of formal hostilities more than two years ago, in April 2003? Can the minister also inform the Senate how many Iraqi civilian casualties there have been since the end of formal hostilities?

Senator HILL: It is true that many innocent Iraqis have been killed by those in the insurgency and those jihadists who are prepared to kill and maim innocent people to further a political objective. I obviously abhor that. I do not know the full extent of casualties. I know that, on behalf of the coalition forces, every effort is made to avoid and minimise civilian casualties. On the other side, however, we know that every effort is made to maximise civilian casualties in order to make political gain. As Senator Bolkus departs, I urge him to urge his colleagues to understand and support those who are working for peace, freedom and stability in Iraq and giving the Iraqi people a fair go for the future. If the Labor Party finally adopts that position, it will stand in much better stead.

*

Greens - Immigration Detention

NETTLE, Senator Kerry, New South Wales: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Hill. Can the minister explain what the government is doing to ensure the release of another Australian man who is currently detained in Iraq, Mr Ahmed Aziz Rafiq? How long will Mr Rafiq continue to be detained by the Americans without charge or trial? What is the government doing to ensure that he has access to a lawyer? Why does he continue to languish in Camp Bucca in southern Iraq 15 months after his detainment?

Senator HILL: I have not seen a recent brief on the matter. I know that he was detained, and there are obviously concerns about his activities in Iraq. I know that we have sought to provide consular services to him. But in relation to how that matter is progressing and whether we have any recent input as to whether he is to be brought to trial or what is his intended future, I will have to seek further advice from the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Senator NETTLE: Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Could you inform the Senate when Mr Rafiq was last visited by a consular official? I understand he was visited in August 2004, and I want to know whether it is correct that he has not been visited since then, which would be 11 months. In answer to a question on notice I put about consular visits to Mr Rafiq, the answer was that they were limited because of security risks associated with internal travel in Iraq. Could you answer: is it the job of the Australian security attachment based in Baghdad to ensure that consular officials are able to perform their duties to assist Australian citizens like Mr Rafiq?

Senator HILL: We accept a consular responsibility towards any Australian overseas in trouble, and I clearly put him within that category. I know that we have made a number of representations to the United States in relation to him. I do not know when he was last visited by a consular official. I said that I would take that on notice and get an answer. When we all come back in August, I will be able to provide the honourable senator with further detail on that important matter.

---

Previous comments on this thread

---