Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Crossin, I present reports of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011 and the Personal Property Securities Amendment (Registration Commencement) Bill 2011 together with the Hansard records of proceedings, and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

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

Before question time, I was talking about the national funding body. Senators would remember that this is the body that first was in, then, when the ink was barely dry, was removed and now is back in the equation. It has gone from being out in deal mark 1 to being back in deal mark 4. Last year, on 17 June, on the ABC's AM program, it was reported that:

The Rudd Government has made a pre-emptive strike on one of its health reforms, even before the measure saw the light of day.

The Federal Government has been accused of axing a health funding watchdog, which was supposed to oversee payments to the states under its new health and hospital network.

… … …

A spokeswoman for the Minister says the decision to scrap the funding authority removes a layer of bureaucracy, and she says the Commonwealth's investments in health will be transparently reported in the Budget papers.

When questioned about this matter later, the Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, told journalists:

… we've made it … clear we don't want to increase the size of the bureaucracy—it's not appropriate for us to establish an authority where there is not a need to do so.

In Labor's health reform mark 4—the deal of August this year—the funding body is back. It is under a different name, but it is back. All this is simply instructive as to how the Australian Labor Party has lurched from one so-called reform deal to the next: not really knowing where it was going or what it was doing, so long as it could be seen to be doing something. Mr Broadhead said at the recent Senate inquiry that 'under the agreement reached in early August there is a role for a national health fund administrator and the national health funding pool' and that these may be established by legislation later in the year. So it has worked out it does need them, but it needs them in a different iteration given that the states are back in control and it is business as usual. He further explained:

It is a very strong principle through the agreement that the aim here is to have the amount of funding, the source of funding, the destination of funding and the basis upon which the quantum was arrived at all publicly reported. This would mean that, to the extent that a state's contribution to activity-based funding for a particular local hospital network was less than or more than the national efficient price or the same as the national efficient price, it would be visible for people to see in the reporting that is required. That includes not only the reporting to parliament but also the public reporting that is required.

From a coalition's perspective, we consider that the millions of dollars to fund additions to bureaucracy would be better spent on frontline services. The Department of Health and Ageing already has 5,000 staff and former Rudd minister Lindsay Tanner said on 14 October 2009:

The indiscriminate creation of new bodies or failure to adapt old bodies as their circumstances change increases the risk of having inappropriate governance structures. This in turn jeopardises policy outcomes and poses financial risks to the taxpayer.

It is only the largest hospitals that will operate under an activity based model. Most of these so-called bureaucracies at the heart of the Australian Labor Party's health changes were due to start in July this year. Deadlines have been missed and pushed back, the health system continues to struggle and Tasmanian hospitals are broke. We have even had the Premier of Tasmania offering to the Commonwealth that it take back the hospitals in Tasmania. The Australian Workplace Ombudsman is seeking urgent court action against nurses closing hospital beds as part of their pay dispute. Yet this Australian Labor government would have us believe that it is in command of health and the efficient running of the health and hospital systems. Tell that to the parent wanting a doctor's appointment for their sick child. Tell that to the adult children of an elderly parent with dementia looking for a nursing home bed. Tell that to the people who cannot afford dental care who have to wait years for treatment. Tell that to the parents of a young adult with mental illness who cannot find treatment. Tell that to the health professionals who just want to get on and do their job of helping people.

The Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, thinks everything will be fine by 1 July 2012 when the local hospital networks will be paid for the services they provide. Some of these local hospital networks do not even exist. But Ms Halton, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing, assured us at the October estimates that they are being set up by the states and that the states are well underway with that. 'I have no reason to believe that they will not be up and moving in the time frame that was agreed,' Ms Halton said. We can only be inspired by her confidence as many health experts are dubious that the time frame can be met. With the Gillard government's track record, optimism on this reform may well be misplaced.

In the remaining time I have available to me, I will foreshadow the coalition's amendments, and I will speak in more detail in the committee stage. We are concerned about and will be moving an amendment in relation to the constitution and membership of the pricing authority. The bill provides for the formation of two committees to assist the pricing authority: first, a clinical advisory committee to advise on the formulation of casemix classifications for health care and other services provided by public hospitals; and, secondly, a jurisdictional advisory committee which will maintain a schedule of public hospitals and the services each provides and advise on funding models for hospitals and determined adjustments to the national efficient price to reflect variations in the cost of delivery of healthcare services. Our amendment goes to the fact that there is no representation or any recognition of non-government hospitals. This was one of the issues that was highlighted so vividly in the submission by Catholic Health Australia, and this is one of the major potential problems with this legislation. But, while the cost base for treatment in Catholic public hospitals is different from state public hospitals, there is no guarantee of representation for non-government hospitals on the pricing authority. I will deal more with those issues in the committee stage.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011 is all about bureaucracy. It is another Gillard bureaucracy—more Gillard-ALP red tape. It is quite unbelievable. Yet none of us should be surprised. This government's record on health reform would leave even the healthiest of Australians dazed and confused. This bill establishes the third new bureaucracy under Labor's health reform program—the third new bureaucracy. It relies on other aspects of that so-called reform, such as local hospital networks, to manage hospitals and be funded under activity based funding. Yet in some states these local hospital networks are still to be established. The idea is for the local hospital networks to work with Medicare Locals to jointly deliver health care. But Medicare Locals are still not in existence across the entire country. There are very few of them established at all. This is possibly because their role has not been clearly defined. Even stakeholders are questioning what exactly they will do.

Then there is the price tag. They come at a cost of some $400 million, which is a lot of money, especially for a government which says it is going to put itself back into a balanced budget situation by 2014. We were told Medicare Locals would be at the forefront of the Labor government's promise to end the blame game and fix hospitals. That promise was made by Kevin Rudd almost four years ago, but the Australian people are still waiting—

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Eggleston, I think you know the requirements in referring to people.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise. The promise was made by the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, almost four years ago, but the Australian public, as I said, are still waiting to see the hospitals fixed. One might almost say: so much for promises of historic reforms under this government.

The Australian healthcare system has been pricked and prodded by this government, but the outcomes, the benefits for needy Australians, have been thin on the ground. Labor's achievements in the health sector, when one looks at them closely, are few and far between. On 1 November changes to the Medicare benefits schedule announced in the May budget took effect. Under this budget cut, changes have been made to the allied and mental health services available under the Better Access initiative for mental health. We saw the slashing of $580 million from a scheme that had delivered some 11 million mental health services to two million needy Australians. In this scheme the federal government had for once recognised the importance of dealing with the issue of mental illness by involving general practitioners, psychologists and nurse practitioners in the management of people with mental illness. However, the program was cut.

Earlier this year the government broke the longstanding convention on the listing of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines when it rejected the recommendation of the independent arbiter, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, to list some vital medicines concerned with the treatment of, among other things, cancer. It was a decision that undoubtedly caused many Australians sleepless nights, fearing they would have to pay a great deal more for their vital medications than they would under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and, perhaps most importantly of all, that they might not be able to access the latest and best forms of treatment either for themselves or for members of their families.

Prior to that, the government capped various services under the extended Medicare safety net, with cuts amounting to some $610 million. These included reductions to the in-vitro fertilisation and obstetrics services, which some people might feel are services which are not genuinely about people who are ill but something of a luxury, helping people who are unable to conceive have children. But to those people the cutting of the subsidies and the benefits for those services was very sad indeed. I am sure it caused a lot of heartache around this country among people who, as a couple, are infertile and who hoped that IVF services would help them have a family.

Then there are the cuts to pathology services and the cuts to incentives for GPs to provide after-hours services—more cuts and a diminished medical service to the Australian public. They are mostly at the GP level, which means that the ordinary members of the community are the ones most affected. Further, hanging over our health system is the threat of closing the Medicare chronic disease dental scheme, which has provided more than 11 million treatments to almost 800,000 Australians. This is a very important service because elderly Australians and those on social security often find they cannot afford to go to private dentists.

In addition, there is the threat of cutting rebates to those who hold private health insurance. The government is threatening to cut the taxation rebate which encourages people to take out private health insurance and which has meant that many more people have retained their private health insurance than might otherwise have done so as the cost went up. That in turn means that there would be greater pressure on public hospitals, increased waiting lists and more people finding that their medical treatment is delayed. So that is the real record of Labor's so-called healthcare reform agenda. It has been a record of cuts, diminished services and poorer outcomes for the Australian public.

The coalition supports the move to activity based funding for the nation's hospitals. We are very happy with that, but we oppose further layers of health bureaucracy. This bill establishes the third new bureaucracy under Labor's so-called national health reform program. The Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, which this bill is all about, comes at a cost of almost $100 million over the forward estimates. It follows the National Health Performance Authority, which followed the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Yet to come, it is some form of national health funding organisation which was promised by Prime Minister Rudd, then discarded by Prime Minister Rudd, described as 'unnecessary bureaucracy' by Health Minister Roxon and then resurrected by Prime Minister Gillard. The government is slightly confused about what to do, it would seem. The policy is all over the place—creating organisations, discarding them and then resurrecting them. It is a very inconsistent record, and all of this has come at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, money which could in large part have been spent on front-line services and improving health care for members of the Australian public. These various authorities were originally proposed to be formed, in place and operating by July this year. Activity funding is now due to be established by the pricing authority by July 2012. Experts are warning that even that time frame is too tight and perhaps unachievable. So it is likely to be another example of Labor's inability to deliver a program and threatens more uncertainty for the hospital system. So we can have little confidence that this government will deliver, given their record of past performance across a whole range of policy areas, not only in the health area. Stakeholders, including the Healthcare and Hospitals Association and the AMA, have warned that providing additional data needed by this new authority could impose very heavy burdens on the health sector. The Healthcare and Hospitals Association also warns that, rather than drive any reforms, there is a serious risk the introduction of activity based funding will simply reinforce the old inefficient models of care. So, significant warnings have been sounded to the government that it needs to get this change right.

Through the formation of all of these new bureaucracies the coalition has consistently warned that they raise the possibility of duplicating each other's work and imposing ever-greater burdens on the health sector. The coalition continues to hold these reservations about the policies and programs of the Gillard government in the health sector.

Activity based funding was part of this government's promises to end the blame game in health, but stakeholders warn us that it will do no such thing. Even the Bills Digestfor this bill states that 'it is likely that debates about the adequacy of public hospital funding by each level of government will continue for some time.' And 'some time', in government terms, can mean it could be 10, 20 years or even longer before decisions are made and resolutions affirmed—so it does not augur well for the future of the Australian health system.

Another major concern is that the private sector has had very little input into these proposed changes, when in many cases the private sector is already funding health care on the basis of activity. The government should have drawn on the knowledge and expertise in the private sector, one would have thought; but that has not happened so far. But, hopefully, it could be that the new pricing authority will go to the private sector and seek advice. The authority also needs to take into account the varying nature of different parts of the hospital sector. There are significant differences between public and private hospitals, and not even all public hospitals operate in the same way.

Let us have a look at Catholic Health, which operates some 21 public hospitals around Australia—some of them large, some of them iconic, well-known public hospitals, like the St John of God system in Western Australia—but they operate in a very different way to those operated by the state governments and the public sector. The amendments put forward by the coalition seek to recognise and allow for greater understanding of these differences in the modus operandi of the management programs and the impact that will have on the decisions of the pricing authority. This is just another example of the muddle-headed approach of the Labor government to health care which, if implemented, will do nothing to improve service delivery to the Australian public, I am afraid. And so, once again, I think we are going to see health care in this country not being as good as it could be and Labor missing the opportunity to make a substantial difference.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011 represents a critical part of the government's national health reforms to improve the efficiency and transparency of the nation's public hospital system. All Australian states and territories have joined with the Commonwealth to implement a national system of activity based funding. This piece of legislation is designed to create the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. The authority will determine the prices for hospital services across the country and also take into account factors such as safety and quality and the cost of services in regional hospitals. While most services will be provided through this system, block funding will be provided for some hospitals, particularly those in small regional communities. I will come back to that point.

The authority will have strong independence from all governments and will provide the health system with robust decision making, much like that the Reserve Bank provides to our financial system. In addition, the pricing authority will publish this and other information for the purpose of informing decision makers in relation to the funding of public hospitals.

The government have taken action to establish the interim pricing authority, which was part of our commitments under the health reform agreement. The interim authority has taken over the important activity based funding work from the Department of Health and Ageing, which will then transfer to the permanent authority after the passage of this legislation.

I thank senators for their contributions to the debate. I am pleased that the Senate committee has recommended the bill be passed and also that the opposition and the Greens have both said they will support the legislation. And nor should the opposition oppose this legislation, particularly since it implements reforms that have been supported on a number of occasions by the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, that has not stopped the opposition before, such as when they have opposed our other health reform bills in this chamber—in fact, one of those bills they opposed was to make permanent a critical safety and quality body that was created temporarily under the Leader of the Opposition himself.

Today in the Senate we have seen the usual criticising and sniping from the shadow minister for ageing and the opposition, rather than the promoting of any positive proposals of their own. They will continue to try and divert the public's attention away from health, desperate to avoid scrutiny of the Leader of the Opposition's inauspicious record as health minister. Specifically, Senator Fierravanti-Wells claimed that there was no clarity about which small hospitals would receive block funding. That is because under the National Health Reform Agreement it is a matter for the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority in consultation with jurisdictions to develop block funding criteria to be agreed by COAG. It is not a matter for decision by a Commonwealth bureaucrat or even by a Commonwealth minister but one to be resolved by independent experts and agreed by all jurisdictions.

I also note that the NHRA provides for loadings on the notional efficient price to reflect additional costs driven by regional location. Small rural hospitals will be protected as this agreement is implemented. The establishment of the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority is clear evidence of the government's ongoing drive to deliver for all Australians the best quality health care possible and to ensure the future sustainability of our health system. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

As foreshadowed in my contribution on the second reading, I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 7178, as circulated:

(1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 19 (after line 18), after subsection 144(4), insert:

  (4A) The Minister must ensure that at least one member of the Pricing Authority has:

     (a) substantial experience or knowledge; and

     (b) significant standing;

in the provision of services in hospitals other than hospitals owned and operated by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

The amendment to schedule 1, item 21 goes to the membership of the pricing authority. The minister must ensure that at least one member of the pricing authority has substantial experience or knowledge and significant standing in the provision of services in hospitals other than hospitals owned and operated by the Commonwealth, a state or a territory.

As I indicated, the bill provides for the formation of two committees to assist the pricing authority—firstly, a clinical advisory committee to advise on the formulation of casemix classifications for health care and other services that are provided by public hospitals; and, secondly, a jurisdictional advisory committee which will maintain a schedule of public hospitals and the services that each of those hospitals provide, advising on funding models for those hospitals and determining adjustments to the national efficient price to reflect variations in the costs of delivery of healthcare services.

The pricing authority is established as a body corporate with perpetual succession, with a seal. It is able to sue and be sued as well as deal with real and personal property under proposed section 142. Proposed subsection 63 and proposed section 143 effectively set the minimum number of members of the pricing authority at nine members, including the chair and deputy chair. Members, including the chair, are appointed by the minister and can be appointed on a full-time or a part-time basis for up to a maximum five-year period and can be reappointed as provided for in proposed sections 144 and 145. Proposed section 144 provides that at least one of the members of the pricing authority is to have substantial experience or knowledge and significant standing in regional or rural health care.

The coalition's amendment ensures that one member of the pricing authority will have substantial experience or knowledge and significant experience in the provision of services in hospitals other than public hospitals. This reflects in principle the submission by Catholic Health Australia, which recommended that a member of the pricing authority have experience in the operation of non-government public hospital services. As I indicated earlier, one only has to look at the state of our public hospitals as at June 2010 to see that 43 per cent of the hospitals in Australia are private hospitals and that they include day surgery facilities. There are 1.2 private hospital beds per 1,000 people as against 2.5 public hospital beds per 1,000 people. There are 756 public hospitals in Australia, with about 56,000 available beds. Hence, it is very important that non-public hospitals be included as part of the framework of this legislation. It has certainly been an oversight by the government in this legislation. One only has to look at the government's attitude towards private health insurance and at what Minister Roxon has tried to do once and failed, tried to do a second time and failed, and now, no doubt, there will be a third time, to see this government's ideological attack on private health insurance. That will be for another day. However, it reflects, I think, the ideological standard of this government towards private health and private hospitals. But I digress.

Catholic Health Australia highlighted one of the major potential problems with this legislation. While the cost base for treatment in Catholic public hospitals is different from that of state public hospitals, there is no guarantee of representation for non-government hospitals on the pricing authority. Senator Eggleston mentioned this in relation to major private hospitals in Western Australia. St Vincent's Hospital is one of the major examples in metropolitan Sydney. This issue was outlined by Mr Martin Laverty, the CEO of Catholic Health Australia. He said:

Very specifically, senators will be aware that Catholic Health Australia represents about 10 per cent of the nation's hospital beds. Within that there are 2,700 public hospital beds operated by Catholic hospitals, mostly on the east coast, but broadly around Australia. For the bill to be effective it needs to have regard to the unique nature and the slightly different legal status under which those 2,700 public hospital beds actually operate. We do not see that reflected in the bill at present, but we think minor amendments can adequately incorporate the impacts of the differing legal structures that operate those 2,700 public hospital beds, and we have proposed that to you in our submission.

Progress reported.

Proceedings suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the ministerial statement on Afghanistan.

September 11, 2011 was the tenth anniversary, if we can call it that, of the horrific and cowardly attacks on the twin towers in which, along with 2,977 people from 90 different nations, 11 Australians were killed. In October 2002 at Kuta in Bali, 88 Australians were killed. In September 2004 at the Australian embassy in Jakarta, nine Indonesians were killed and over 150 injured. In July 2005, one Australian was killed and 11 were injured in the London train and bus bombings. In October 2005 at Jimbaran beach and Kuta in Bali, four Australians were killed and 19 injured. In July 2009 at the Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta, three Australians were killed. Fortunately, attacks closer to home have been thwarted, notably an attack on Holsworthy Army base, planned for 4 August 2009, to be carried out by Australian based Islamic militants linked to the terrorist group al-Shabaab. The perpetrators planned on infiltrating the base and shooting as many Army personnel and others as possible until they were killed or captured.

These are some of the reasons that Australia is in Afghanistan fighting the scourge of terrorism which had its base in Afghanistan. Afghanistan had long been a training ground for terrorists, including those responsible for the attacks in Bali and Jakarta and against our embassy in Indonesia. Over the past decade, close on 100 Australians have been killed by terrorist attacks that were planned and executed from terrorist safe havens in Afghanistan. So, in the first instance, our presence denies Afghanistan as a training ground and operating base for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. Secondly, our presence helps stabilise the Afghan state through civil, police and military training for local Afghans which will enable them to achieve self-determination within a reasonable time frame.

There are an annual average of 1,550 Australian Defence Force personnel deployed within Afghanistan as part of Australia's military contribution to the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF. Our military, civilian and development assistance is directed towards mentoring the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade in Oruzgan province to eventually take on responsibility for the province's security, building the capacity of the Afghan National Police to assist with civil policing functions in Oruzgan, improving the Afghan government's capacity to deliver core services and generate economic opportunities and disrupting insurgent operations and supply routes utilising the Special Operations Task Group.

On occasions such as this it is worthwhile looking at the progress that has been made. The International Council on Security and Development, an organisation long critical of US policy in Afghanistan, is echoing the US sentiment that, as a result of the surge and refined strategy, many of the Taliban's long-time safe havens in Helmand and Kandahar have been destroyed. Mid-level Taliban commanders and their networks have been disrupted, dismantled or destroyed by special forces. In March 2011, General Petraeus told the US Armed Services Committee that in a typical three-month period 360 insurgent leaders were either killed or captured. This has had a marked effect on the average age of Taliban commanders, which, according to observers, has dropped from 35 to 25 in the past year.

The standing up of the Afghan National Army, the ANA, is taking time but it is progressing. The ANA has assumed security responsibility for Bamyan province, the first of 48 provinces, and over half of the patrol bases within the Oruzgan province. Another six provinces were handed over to the ANA and ANP authority in recent times. We talk of the Kabul province, Panjshir province, Herat city, Mazar-e Sharif city, Lashkar Gah city and Mehtar lam town. Real progress is being made. Retention rates for the ANA are slowly rising.

In addition to all those military gains and security gains in Afghanistan, it is worthwhile noting the improvements that have been made to the quality of living of the Afghan population. Let us go back 10 years. In 2001, Kabul was a ghost town and a home to 500,000 repressed, cold—cold because none of the heating worked—and depressed people. It is now a thriving city of three million, with shops, cafes, cinemas, music and girls and boys schools. In 2001, nine per cent of Afghans had access to basic medical care. Today that is at 85 per cent. In 2001 less than one million boys went to school. Today seven million young Afghans go to school, one-third of whom are girls. In 2001, you would struggle to find a phone. Today, one in three Afghans has a mobile phone. In 2001, only the Taliban's Voice of Shariat hit the airwaves. Today, there are over 100 active press outlets. So you can see the great progress that has been made.

Regrettably, previous moves to strike a deal with the Taliban have proved fruitless. I recall some 13 months ago, when we were considering this matter in this place, I was suggesting that peace should be given a chance and there should be discussions with the Taliban. Nevertheless, despite them being fruitless, I am encouraged to learn that negotiations with the Taliban continue in the hope of a breakthrough deal.

Just over a year ago, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Petraeus, said that progress in the war was sometimes as slow as 'watching grass grow or paint dry' but that American and coalition troops were nevertheless making headway with 'hard fought gains' against insurgents, but that it remained tough going. Recently, General Petraeus's successor, General John Allen, said:

Each day, Afghans are learning new skills, working to provide for their families, standing up for their communities, and labouring to build a new, more hopeful Afghanistan. With each step of progress, our shared enemy has come to realise that they cannot tear down what the Afghan people are building up. The enemies of peace are not mujahidin or martyrs, but murderers, and their violence, assassinations and attacks will not frighten the Afghan people into submission. Taliban fighters, too, are growing weary of their leaders—who stay off the battlefield, deciding instead to issue orders from the comforts of foreign lands. Because they have lost territory, support, morale, and the will to fight, many of these fighters are considering reintegration and choosing a future of hope and promise for themselves, their families, and their communities.

The current surge is witnessing success, with a large number of insurgents being killed and forced to retreat from areas formerly under strict Taliban control. More and more Taliban are now being forced into areas where they have not previously been dominant. So, in Oruzgan and neighbouring provinces, NATO and Australian forces are being called upon to engage in even more encounters with the Taliban. Unfortunately, this is resulting in further casualties for our troops.

Just last week, the alternative Prime Minister Mr Abbott visited our troops in Afghanistan. This was about a fortnight after three heroic Australian members of the Mentoring Task Force were killed by a rogue Afghan army member and about a week after another three were wounded by another Afghan soldier. Obviously, incidents like these cause people to question our mission. However, the Australians Mr Abbott met spoke highly of their Afghan allies, the vast majority of whom they regarded as worthy comrades. Mr Abbott's take-out was that there was little doubt that the security situation there is improving.

The insurgency still has the capacity to inflict casualties, using roadside bombs to carry out civilian massacres and to assassinate officials of the Karzai government. However, the military advice is that the Taliban's ability to engage in direct combat has been seriously degraded. Mr Abbott found that in Oruzgan more schools and clinics are open and many girls are getting an education for the very first time. The road between Tarin Kowt and Chora has been sealed and local villagers are reported to be increasingly turning on the Taliban. The ADF's Mentoring Task Force has helped make the 4th Brigade among the best in the Afghan army.

The transition from largely Western to largely Afghan security forces will take time and the Afghan government will almost certainly need military and financial support for some years to come. Still, it is important that we assist with the establishment of a more humane Afghan government and it is also in our own interests to ensure Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorism. Our troops are doing an amazing job in difficult circumstances. The terrain is rugged, the climate harsh, the dust oppressive, the enemy dangerous and our rules for engagement restrictive. Yet, despite all of this, our forces are doing well, exceptionally well.

When last the Senate debated the war in Afghanistan 13 months ago, we had lost 21 brave young Australians and had sustained 150 injured. The toll now stands, regrettably, at 32 while 213 have been wounded in action. We are thinking of them and their families and their friends as we debate this matter. Each death is a tragedy but we should not expect war to be without sacrifice. The important thing is that this sacrifice is not in vain. Over the past decade, close on 100 Australians have been killed and many injured by terrorist attacks that were planned and executed from terrorist safe havens in the mountains of Afghanistan. Our commitment of troops in Afghanistan has disrupted such attacks. Our continued commitment is necessary to ensure that our gains are consolidated.

On the eve of Remembrance Day, the fiancee of Corporal Richard Atkinson, a soldier killed in Afghanistan, spoke of the challenges she has faced dealing with his death. Corporal Atkinson, a Tasmanian, was killed by a roadside bomb in February. It was his first deployment. He was part of an operation trying to drive the Taliban out of the Deh Rahwod area, west of the Australian base at Tarin Kowt, a vital strategic area in the war against the insurgency. Dannielle Kitchen, the fiancee, spoke of how she and Richard met, how she coped with his deployment in Afghanistan, how she heard the news of his passing and how she was coping with being a war widow at age 23. It is hard not to feel incredible sorrow about a young man, his life full of promise, on the cusp of marriage and starting his own family, being cut down in a foreign land and for his widow left behind to carry on. We will never know the sorrow of Richard's fiancée and family but we feel intensely for them as they carry their loss. It is some consolation that Richard was convinced that we were doing the right thing and that he was doing good in Afghanistan. It is important that his sacrifice and that of his fiancée not be in vain.

Unfortunately of late there has been an opportunistic element entering into the debate on the war in Afghanistan. It is unfortunate that the tragic deaths of Australian soldiers are used to call for withdrawal of our forces. That opportunism reached a low point with the regrettable question here in the Senate on the eve of Remembrance Day. The Leader of the Government in the Senate was asked whether the government was receiving letters from relatives concerned about the safety of their loved ones serving in Afghanistan, like that from a relative of the soldier which allegedly said, 'Everyone you speak to wants the boys home because no-one believes in this cause any more.' Well, Richard Atkinson did. But such self-serving tactics and seeking to capitalise on the media which follows the death of the digger dishonours our soldiers' sacrifice and, might I suggest, this place.

To withdraw from Afghanistan now would be potentially to give up the good progress which has been made. It would leave parts of Afghanistan vulnerable to return to Taliban control. It would lead to Afghanistan potentially again becoming a safe haven for terrorists to launch attacks on Australians. It would send a message to the locals for them to hedge their bets and stop full cooperation with us because they may have to live with the return of the Taliban. We all hope and pray for peace, especially in Afghanistan. But peace is not the absence of war, as some so simplistically seek to portray; peace is the true, unencumbered exercise of freedom. Many have engaged in war and died to defend or gain those freedoms and that is why we are in Afghanistan. When we lose a soldier, we as a nation mourn and share the pain. When our soldiers make huge gains and root out Taliban strongholds, build schools and allow girls to go to school, our media, for some reason, becomes less excited.

The Senate rightly salutes and pays respects to our fallen heroes. Might I suggest that it could also be appropriate for us to salute the freedoms like girls being allowed to go to school for this first time, the new roads, the new schools and the new hospitals which are being developed in Afghanistan as we speak on a daily basis by our troops. This imbalance in reporting regrettably impacts public sentiment. However, it should not deter us from the task. Having said that, we need to 'give peace a chance'. Of course we should seek to conclude our presence in Afghanistan. To broadcast a precipitous withdrawal will only embolden the Taliban and disenchant the locals.

As we embark on the Christmas period remembering the purpose of Christ's birth was sacrifice for our common good, let us remember those who will be away from their family over this period of goodwill, who are willing to serve our nation and, if need be, follow the example of sacrifice for the greater good. The coalition salutes the work of our troops in Afghanistan.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This issue is hugely important to Australians, particularly to the good and true members of our defence forces, their families and their communities. It is a debate that this parliament has not represented well or fairly. It is one the Greens have pursued throughout the Howard years and through the last four years of Labor government. We are tonight debating the deployment of our troops in Afghanistan and the legitimate question that any parliament, any administration or any leadership must ask as to whether that deployment serves the nation's interests and whether the risk of life and limb and the risk to future happiness of defence force personnel are warranted, because we must never ever have such deployment treated lightly or without due scrutiny.

It is the job of this parliament to scrutinise the deployment of our defence force personnel to Afghanistan. I take issue with some of the comments of Senator Abetz before he left the chamber relating to the ability of parliamentarians to speak up on this issue.

I have never resiled from the Greens position of having our troops brought home from Afghanistan, nor have I ever raised the issue except in the wake of the leaders of the government and the opposition reaffirming the need for our troops to stay in Afghanistan. Let me quote from Major General Alan Stretton (Rtd) in a recent letter to the press in which he said:

The spectacle of politicians from both parties agreeing to send our finest Australians to their deaths and then appearing on television offering their condolences to grieving widows and relatives is sickening.

The policy that we can train the Afghan army to take over security in Afghanistan is laughable. The Afghan government is corrupt, and its army has been penetrated by Taliban forces whose main activity is killing allied forces operating in their country.

Elements of the Australian Defence Force have now been in Afghanistan for over 10 years—surely this is long enough.

They are very trying sentiments from a good and long-serving, but now retired, member of our defence forces and they are not alone, certainly in dispatches I have received.

Let me put the need for this debate another way. It has been as a result of quite extraordinarily high profile debates in the Netherlands and Canada that they have withdrawn their troops from Afghanistan. These are countries very similar to Australia, both of whom deployed more troops than Australia but whose parliaments have been committed to the very difficult debate—because it is complex—about retaining their armies in Afghanistan. In the case of the Netherlands, the government fell over the issue but their troops were withdrawn. Indeed, it is those troops whom our wonderful service men and women are now replacing in Oruzgan province. In Canada it was the very conservative government of Prime Minister Harper, faced with opposition from other parties in the Canadian parliament, who finally made the decision to have the Canadian contingents withdrawn, after more than 100 deaths, and that process has now been completed in Afghanistan.

Last week the President of the United States, Barack Obama, spoke in our parliament and asked us to maintain our troops in Afghanistan. Let us look at the relative deployment. The American deployment of some 100,000 is currently being reduced to 68,000. Ten thousand US troops are in the process of being withdrawn before Christmas. There is no such withdrawal of a relative component of Australian Defence Force personnel from Afghanistan. Next year the United States is withdrawing another 20,000 of its troops. There is no plan to withdraw—or lessen by one—the number of Australian troops in Afghanistan. The Cameron government in Britain is going to withdraw 400 to 500 troops by February. There is no similar commitment by the government or opposition in this parliament to have our troop numbers reduced in Afghanistan. President Sarkozy of France has said that there will be a continuous wind-down, from now through next year and into 2014, of French troops. There is no comparable commitment to withdraw Australian troops from Afghanistan.

It seems, on the basis of two similar countries having withdrawn their forces altogether, after a full parliamentary debate in rich, functioning democracies like ours, and a decision in similar but larger democracies to withdraw troops—starting in 2011, not in 2014—that Australia alone has decided to keep its full troop commitment operating in Afghanistan. There is a difference here. President Obama may make his call to our parliament to retain our troops while he is withdrawing 10,000 troops, but would it not be appropriate for our parliament to discuss the deployment of our 1,550 good and true Australian Defence Force personnel to some of the most dangerous situations in Afghanistan at a time when the US is bringing home 10,000 of its troops? I think so.

I heard Senator Abetz again go through the list of things going right in Afghanistan, but there is a lot going wrong as well. Corruption is rampant. Senator Milne tells me that a report in Congress today indicates a vast amount of money for the people of Afghanistan and the war against the Taliban is being siphoned off by people related to the Karzai regime or otherwise in positions of power in Afghanistan. We have the position where there is an increasing voice in Afghanistan itself calling for the withdrawal of our troops and of course today the news in Australia, completely ignored by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, Senator Abetz in his contribution to this chamber, of a call by the commander of the Afghan troops with whom the Australians are serving in Oruzgan province, Brigadier General Mohammed Zafar Khan, for Australia's troops, effectively, to leave. 'Give us your equipment and leave' is effectively what the Afghan leader our troops are working with said. He said:

Three years is too much time for the Australians to stay here …

We, as responsible guardians of the welfare of our troops committed in Afghanistan and with a huge obligation on our shoulders to defend the interests of their families and our communities, surely should be debating such a remarkable statement from such a leader in the Afghan forces. It is time our troops were brought home to Australia.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am certainly pleased to have the opportunity—albeit brief—to contribute to this debate on Australia's involvement in Afghanistan. I still believe, as I have said before in the Senate, that in the post 9-11 world Australia cannot afford to ignore its national security interests in corners of the globe beyond our territorial borders and outside of our region. I still believe Australia as a member of the international community must not shirk its responsibilities in Afghanistan.

Let us not forget that we operate in Afghanistan under a United Nations mandate that is renewed annually. Let us not forget that we operate in Afghanistan as a member of the International Security Assistance Force, along with partners from 48 nations. Let us not forget that we are not an invasion force in Afghanistan, but that we are there at the invitation of the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Let us not forget that we are there for the most important and legitimate of reasons—to ensure that Afghanistan is no longer a place where terrorists are trained and find safe haven. We must not forget that we have a clear operational military objective—to train the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army so it can take full responsibility for security and stability in Oruzgan province. The less secure Afghanistan is, the less secure Australia and Australians are.

There is a human cost to our involvement—and it is a very heavy human cost. As we all know, the risks to our personnel are serious—32 Australians have died, 11 this year, and 213 Australians have been wounded in action, 48 this year. This is a terrible, terrible toll. So many families have suffered pain and loss. So many have had their lives changed forever as a result of those Australian casualties. But I for one do not want the effort and sacrifice of our troops in Afghanistan to be in vain. I want to see Australia finish the job in Afghanistan and go.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am surprised that the Leader of the Government in the Senate is not here for this very important debate this evening. That we have lost 32 fine Australians in Afghanistan is a measure of both the commitment of our soldiers and more broadly our national resolve to complete our mission there. It is not often appreciated that a safe haven for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was the launch pad of the 9-11 attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and the passenger aircraft on that fateful day.

Closer to home, over the past decade close on 100 Australians have been killed by terrorist attacks that were planned and executed from safe havens in the mountains of Afghanistan. On 12 October 2002 in Bali, 88 Australians were killed, and, in a bombing on 9 September 2004 at the Australian embassy, nine Indonesians were killed and 150-plus injured. In the 7 July 2005 London train bombings, one Australian was killed and 11 injured, with 56 killed and 700-plus injured overall. At Jimbaran Beach in Kuta, Bali, on 1 October 2005, four Australians were killed and 19 injured, with a total of 26 killed and 100 injured. In the Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta, three Australians were killed out of a total of seven, with 53 people injured.

The Vice-President of the United States in 2006 said:

Hambali (the planner of the Australian Embassy attack and also the 2002 bombing—currently held in Guantanamo Bay) went to the training camps in Afghanistan that they ran back in the '90s, subsequently received funding from al Qaeda, went back then to Indonesia, and was behind some of the major attacks there. So you've got this sort of home-grown, but nonetheless affiliated, extremist operation going now in Indonesia. You'll find the same thing if you go to Morocco, where they had the attack in Casablanca; in Turkey, Istanbul, and so forth.

So Afghanistan was more than just a safe haven. It was a training ground. It was where they honed their terrorist skills.

Our mission was therefore originally the denial of Afghanistan as a training ground and an operational base for al-Qaeda from which to project its global terrorist activities. It was then to stabilise the Afghan state through the enhancement of security through military, police and civilian consolidation. More particularly, such work for Australia was to focus on Oruzgan province. As a necessary adjunct to the mission, those who gave that safe haven to al-Qaeda, namely the Taliban, had to be dealt with.

This was an organisation which, apart from providing that safe haven to al-Qaeda and all the terror that that caused around the world, imposed upon the Afghan people a number of atrocious, strict edicts. Women were banished from the workforce. Schools were closed to girls and women, and women were expelled from universities. Women were prohibited from leaving their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative—and so on and so forth. Women and girls in Afghanistan and the wider society were treated to atrocities by the Taliban. Women were beaten, publicly flogged and killed for violating Taliban decrees.

Today our work is ongoing and carried out under a United Nations mandate, renewed annually, through the participation of some 48 partner countries spread throughout Afghanistan, each in particular areas and provinces and each doing particular tasks and particular work. Our soldiers and their extended families should take some considerable comfort and great confidence from the fact that the Australian parliament is virtually unanimously supportive and committed to them and their sons and daughters engaged in our cause in Afghanistan. This is a most noble and legitimate cause and one which is and continues to be supported by both sides of the political divide in this country. It is a subject matter which is above partisan political politics, and I for one am greatly gratified by that and maintain that it should remain so.

There are extraordinarily large challenges for us in this particular theatre. The execution of this mandate is uniquely difficult in Afghanistan, and it was never for one single minute going to be easy. Afghanistan has a troubled and volatile history, with a disparate, semitribal society, geographically separated by an impossible natural topography of very, very high mountains running into deep, fertile valleys. It is a land of rough and underdeveloped roads, very limited communications infrastructure and few developed governmental administrative institutions. It was, in short, an ideal country for a safe haven for an international terrorist network.

Our mission there is an evolving one as we improve the capability of the Afghan National Army and the Afghan security forces, including police. As we assist in the establishment of governance of various qualities in each of the provinces, we are providing mentoring that is moving towards self-reliance and towards Afghan command. Indeed, I pause to say that some 10 of our forward operating bases in Afghanistan are now under exclusive Afghan command. That is a significant step forward, a step in the right direction.

We have participated in the preparation and training of the Afghan National Army in the removal of IEDs, improvised explosive devices, and in the location and destruction of caches of weapons, ammunition and bomb-making equipment. Further to all of this is training in the disruption of the narcotics trade and the cutting of the flow of money from such trade. As part of our commitment we have also deployed some 20 officers of the Australian Federal Police to mentor and train police officers for Afghanistan. I congratulate each and every one of those 20 Australian Federal Police officers on the fabulous work they are doing in our name.

Progress has been slow and not without difficulty, but there has been some significant progress. In education there are seven million students, of whom approximately three million are girls. There are now more children receiving an education than ever before in the country's history—and, importantly, more girls than ever before. The Australian Greens might see this as a positive.

Since 2001 there has been a 26 per cent decline in mortality in children under five years of age. The Australian Greens might see this as a positive. Millions of Afghans have benefited from ISAF water and sanitation programs. Again, the Greens might see this as a positive.

There have been two recent national elections. There was a presidential ballot with a voter turnout of 1.26 million voters, some 30 per cent of the voting population. The next was a general election on 18 September 2010, with 406 candidates out of 3,000 being women—16 per cent were females—and with a turnout of 4.33 million people, of whom 1.77 million were women. The Greens might see that as a positive.

In recent years, the economic growth of Afghanistan has been averaging, year in, year out, about 11 per cent. There has been the construction of around 10,000 kilometres of paved roads within the country. People can move around the country, and there are an ever-increasing number of cars on the roads. These are positive, positive things happening in the country due to our role and the role of our ISAF partners. The Australian Defence Force has provided reconstruction teams of engineers and other technical skills to build schools, to construct and run health clinics and for trade training. There have been many, many successes, with local markets and other commerce beginning to flourish.

I pause to mention the most recent success—that is, our great ally the United States firstly locating the architect of so much of the world's recent terrorist history and then bringing Osama bin Laden to the justice he charted for himself in his own evil. This was a very successful operation which was executed with professionalism and great skill. I am someone who believes that, following the demise of this man, the world can rest just a little bit easier in terms of the terrorist threat. A great blow has been struck against terrorism, with no casualties. This event is truly one of the successes that ISAF and, particularly, the United States have had in Afghanistan, and I for one want to thank the Navy Seals and all of the personnel involved in this achievement. It was a wonderful victory and a wonderful symbol for justice, given what we have seen, particularly in the last decade, in terms of international terrorism.

I turn now to Pakistan. Pakistan has had significant issues with the Taliban following their flight from Afghanistan into the Swat Valley in particular. It is trite to say but it is obvious there can be no regional security around Afghanistan without the commitment of its neighbours to peace and stability. Pakistan must do more to isolate the Taliban in the region. Counter-terrorism in this region must be at the very forefront of priority policy considerations. Pakistan would serve its own best interests if it were to do more to secure its border with Afghanistan and prevent the supply of weapons, ammunition and explosive material to the Taliban. Pakistan has been through a lot. It feels threatened, but it must do more to arrest the flow of weapons and explosives to the Taliban and into Afghanistan.

To put Australia's contribution into context, 1,550 Australian Defence Force personnel have been deployed into Afghanistan. Currently, the United States has more than 90,000 troops in Afghanistan and the United Kingdom has 9,500 out of a total of 130,638 ISAF troops. We rely upon our partners and particularly the United States for capability, enablers, air support, helicopters and logistics generally. To that extent, our destiny in Afghanistan is subject to the timing and resolve of ISAF member states with a greater commitment than ours, particularly the United States. All of us agree that our people should not be there for one minute longer than is necessary. There is, however, no capacity for us to be half-committed to this mission. We have paid too high a price to be half-hearted or wavering. Having said that, there is no blank cheque here. All ISAF members want to see the job done and an appropriate level of self-reliance in indigenous capacity as soon as possible. Everyone is diligently pursuing that end. We want to get out as soon as possible.

I turn to the men and women of our Australian Defence Force. They have performed in this theatre magnificently, as difficult as it has been. They have been totally committed to the task, a task that we all have agreed is in the national interest. There have been extreme hardships and great tragedies, immense loss and miraculous survivals. Through it all, our soldiers have achieved great success, often in the most difficult of circumstances, from searing heat to subzero temperatures in remote locations for extended periods on combat rations. We at home have all become familiar with the Bushmaster—an Australian made and designed vehicle that has seen over 50 destroyed through IEDs and mine detonations, with not one loss of life. This is a truly great achievement for the Australian Defence Force and for the Australian manufacturing industry. Over 50 have been blown up, each with a number of personnel inside, and no-one has died. Our special forces, who have been called upon to conduct operations right around Afghanistan, have done so with great distinction. In this place previously I have cited many of their achievements, commendations and medals that have been awarded. We have been relatively small in number in Afghanistan but have made a significant contribution to making things better for the population of that country. The Australian Defence Force can take great pride in its achievement in Afghanistan.

While we have achieved much, the parliament continues to reserve the right to raise issues about combat clothing and equipment, about the quality of food and about the quality of flights to and from the MEAO. It is not too much to ask that our soldiers in Tarin Kowt have good food, that their combat clothing is fit for purpose and that when we fly them from Brisbane, Townsville, Sydney or Darwin into the MEAO we do so in quality aircraft. To that end, it is clear that we have an issue with the time that we are permitted to retain prisoners—96 hours is obviously insufficient, particularly in comparison to the practice of the United States and the United Kingdom. It appears that we secure these suspects or combatants, as the case may be, at considerable risk to our own personnel, only to see them released in that 96-hour period to rejoin the fight. This is unacceptable. I call upon the Minister for Defence to fix this in line with the wishes of our people. When we travel to the MEAO our people tell us this is not working. So I say: come on, Minister, fix this—it is not difficult.

We have sustained, as I have said, 32 losses, and I have attended more than 20 funerals. No words suffice in talking of those killed in action or of those wounded in action. To the families, the wives, the girlfriends, the mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters and sons and daughters: I am in admiration of the selfless sacrifice of their loved ones and of themselves. Those that we have lost shall never be forgotten. It is inadequate but I shall simply say a sincere thankyou to them.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would also like to add my comments to those of my colleagues and acknowledge the 32 Australian soldiers who travelled to Afghanistan and did not return; the 213 wounded Australian service men and women who, unlike those who died in the line of duty in Afghanistan, are acknowledged in this place too rarely and have become the forgotten victims of the war; the more than 2,700 coalition casualties in this war that has now lasted longer than the first and second world wars combined; the nearly 9,000 civilian dead in Afghanistan over the last four years alone; and the 320,000 Afghan civilians displaced because of a war that they did not ask for. In particular I want to pay tribute to those who flee, those who take the extraordinarily risky and dangerous journey that was not of their choosing and those who manage after a difficult journey filled with many dangers to reach Australian shores. I hope that we can acknowledge in the course of this debate that the least we can do to cope with the consequences of a war that we helped initiate on the other side of the world is look after those who flee from it.

We heard Senator Abetz, when he opened the debate, say real progress is being made. I wonder how many government and coalition senators in the course of this debate simply dusted off the same speeches that they gave earlier this year or speeches that they might have given five years ago and just read them in again, because the justifications do not appear to have changed and the platitudes do not appear to have changed—'real progress is being made'. Perhaps we can add that 2011 is going to be the decisive year in the conduct of this war, until we go back and look at what military officials have been saying about the Afghan conflict since the beginning. In 2004 General Barno said 'Without question this is a decisive year in Afghanistan.' In 2005 General Abuzaid said, 'I think this can be the decisive year.' In 2006 General Richards said, 'This will be the crunch year for the Taliban.' Guido Westerwelle, who is the German Minister for Foreign Affairs, said '2011 will be the decisive year.' David Miliband, the UK foreign minister, said it last year. General McChrystal said in 2008, 'We are knee deep in the decisive year.' When exactly will this conflict be decided?

It is good for the MPs who speak in favour of this war because you will find, as I and my colleagues on the crossbenches have discovered, that if you oppose this war as an elected Australian parliamentarian there is nothing you can do about it in here. These decisions are made by the executive, not by the parliamentarians. It is wonderful that Senator Johnston, who has taken a keen interest as shadow spokesperson in these issues for many years, is dealing with the issues of clothing, food, airlift and so on. But if he one day realises that this war is pure folly, as we believe it is, there will not be a thing that he can do about it because these parliamentarians, our colleagues on both sides of this house, do not have the power. The decision is made by the Prime Minister and the executive.

I believe, as many of my colleagues do and as the Australian Democrats before us did, that that needs to change, as it has in most other modern democracies. The parliament is not called on to make the strategic decisions about the conduct of the war or the tactical decisions that govern the fighting from day to day, but the political decision about whether we should be there in the first place and when is an appropriate time to leave should be made by those who have to look our constituents in the eye. I wonder how politicians who have spoken so far in both chambers in this debate look in the eye the 64 per cent or thereabouts of Australians who think they have had enough and that this should in fact be concluded. Sixty-four per cent of Australians—twice as many as it was over the last couple of years—have realised as this war simmered away in the background that in fact the death toll is higher every year. If things are going so well, as we have heard this evening, how come the death toll and the toll of wounded, in particular the toll of injury and death from those who we are meant to be supporting, is now much greater than before? Why are our allies killing us in Afghanistan? It is because we are not wanted there. When I hear Senator Abetz or others say that real progress is being made, I cannot help but wonder: progress towards what? Senator Abetz talks about the importance of sacrifices being made and I wonder: sacrifices by who exactly?

The context is that the Dutch have left and many other countries with whom we shared the enormous burdens of our service men and women in Afghanistan have either gone or have had debates that had more teeth than the one we are experiencing tonight, and have experienced over the course of the last year or two in this parliament, and chosen to go. They have had enough. We realise of course that perhaps you could be forgiven for thinking that Oruzgan is the whole of the country and that, if Australia takes care of our little patch, continues to build trust, continues to build schools and infrastructure and continues to do the best we can to keep people safe, somehow the situation is unfolding in a like way around the country. Of course, that is not the case. The United States government is in the process now of contemplating a major shift of posture which will take them exactly to where the Soviets were. They will be moving people out of Oruzgan and they will be concentrating on population centres and major road and transport corridors in Helmand, Kandahar and in Kabul, which is what the Soviet Union did—try and hold the big cities, try and hold the infrastructure and let the country cope as best it can. That is what is happening here. As Australian parliamentarians we need to realise that the war is about to enter an extremely dangerous phase. This talk of progress being made is illusory.

Why, you might wonder, 2014? That is the date we heard when President Obama addressed this parliament last week. It was a remarkably uncritical address that canvassed the fact that, with Afghanistan and Iraq out of the way, the United States can shift its assets to the Asia-Pacific region and continue peace-building initiatives in our corner of the world. But really, why 2014? I have not heard any analysis in any corner of the debate here in Australia. There has certainly been no mention of it tonight. I wonder whether it has anything at all to do with the fact that it is the year the trans-Afghanistan pipeline is due to be completed, which for the first time will get gas from Central Asia to India and to the coast without recourse to Russia or former Soviet satellite states. That was something that the US government was in the middle of negotiating with the Taliban before the Taliban hitched their wagon to Osama bin Laden. Before the horrific attacks on New York City and Washington the US government was quite happily negotiating with the Taliban over access rights for that pipeline. That appears to have suffered a 10-year hiatus, but I am informed that everything is now on track for completion in 2014. Isn't that an extraordinary coincidence? What are we really there for?

We discover again the enormous value of the whistleblowers, publishers and journalists involved in the WikiLeaks organisation and those news organisations around the world that have chosen to publish material that shows what our leaders really think is very different to what we hear in contexts like this—that is, that there is enormous pessimism in NATO forces and Western capitals around the world. But of course this is not allowed to seep through to the public because the polls are bad enough as it is.

A number of MPs have mentioned women, Senator Johnston in particular. It is wonderful to hear the plight of women used as the justification for a military invasion and it is good that people care about such things. But we know that Afghanistan is now the most dangerous place in the world to be a woman because that survey has been done. The aid agencies working inside Afghanistan know this very well. In June this year a Trust Law report found that violence, dismal health care and brutal poverty make Afghanistan the world's most dangerous country for women. Ten years after the first bombers and the first ground forces went in it is the most dangerous country for women overall and the worst in three of six risk categories of health, non-sexual violence and lack of access to economic resources. I am dusting off some older material from a speech that I read earlier this year because it does not seem to be getting through.

I do not want hear these justifications or these extraordinary platitudes by people on the other side of the world in safe offices that if we just stay the job will get done. An extraordinary American peace activist, Kathy Kelly, who put herself on the front line—she was in Baghdad for 'shock and awe' and she has spent a huge amount of time in Afghanistan talking to people—has said:

One way to stop the next war is to continue to tell the truth about this one.

That is what the Australian Greens will continue to do until it is over.

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

It is appropriate that as Parliamentary Secretary for Defence I make some comments in this very important debate. This morning the Prime Minister made a very forthright statement about our commitment in Afghanistan in the House of Representatives. She set out very clearly our mission in that country and why it is necessary that we complete that mission before we withdraw our forces. She also spoke frankly about the high price that we as a nation are paying as part of that commitment, of the 32 members of our defence forces who have given their lives in Afghanistan and of the now over 200 personnel who have been wounded there. She said with great feeling—and that is, of course, a feeling that all of us in this place share—it is a grave thing for a government to ask the young men and women of a nation's armed forces to put their lives at risk and no government should do so without a just objective, a clear objective and an attainable objective.

Those of us who hold government office need to examine our consciences before we make any such commitment. War is evil, but sometimes war is the lesser of two evils. A war that meets certain conditions can perhaps be regarded as a just war. To my mind, on reflecting on this, I think these conditions are: firstly, that the damage inflicted by the aggressor is lasting, grave and certain; secondly, that all other means of putting an end to aggression have been ineffective; thirdly, that there are serious prospects of success; and, fourthly, that the use of arms will not produce evils worse than the evil that is to be eliminated. I believe that our commitment in Afghanistan meets all four of these conditions.

The war in Afghanistan results from the complicity of the Taliban regime with the terrorist attacks of September 11 in 2001. The damage caused by the Taliban and al-Qaeda both to the international community and to the people of Afghanistan certainly has been lasting, grave and certain. The decision of the US and its allies to intervene in Afghanistan was taken only after the refusal of the Taliban, under the regime of Mullah Omar, to hand over those responsible for those attacks. They were, of course, being harboured in Afghanistan. We have heard from Senator Faulkner about how it is that this conflict in Afghanistan as a consequence of those beginnings has been a UN mandated activity.

The prospects for success in Afghanistan are, in my opinion, very good, although the government has never pretended that achieving success would be quick or easy. We need to ask ourselves what we mean by success. I would define success not in the simple military sense of defeating the enemy but as the creation of a situation in which the people of Afghanistan can defend themselves against attempts by the Taliban to regain power. That means that there must, in the end, be a political settlement. But a settlement is a very different thing to a surrender. Whilst the use of arms always produces evils, such as death, injury and destruction, I have no doubt that even greater evils would result if we were to withdraw now and expose the people of Afghanistan to the heightened risk of the Taliban returning to power and Afghanistan once again becoming a safe haven for al-Qaeda and similar terrorist groups.

While the task of achieving our mission in Afghanistan is certainly an arduous one and fraught with moral hazards, I have a clear conscience about advocating that we stick to the task we have set ourselves, which is working with our allies and the people of Oruzgan province to create a situation where they can live in peace and provide for their own security in a reasonable period of time. But I do wonder about how some other members of the Senate square their consciences with the positions they have taken in this debate and in similar debates in this place over the past few years. I think that those who have advocated our immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan either have failed to fully appreciate what the consequences of that would be for the people of Afghanistan or have somehow decided that their own political righteousness and their persistent hostility to the United States are more important than the fate of 29 million Afghans.

I noticed that in his remarks only a few moments ago Senator Ludlam again alluded to US conspiracy theories and the eternal search of US multinationals for greater resources. But of course Senator Bob Brown regularly points out to this Senate—and rightly so—that gay men are oppressed and victimised in various countries. Let us remember what is the fate of gay men in Afghanistan. I quote from a news story from 1998:

Two men were executed for sodomy in the western Afghanistan province of Herat, the Taleban-controlled Voice of Sharia announced March 23. Bismellah, age 22, and Abdul Sami, 18, had a wall bulldozed onto them in a traditional Islamic method of executions used only for sodomy convictions.

Those are the people who will return to power in Afghanistan if the Greens have their wish that we withdraw from there prematurely.

Senator Milne and Senator Hanson-Young both have strong views on the rights of women in various countries—again, rightly so. But have they really given thought to what would happen to the women and girls of Afghanistan if the Taliban were to return to power? Let me give them some idea. Under the Taliban, women were forced to wear the burqa in public, were not allowed to work and were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight. Women were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a chaperone, which of course led to many illnesses remaining untreated or being inadequately treated. They faced public flogging and execution for violations of the Taliban's laws. The Taliban encouraged child marriage and forced marriage: Amnesty International has reported that 80 per cent of Afghan marriages were considered to be by force. Women were forbidden to ride bicycles or to ride in a taxi without a chaperone. Do Senator Milne and Senator Hanson-Young really want to return 10 million Afghan women and girls to such a regime? I recommend to them Time magazine of 29 July 2010, which featured on its cover a shocking photo of Aisha, an 18-year-old Afghan woman, who was sentenced by a Taliban commander to have her nose and ears cut off for fleeing her abusive in-laws, a consequence of one of the forced marriages which the Taliban mandate.

Senator Ludlam frequently brings cases of human rights violations in various countries to the attention of the Senate—and a good thing too. Perhaps he is not aware that under the Taliban advocating any religion other than Islam, even in a private conversation, was punishable by death, that Islamic prayer was compulsory and that those found not praying at appointed times or who were late attending prayer were punished by severe beatings. Perhaps he does not know that the Taliban outlawed music of all kinds, secular publishing of any kind, television sets, video cassettes, audio cassettes, satellite dishes and movies.

I do not pretend that all of these evils have been eradicated from Afghanistan in the 10 years since the Taliban were removed. As I said in my last remarks on this subject, in October, no-one ever said that Afghanistan would become a second Switzerland. Afghanistan is a poor country with a long and enduring history of violence and arbitrary government. (Quorum formed) There are of course wide cultural differences between Afghanistan and the Western world, and no doubt there always will be, but it is completely false to assert, as Senator Ludlam did in a speech here just last month, that there has been no progress in Afghanistan since the Taliban was removed from power.

Let me once again list some of the examples of that progress; I hope that those senators who think we should abandon the people of Afghanistan to their fate will take note. GDP growth has averaged 11 per cent since 2002 and was 22 per cent in 2009. This is the longest period of sustained economic growth in Afghanistan's modern history. Afghanistan of course is still a poor country, but it now has a functioning economy and good prospects for future development. Afghanistan had no effective financial system in 1991; today there are 14 banks in operation. As a result, Afghan expatriates can safely send money back to their families. In 2007 Afghanistan received some $3.3 billion in remissions income. School enrolment is at its highest in Afghanistan's history. Currently, there are approximately six million students in school, including two million girls. By contrast, under the Taliban there were 900,000 students enrolled in school, none of whom were girls. Basic health services, which were available to less than 10 per cent of the population under the Taliban, are now extended to around 85 per cent of Afghanistan's people. There has been a 22 per cent drop in infant mortality, which means that there are now 40,000 fewer infants dying than there were in the Taliban era. Ninety per cent of children were not inoculated against polio; today, that has changed. Almost 10,000 kilometres of rural roads have been rehabilitated, supporting the employment of hundreds of thousands of local workers. Under the Taliban there were virtually no private telephones in Afghanistan; today over two million people have mobile phones and that number is growing by an extraordinary 150,000 a month.

All of these things have brought real, concrete, measurable improvements to the lives of the ordinary people of Afghanistan. They did not happen by magic. They happened because the new government of Afghanistan, for all its many and very obvious failings, has worked with its international partners and donors to make them happen. These gains were made possible only by the continuing presence of the ISAF forces, including our own forces in Oruzgan province, and future gains are dependent on that presence to maintain security. That is why I do not think we should take the advice of Brigadier General Mohammad Zafar Khan and depart now, leaving our equipment behind. Putting aside the various questions that arise about maintenance, technical capacity and sustainment of such equipment, we must also remember that Australian forces in Afghanistan comprise less than one per cent of the total ISAF forces in the country. At 1,550 personnel, the Australian commitment is a small one. When we withdraw it will be in agreement with the Afghan government and with our ISAF partners. We do not need to understand that the Taliban have not changed their policies or their priorities. If they return to power they would reimpose the same barbaric reign of ignorance and fear that they imposed when they were in power from 1996 to 2001—a period that ended with the bombing of the World Trade towers in New York and the unleashing of a global conflict.

I would like to think that it is not senators who argue we should withdraw from Afghanistan and then have to ask, 'Now what?' But I have to say that I have not heard any of them utter a word of concern for what would happen to the people of Afghanistan, and particularly the women of Afghanistan, if they had their way. All their considerable capacity for moral outrage seems to be focused on the US and its allies with none on the forces of reaction that we are fighting against. For them it seems the war in Afghanistan is 'a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing'. That is a quote from Neville Chamberlain and, yes, I do compare those who seek to appease the Taliban and al-Qaeda now to those who sought to appease fascism in the 1930s. I do not claim to understand this mentality, but I do understand its moral bankruptcy.

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

I rise tonight to make some comment as to why we should be withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan as a matter of urgency. The question that needs to be asked here is this: is it morally justifiable to lose more Australian lives in a military campaign that is unwinnable, in a situation where Afghanistan is likely to look much as it does today when, in a few years time, we eventually do as the Americans intend to do, and that is withdraw in 2014? Is it morally justifiable to lose more Australian lives in these circumstances?

I have been listening tonight to the kinds of contributions that just do not go to the detail of what is going on in Afghanistan. I have just heard Senator Feeney say that other people are not concerned as he is about Afghani lives. Is that so? I can tell you that there are currently 1.7 million to two million Afghani refugees in Pakistan. Next year, in 2012, they will lose their refugee status in Pakistan. That figure of 1.7 million to two million is probably an underestimate. Senator Feeney, who has just contributed in this debate, of course would not have those refugees come to Australia. Australia is quite happy to be engaged in a war in Afghanistan for all the reasons that he cites, but millions who are over the border will lose their status as refugees next year—and what then? What then about those Afghani people who have been forced to leave because of the dislocation, the war—all of the things that have been discussed and the atrocities that have gone on over many years? I heard from Senator Johnston tonight that this is a most noble and legitimate cause. Really, a noble and legitimate cause! And from the Prime Minister we have heard, 'We will complete our mission of training and transition.' What transition? I think it is about time we talked about what is really going on in Afghanistan as we speak.

I have heard Senator Abetz and now Senator Feeney both talk about the fact that there has been a whole explosion in cell phones in Afghanistan. According to the Washington Post, every evening the cell phone signals disappear in some portion of more than half the provinces in Afghanistan as the major carriers, under pressure from the Taliban, turn off their signal towers, effectively severing most of the connections to the rest of the world. Tactics like the cell phone offensive have allowed the Taliban to project their presence in far more insidious and sophisticated ways in 2011 using the instruments of modernity that they once shunned. The shut off sends a daily reminder to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Afghans that the Taliban still holds substantial sway over their future. It is just one part of a broader shift in Taliban strategy that is focused on intimidation, carefully chosen assassinations and limited, but spectacular, assaults. While often avoiding large-scale combat with NATO forces, the Taliban and their allies in the Haqqani network have effectively undermined peace talks and sought to pave the way for a gradual return to power as the American led forces begin scaling back military operations in the country. That is the fact of the matter.

There is no way that Afghanistan is going to be significantly different in a few years time from what it is now. I go to the Haqqani network because we are told that the mission is to stop terrorism in Afghanistan—there must be no safe haven for terrorists in Afghanistan. That is quite right, except that we have got the Haqqani network now operative in Pakistan, with safe havens there, who come across the border into Afghanistan and are currently working with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was there recently saying that we need a peace process that brings together the Taliban, the Haqqani network and the Karzai regime. Somehow, we are going to bring about peace in that regard.

In addition to that, according to the Washington Post, we now have 'uncertainty gnawing at Afghans about the looming American withdrawal, while making the most of the insurgency's limited resources'. It goes on to talk about the recent United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan reporting on torture. Senator Feeney talked about the torture of children. Let me tell you: the torture of children is currently going on in facilities in Afghanistan with the allies we are working with, overseen by President Karzai's regime. We know from the United Nations report that suspects are hung by their hands, beaten with cables and in some cases their genitals are twisted until they lose consciousness in detention facilities run by the Afghan intelligence service and the Afghan National Police. This is according to a UN study released in October, as I said. The report found evidence of a 'compelling pattern and practice of systematic torture and ill-treatment' during interrogation in the accounts of nearly half of the detainees of the intelligence service known as the national directorate of intelligence who were interviewed by the UN researchers. The national police's ill-treatment of detainees was somewhat less severe and widespread, the report found.

The report pointed out that, even though the abusive practices are entrenched, the Afghan government does not condone torture and has explicitly said the abuses found by the United Nations are not government policy. They may not be government policy, but from the point of view of Afghani people what they can see is young people being rounded up, put into these centres and then tortured by the people who are supposed to be on the side of the Afghan people against the Taliban. It is no wonder that the Afghan people see an occupying force working with a corrupt Afghani government. And so we get to this point: is it true that training the Afghan army in Oruzgan will help build a stable, pro-Western Afghanistan? No, it will not.

I heard Senator Johnston talking about the elections that were held in Afghanistan, holding that up as some kind of progress in Afghanistan. But you just have to look at Transparency International's report that tracks government corruption around the globe. It ranks Afghanistan as the world's third most corrupt country, behind Somalia and Myanmar, or Burma. In the hundreds of diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and released in December 2010, Afghanistan emerges as a looking-glass land where bribery, extortion and embezzlement are the norm and the honest official is a distinct outlier. The widespread corruption is made possible in part by the largely unregulated banking infrastructure and the ancient system of money transfer that is the method of choice for politicians, insurgents and drug traffickers to move cash around the Muslim world. Mr Karzai won re-election in 2009, but he did it by completely rigging the election and the results were overturned not long after. Of course, then there was the assassination of his younger half-brother, who was assassinated by a person working with the US special forces and the CIA.

There is also graft and corruption from the opium trade. We have a situation where the report to congress only a month ago stated that millions of dollars have been siphoned out of Afghanistan from US aid—and no doubt Australian aid. I will be very interested to know what tracking we have for the aid money that we are spending and how much of it is leaving Afghanistan through illegal sources and going elsewhere. In fact, in the US case they are saying that people associated with the Karzai government have used the money to buy luxury mansions in Dubai, for example.

So the Afghan people see a force that is working with the corrupt Karzai government against their interests and their own young people are detained and tortured in centres run by the very people we are mentoring and working with. It is time we set a date to come out of Afghanistan. It is time we recognise that the situation is unwinnable. Other countries have withdrawn. Australia should be withdrawing its troops because it is unlikely that there will be significant shifts in such a corrupt regime. The question here is: how much better would it be if we were not an occupying force but rather assisting in a capacity other than as an occupier?

Question agreed to.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment on sheet 7178 moved by Senator Fierravanti-Wells be agreed to.

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

Before the break I was speaking on this amendment and the parliamentary secretary was making comments in relation to the current Leader of the Opposition during his time as Minister for Health and Ageing. She made some misleading comments and I want to correct the record. She was clearly reading from a script that had been written for her by Minister Roxon in what I can only describe as the usual spiteful and vitriolic diatribe we know Minister Roxon for. I will correct and refute the misleading comments that those opposite keep parroting about Tony Abbott's record when he was health minister.

The claim that funding for public hospitals decreased by $1 billion under the coalition government is false. It is wrong, it is misleading and it is a lie. The Australian government's funding for health, including public hospitals, increased significantly under the coalition government. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian government expenditure on public hospitals increased every year, from approximately $5.2 billion in 1995-96 to over $12 billion in 2007-08. Annual spending on health and aged care by the Australian government more than doubled, from $19.5 billion in 1995-96 to $51.8 billion in 2007-08. Australian government funding to the states under the Australian Health Care Agreements was $42 billion between 2003 and 2008 compared to $31.7 billion between 1998 and 2003, and $23.4 billion between 1993 and 1998. The 2003-08 Australian Health Care Agreements provided a 17 per cent real increase in funding compared to the previous agreement.

The constant misrepresentation of this point by the Australian Labor Party is the sort of thing one expects from a government with a Prime Minister who went to the last election saying to the Australian public, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' That was an outright lie to the Australian public, so what else would one expect from this sort of government? It is not surprising that the parliamentary secretary was parroting misleading and wrong information. The government's claims are untrue.

In 2003, the coalition government provided an extra $10 billion for public hospitals in the Australian Health Care Agreements. Funding for public hospitals from 2003 was 83 per cent higher than under the previous Keating Labor government. A change in the growth rate of the Australian Health Care Agreements due to higher private health insurance coverage and other demographic changes was reflected in the forward estimates of 2003. However, public hospital expenditure continued to increase by 17 per cent in real terms in the 2003-08 Australian Health Care Agreements, contrary to the constant false accusations made by this government.

In relation to this, Parliamentary Secretary, I am correcting the record with respect to your misleading comments about Mr Abbott's record. If the parliamentary secretary does not believe what has been put on the record, I refer her to the statistics provided by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to me and to other senators during the estimates process both at additional estimates in 2009 and on 10 February 2010. I particularly refer the parliamentary secretary to question E10-407, which provided information to me which I have already put on the record, and question E10-408, whereby documents in relation to this data were provided to me. Those documents have also been put on the record.

I really thought I should correct this situation, because it is typical of this government to constantly trumpet false and misleading information in relation to the time when Mr Abbott was health minister. Parliamentary Secretary, if you are going to come in here and give us this sort of diatribe, get your facts right. Your facts are drawn from what your government has put on the record and they are as I have stated—that is, your claims are absolutely and totally false, misleading and wrong, and it is a lie that funding for public hospitals decreased by $1 billion under the coalition government.

I now return to the coalition's amendment. I was talking about some of the evidence that Catholic Health Australia provided in relation to this. In his evidence to the committee, Mr Laverty pointed out issues pertinent to non-government owned providers of public hospital services and he stated:

... we have to account for capital, depreciation, insurances, council rates, long-service leave and information technology, even down to whether or not a Microsoft licence per user is applied to each cost of patient admission. Different states and territories use different accounting systems, which affects whether or not these various components will ultimately make their way into what is an efficient price. For an NGO provider of hospital services, all of these form the component of what is the price or the cost of delivering a service. Some states and territories account for these things differently; indeed, within states different areas at present can account for them differently.

Coalition senators believe that this experience and perspective should be reflected in the pricing authority legislation. In further evidence to the committee, Mr Laverty stated:

... we argue that the governance of this new authority should allow for the appointment to its board of someone who has experience in the delivery of NGO hospital services.

Just as clause 144 of the bill requires that at least one member of the authority has substantial knowledge or experience in the provision of health care in regional or rural areas, coalition senators support the submission of Catholic Health Australia that non-government hospitals should also be guaranteed representation.

I will now highlight in general terms some other aspects of this bill. Clearly, this bill does not match the rhetoric of the health minister and the former Prime Minister from the time the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority was first mooted. Whilst this new authority is supposed to set the national efficient price for each activity conducted in hospitals, that price will only be a guide to the Commonwealth's contribution to growth funding for public hospitals. As was pointed out in one of the submissions to the Senate inquiry, the bill needs to be understood for what it does not do. It does not set a nationally agreed public hospital payment. As Catholic Health stated:

It is therefore understood that whereas the authority will determine a national efficient price, it will remain a responsibility of state and territory governments to determine the actual amounts paid for hospital services. There may not be certainty on how much the states or territories will actually contribute.

So, as far as the states are concerned, the national efficient price that will be set by the pricing authority will only be advice. It will not be binding on them. The payments that the states make to their local hospital networks could be above or below that price—it is at their discretion—which will mean that all that rhetoric about ending the blame game means absolutely nothing. Australians were told that this grand hospital reform would end the blame game, but I point the Senate to the Bills Digest which says:

It is likely that debates about the adequacy of public hospital funding by each level of government will continue for some time.

That means all the hollow rhetoric about ending the blame game means absolutely nothing.

The COAG communique of April last year also had another commitment about the pricing authority that was to end the blame game. The communique makes reference to that, not that it is unexpected—another commitment that appears to have disappeared when this bill was finally brought before the parliament. I refer to the Bills Digest's assessment on this particular point. The digest says the bill empowers the pricing authority to investigate and define cost shifting and cross-border disputes, but then the digest says:

It is silent, however, on what actions jurisdictions must take if they are found to be complicit in either cost shifting or in a cross border dispute. In the event of a cross border dispute, the IHPA may provide advice to the Commonwealth about funding adjustments to relevant jurisdictions.

It goes on to say:

The Commonwealth has limited powers with regard to the operation and management of public hospitals and is unable to compel a jurisdiction to make payments to other jurisdictions or to alter their policy settings.

As the digest correctly points out, this would appear to undermine transparency and the extent to which these disputes can be resolved.

There we have it—empty rhetoric. The blame game will continue and there is nothing that can be done in relation to price shifting. Throughout this odyssey of grand reforms under both the Rudd and Gillard governments, all these measures have been trumpeted to the public as increasing transparency, accountability and all sorts of things. It is very clear that the stakeholders do not agree with this. Throughout the submissions this perceived lack of both transparency and accountability of the pricing authority was very evident. For example, the Australian Private Hospitals Association in its submission says:

APHA believes these provisions fall a long way short of the practice of the board of the Reserve Bank of releasing its decisions and its monthly minutes publicly with no prior commitment by the executive.

So, when making the comparison with other disclosure regimes, it is very clear that this authority falls short.

The other main concern in the submissions was the burden of compliance on hospitals. The Heath Care and Hospitals Association—the peak body of public hospitals, which will be affected by the pricing authority—warned in its submission that the government must take care because the authority's decisions would have immediate and wide impacts on hospital services. In my previous comments, I mentioned duplication or even triplication. As the Australian Institute for Primary Care and Ageing stated:

There is very little integration between the statutory bodies. There is a risk of duplication or even triplication, which could create a significant burden for health services. Their isolation from each other is counterproductive.

These are comments which the coalition certainly agrees with. (Time expired)

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the coalition amendment to the National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011. The Australian Greens certainly understand the reasons for the coalition suggesting that someone of significant standing, experience or knowledge in the provision of services in non-government hospitals be included as a member of the pricing authority. We also accept that the regional and rural health community has been acknowledged as another area of expertise. In fact, there is a requirement for someone with that background to be included as a member of the pricing authority.

We are worried that with this amendment we are starting to become very prescriptive about the make-up of the pricing authority. There are a number of other groups that could potentially be included. We know that there are people with clinical expertise—surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses and so on—who would have a legitimate claim to be included to make sure that we have somebody with clinical experience as part of the pricing authority. We could go further and suggest that somebody who has significant experience in the field of health economics be included as well.

For that reason, we believe that the regional and rural health community, which has already been acknowledged, be the limit to which we prescribe the particular expertise, skills and experience on the pricing authority. It should be restricted to that group only. We certainly understand the reasons for wanting to include additional groups. It is reasonable, when determining the make-up of the authority, that consideration be given to people with experience in the non-government hospital sector, but we do not think it is the role of this bill to list those specific areas. As I said earlier, there are a number of other areas that we would also need to consider if we were going to go down that track. For that reason we have decided that we will not support the coalition's amendment.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that I will be supporting the coalition's amendment. It makes good sense to support the amendment moved by Senator Fierravanti-Wells on behalf of the coalition. I think it is quite reasonable that there should be at least one person at the pricing authority who has substantial experience and knowledge and significant standing in the private hospital system.

Some time ago in relation to the Medicare levy surcharge—three years ago, although it seems longer—the government, as part of the negotiations for my support, agreed to a comprehensive study by the Productivity Commission on the comparative efficiencies between private and public hospitals systems. That was a very good exercise and the Productivity Commission produced a lot of useful information. It underscored where there would be unanimity in relation to that report and it underscored the importance of having both a robust public health system and a robust private health system, and the interaction between the two, to get the best possible outcome for health consumers, for the people of Australia. I note the figures given by Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Some 43 per cent of hospital beds relate to the private system. I think it would be remiss of us not to have a representative of the private hospital sector on such a pricing authority. If it is to be truly independent, truly inclusive and truly representative, this amendment ought to be supported and I do so.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government do not support the amendment proposed by the opposition, as we do not believe that it would enhance the provisions of the bill. Currently there is a provision for one member to have rural and regional experience with flexibility for other members agreed between the states and territories and the Commonwealth to ensure a variety of experience and expertise for the membership. The Council of Australian Governments has already announced the chair and the deputy chair of the IHPA. The chair will be Mr Shane Solomon, who gained experience in the provision of public hospital services from non-government operators when he was the group chief executive officer of Mercy Health and Aged Care Victoria.

While other appointments are under consideration by COAG, the government expects at least one other member to have the experience the opposition seeks. That has been explained to the office of the shadow health minister. While we agree with the outcome the opposition is seeking, we see no reason to diverge from the National Health Reform Agreement in this case. The way the amendment is drafted would potentially include a person with purely private hospital experience in the definition of membership, even though they are not covered by the authority and have very different pricing models from public hospitals. Private and NGO operated public hospitals will be able to and will be encouraged to direct their recommendations direct to the authority during the public consultation.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very important that we recognise the need for different kinds of experienced people on this pricing authority board. We have heard already in the course of this debate that there will be somebody with regional and rural experience. People who have anything to do with medicine know that regional and rural hospitals are different kinds of places from the big metropolitan hospitals, especially the big public hospitals. If recognition has been given to the fact that there is a need for somebody with regional and rural experience on this pricing authority board, we really have to think also about the need, as the Catholic Health Australia spokesman Martin Laverty has said, for someone who has operating experience in the private hospital sector.

Private hospitals are very different from public hospitals. Public hospitals work on public money, obviously, which is not accounted for in the same way as is money in a private hospital. Martin Laverty, CEO of Catholic Health Australia, made the point that the Catholic hospital system represents about 10 per cent of hospital beds in Australia, amounting to something like 2,700 Catholic hospital beds, mostly on the east coast but very strongly represented in Western Australia where we have two St John of God hospitals which are major, very large private hospitals in the metropolitan area, one in Subiaco and a new one south of the river in Murdoch. There is also St Anne's hospital, formerly the Mercy Hospital and another big Catholic hospital. St John of God has hospitals in the major regional centres of Western Australia in Bunbury, Geraldton and Kalgoorlie. So St John of God is a major hospital provider. Its funding models and business models are quite different to those of the public hospital system, where there is obviously a bigger flow of money coming in.

Private hospitals have to account for capital depreciation, insurance, council rates, long service leave, information technology—even down to whether or not a Microsoft licence per user is applied to the cost of each patient's admission—because the private hospital system requires cost accountability, which really is not an issue in a government run system. There are very different considerations when you come to the private system and, given that, the case for having a person on the board with private hospital, private sector, experience is very hard to argue with. In the end, in the private sector every cost has to be recovered. You have to work out each individual item of cost within the whole system because in the end that cost has to be recovered in the fees charged to the patients. That requires a different approach altogether. You cannot just assume that some things will be 'given', that some services will be provided because they always are in a big government hospital. In the private system they are not. You have to think of the cost of every towel by a basin, every needle and every syringe, the cost of electricity for the use of electrical goods within a hospital—it all has to be accounted for.

The entire approach in a private sector operation is very different to that in a government sector operation, where people are less concerned about costs. They probably should be more concerned but, because it is a government operation, nobody bothers too much about the use of power or the provision of drugs, dressings and supplies, which can be done in a fairly easygoing way. The cost of the nursing staff required to support a surgeon in an operation is not taken into consideration as much, in the sense that the cost is borne by the government and it does not have to be accounted for in the same way. In the private sector, just as in any other private business, every item of cost has to be considered in terms of the ultimate unit cost to the patient. It is a very different approach.

For that reason the coalition's proposition that there be a person on this board who has private sector experience is one that, in terms of simple common sense, is very hard to argue against. These hospitals are major organisations incurring, day by day, very high costs, and in the end it has to be brought down to a unit cost for an individual patient for their day in the hospital. I strongly support this coalition amendment and trust that the committee will find it does as well.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the indulgence of the chamber, because I note that there will be a guillotine on this bill at 9.30, I need to—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And a whole series of other bills at the same time, without debate. It is a disgrace.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that. Senator Cormann should know that I am very unhappy about it as well, but if I reflect too much on Senator Cormann's—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, I would be pleased if you did not engage in a debate with Senator Cormann.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not engage in a debate, because time is incredibly short. Can I indicate that I have an amendment on file, one that has been recirculated, that I propose to move in two parts. There are two parts to the amendment. One says that the pricing authority must not report publicly unless a period of 30 days has elapsed since a report has been given to the minister or, if the report has not been given to the minister and each state and territory health minister, a period of three months has elapsed since the report was completed. I will not seek to divide on that. I understand I do not have support for it.

The other part, which I will be dividing on, says that, if a report is given to the minister, the report contains one or more recommendations and the minister does not agree to adopt one or more of the recommendations, the minister must publish on the internet his or her reasons for not adopting the recommendation or recommendations. The reason I will move this is that the minister, in the second reading speech to the bill, said:

The Authority will have strong independent powers: it will be for public hospitals what the independent Reserve Bank is for monetary policy. This is unprecedented for the public hospital system.

The result will be a thorough and rigorous determination without fear or favour to Governments. The Government is confident that the Authority will provide the health system with the stability and robustness that the Reserve Bank has provided for monetary policy for decades.

If that is the case, let it be truly independent; let it be properly transparent. If the minister does not agree with any or all of the recommendations, the minister ought to give the reasons for doing so, given that we are setting up this truly independent body akin to the Reserve Bank in its robust independence. This amendment relates to transparency. The reasons for a recommendation not being supported, not being adopted by the minister, ought to be given by the minister. I think what I am proposing is an important transparency and accountability mechanism.

I do note that both the coalition and the Australian Greens supported an amendment to the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2010 which said the CEO of that organisation:

… must cause a copy of any advice given or recommendations made in undertaking the CEO’s functions … to be published on the … web site within 12 months of providing the advice or making the recommendations.

That is not quite the same as this recommendation but is similar in spirit and similar in terms of the process of transparency and accountability. I think that if we are setting up these bodies there ought to be some transparency and accountability. The minister of the day ought to give reasons why any recommendations are not followed through. That is why I urge my colleagues to seriously consider this amendment. It is consistent with the amendment supported by the coalition and the Greens on 17 November 2010, just over a year ago.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for the consideration of the remaining stages of the National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011 has expired. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 7178 moved by Senator Fierravanti-Wells be agreed to.

The committee divided. [21:34]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

Question negatived.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to have the question put for the amendment on revised sheet 7180 standing in my name and, further, I ask that the question be put separately in relation to subsection (2) of the amendment.

Leave not granted.

That is a bit cruel, Mr Chairman!

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

But leave is not granted, cruel or otherwise, Senator Xenophon.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is cruel and unusual, Mr Chairman. Nevertheless, I move the amendment standing in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 47 (lines 1 to 8), omit section 211, substitute:

  211 Conditions to be met before public reporting

  (1) The Pricing Authority must not report publicly (whether on the internet or otherwise) unless:

     (a) if the report has been given to the Minister and each State/Territory Health Minister—a period of 30 days has elapsed since the report was so given; or

     (b) if the report has not been given to the Minister and each State/Territory Health Minister—a period of 3 months has elapsed since the report was completed.

  (2) If:

     (a) a report is given to the Minister and each State/Territory Health Minister under paragraph (1)(a); and

     (b) the report contains one or more recommendations; and

     (c) the Minister or a State/Territory Health Minister does not agree to adopt one or more of the recommendations;

the Minister or State/Territory Health Minister must publish on the internet his or her reasons for not adopting the recommendation or recommendations.

  (3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a report under section 212.

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

The question is that the amendment circulated by Senator Xenophon on sheet 7180 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [21:40]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Order! The time allotted for the consideration of these bills has now expired. The question is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. How is it possible for this Senate to vote on these bills when not one word has been spoken on two of them?

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

Senator Macdonald, there is no point of order. The Senate passed a motion earlier today indicating this would be the outcome of today.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Bills agreed to.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this the week before the Australian Labor Party's national conference I rise to express my full support for marriage equality. The momentum is building to change this anachronistic policy, which cements the last pillar of legalised discrimination and, I believe, fuels homophobia. I stand together with a clear majority of Australians in calling for the Australian Labor Party national conference and the members of this place to take the necessary steps to amend the Marriage Act to allow any two adults, regardless of sex, sexuality or gender identity, the honour and privilege of standing in front of their family and friends and making a commitment to each other; to allow the children of people in same-sex relationships the stability of knowing that their family is just as special in this country as are all other families; and to allow the community to celebrate the love and commitment of two Australians that no doubt are good citizens, pay their taxes and abide by the laws of the land.

Tonight I will share a few stories told to me by Tasmanians about why marriage equality is so important to them. I optimistically hope that their struggles may assist those sitting on the fence in this debate to realise that marriage equality will strengthen the institution of marriage and our communities. I begin with the story of a child that does not tell his friends about his mum's relationship. Although this nine-year-old boy should be worried about what games he will play with his mates and how to pass his tests at school, he is burdened with a fear that he will be bullied if his mates find out about his mum, who is in a loving relationship and does everything for him. Not being able to marry is very sad for her, but what is sadder is that her son cannot tell his peers about her relationship because, even at his young age, he realises that he will be bullied. He does so many amazing and exciting things with his mum and her partner, like camping, bird watching, hiking and boating—like any other family—but it concerns him that he has to censor his life.

It is so sad that a little boy already knows, and has to live with, discrimination. Marriage equality can help to put an end to this for this boy and many others in his situation. This is a boy whose childhood should be about instilling in him the skills and dreams that will see him become a good Australian. This is a boy who should be worried about what games to play with his friends, what he needs to do for his next school assignment and whether he got a few kicks in his last footy game. This boy should not be burdened with the fear of bullying if he shares stories of his weekend with his mum and her partner. Opponents of marriage equality use the pretence of protecting children as one of their major arguments. I challenge them to look a child like this brave boy in the eyes and say that the current laws are protecting him. I challenge them to move beyond their belief of what they see as a traditional family unit.

We must accept that our society is comprised of many family structures and we must enshrine in our laws a safe environment for all. That includes people whose anatomic gender is different to the gender they identify with. I move to share the story of a transsexual Tasmanian. If this woman was not honest with herself, she would be allowed to marry. She told me that she has twice been in love—once as a man and once, since transitioning, as a woman. Both relationships were exactly the same. Both had highs and lows. Both were founded on love. The first of these relationships was able to be celebrated publicly. They married, and thus the relationship gained society's blessing. After the death of his wife, who was the only person he had previously told of his struggles with his gender, he decided to transition. Since transitioning, she found love again, and again with a woman, but no matter how this relationship is valued by her family, friends, colleagues and community it is somehow less valued.

She explained that she is still the same person she was when married many years ago but that she is more honest now, with herself and with her community. If the first relationship deserved recognition as a marriage, it is only just that the second one does too. The only difference is her gender. In her current life, she has chosen to be more honest with society about who she is. Remarkably, if she had not undergone transitioning therapy and legally changed her sex, she would be legally allowed to marry. This great country rewards people for their honesty. We must remove this barrier that prevents decent people from being fully honest with themselves and their community.

As Australians we pride ourselves on our abilities on the sporting field. I recently learnt of the discrimination a Tasmanian couple faced at their local golf club, which is always looking for new members, when they decided to join as partners. One was a successful golfer, having represented Tasmania on a number of occasions. Her new partner was also keen to join as she knew quite a number of the members and thought it would be fun. The behaviour from some of the club members, who had previously known her partner when she was a married straight woman, was extremely hurtful to them both. Although they acted no differently to any other couple at the club, her partner was never welcomed as a new member. The club has a membership discount for married couples and of course these women could not qualify for it. They told me that it was not the money that hurt; it was the attitude that they were lesser members of the club even though one had been a champion many times and the other was known and liked by many members outside of this setting. As you might expect, the burden of continual exclusion and snide remarks resulted in the women resigning from the club. This provides another example of how continuing to deny marriage equality instils discrimination within our society.

But attitudes change with time. At the Tasmanian Labor state conference there was a contribution in support of marriage equality from a man who formerly looked upon homosexuality as wrong. He spoke of his struggle when his son came out, a struggle to comprehend his son's sexuality that soon turned to how he could best support his son. As his son is now in a loving relationship, he spoke of his wish for his son to be able to marry the partner that he loves in front of his family and friends. We must remember that it was only in 1997 that sodomy was decriminalised in Tasmania. But only seven years later Tasmania became the first state in Australia to recognise same-sex couples. The state continues to lead the country with support for same-sex couples. Now, in Senator Carol Brown's recent survey of over 1,000 Tasmanians, over 55 per cent of respondents were in favour of marriage equality.

In Australian law there has always been a clear distinction between civil and religious marriages. People are able to be wed in a civil ceremony. A religious body is able to choose not to wed a couple and should remain free to have this choice. People of different religions are able to be wed and not all forms of marriage are permissible under law even if they are allowed under a religious text. In recent years two-thirds of marriages have been conducted in a civil ceremony with no involvement or mention of religion. However, people are currently not free to have a wedding without discrimination. A marriage celebrant must, regardless of the wishes of the bride and groom, include in the monitum the Marriage Act's current definition of marriage. Without these words a marriage cannot be solemnised. A marriage celebrant recently highlighted to me the growing dissatisfaction of brides and grooms that these words must be used on their special day. That a phrase a majority of our society feel is discriminatory and should be repealed must be recited for a marriage to be solemnised is so unfortunate. Is it not enough that same-sex attracted people are prohibited from marriage in this country?

I acknowledge that this debate is difficult, that the community is divided and that, for many, overcoming long-held prejudices is tough. But that is why we need strong leadership from the Labor Party at our national conference next week. We need the government to stand united on this issue, recognising that one of the Labor Party's great strengths is its unity in fighting to promote equality, fairness and dignity for all. This is the time to remove the last piece of legislation that fuels that discrimination in this country.

I thank Jenny, Jen, Peter, Martine and Maxine for sharing their stories with me. I hope that this place will do our little bit to make their lives that bit better. Let us finish the great work done in 2008 when this parliament removed discrimination against same-sex de facto couples in over 85 pieces of Commonwealth legislation. Let us change the Marriage Act to support equality for all and to give Jen, Jenny, Peter, Martine and Maxine that equality that they long for and so richly deserve.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak in support of the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, or White Ribbon Day, as it is now known, which this year occurs on Friday, 25 November. Statistics continue to show that one in three women over the age of 15 experiences violence in their lifetime, and one in five experiences physical violence. It is widely known that domestic violence is not just physical violence. It also encompasses sexual, emotional and psychological forms of violence. According to findings of the National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children:

... a central element of domestic violence is that of an ongoing pattern of behaviour aimed at controlling one's partner through fear (for example, by using violent or threatening behaviour) ... the violent behaviour is part of a range of tactics used by the perpetrator to exercise power and control ... and can be both criminal and non-criminal in nature.

The awful truth is that domestic violence also kills women. The most likely scenario for the homicide of an Australian woman is at home at the hands of an intimate partner. This might be something that Australians do not want to think about or do not want to concede is happening, but the reality is that violence against women is happening in the suburbs and towns each one of us lives in. Of 260 Australian homicides tracked by the National Homicide Monitoring Program of the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2007-08, 52 per cent were classified as domestic homicides.

A third of women who were interviewed by the International Violence Against Women Survey felt their lives were in danger in the most recent incident of domestic violence. And research from VicHealth showed domestic violence is the leading risk factor contributing to death, disability and illness in Victorian women between the ages of 15 and 44—a higher risk than from smoking, from alcohol use, from high blood pressure or from heart disease.

It is not just the social devastation that pervades our communities; the evidence of the economic damage is also significant. In 2002-03, the cost of domestic violence to Australia was estimated at $8.1 billion, $3.5 billion of which was attributable to pain, suffering and premature mortality, according to Access Economics. Domestic and family violence is also the major cause of homelessness for women and their children. Victims will often cycle in and out the doors of homelessness services as they return home to try to reconcile with their partner.

A World Health Organisation study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence Against Women has found:

Each culture has its sayings and songs about the importance of home, and the comfort and security to be found there. Yet for many women, home is a place of pain and humiliation.

… violence against women by their male partners is common, wide-spread and far-reaching in its impact. For too long hidden behind closed doors and avoided in public discourse, such violence can no longer be denied as part of everyday life for millions of women.

White Ribbon is Australia's campaign to stop violence against women. White Ribbon Day targets all Australians, but especially men and boys, and asks them to swear an oath 'never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women'.

The Western Australian Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services describes White Ribbon as:

… the only national violence prevention campaign, and it is unique in that it aims to raise awareness among Australian men and boys about the roles they can play to prevent violence against women …

In swearing and wearing a white ribbon, men and boys can act as positive role models and advocates for change by challenging behaviours and attitudes that have allowed of violence against women to occur.

There are currently around 1,600 White Ribbon ambassadors nationally, and about 130 of those are from my home state of Western Australian. The Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, is a White Ribbon ambassador, as are Western Australians such as my state colleagues Christian Porter, the Western Australian Treasurer, and Michael Mischin MLC, former Governor of WA Dr Ken Michael, West Coast Eagles footballer David Wirrpanda and Chief Justice Wayne Martin. There is no limit to the capacity of men to educate others and drive the cultural change towards total condemnation of all forms of violence against women. I would encourage more men to consider what positive change they can make by becoming an ambassador or signing up to take the oath, which in itself is a very strong message and a big commitment.

The private nature of domestic relationships means that data collection of domestic violence is difficult and also that a great number of women who are victims are unlikely to report the abuse. Women are less likely to consider violence or abuse from their partner as criminal behaviour compared with violence or abuse from strangers. The coalition has, and has always maintained, a zero tolerance approach to violence against women. The coalition believes that keeping women and their families safe from violence is central to ensuring their security and prosperity. Violence devastates our social fabric and prevents women from achieving social and economic equality.

The safety of women was a top priority for the former Howard government. Through the Women's Safety Agenda, the former Howard government committed $75.7 million over four years, from July 2005, to prevent, reduce and respond to domestic and family violence and sexual assault. The Women's Safety Agenda addressed four broad themes: prevention, health, justice and services. The initiatives included the national Violence Against Women—Australia Says No campaign and the national 24-hour helpline.

In 2005, former federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner and shadow minister for women and community services in New South Wales, Pru Goward, said:

As Sex Discrimination Commissioner I am often asked what is the greatest challenge for women's human rights in Australia—the answer has to be violence against women. If women cannot expect to be safe in their own homes and communities, how can they expect equality in society?

The idea that what happens behind the closed door of a family home or a private residence is the business of its occupants has long passed. The private realm is not outside the bounds of the law. This cultural change has begun, but the stark reality is that domestic violence destroys lives, families and communities, and there is still much work to be done to change attitudes and behaviours. The coalition fully supports White Ribbon and all the work that it is undertaking.

On another topic, I had the privilege of representing the Leader of the Opposition at the Australian Netball Awards of 2011 on Saturday night in Melbourne. The dinner, aptly themed 'Our time to shine', was a special night for netball where Netball Australia recognised past and present achievements both on and off the court. I have spoken of the exceptional achievements of the Australian Diamonds and Netball Australia previously in this chamber, but I would like to reaffirm that it was an outstanding year for Australian netball with the Diamonds claiming their 10th World Netball Championship title, defending the Constellation Cup and heading into 2012 as the No. 1 team in the world. That is right—the Australian Diamonds are the No. 1 netball team in the world. This is an achievement that all Australians should be proud of.

As set out on the Netball Australia website in relation to the award ceremony, Australian Diamonds defender Laura Geitz capped off a remarkable 12 months by winning the coveted Liz Ellis Diamond and ANZ Championship Player of the Year honours at the award ceremony. Laura Geitz is just 24 but is a remarkable role model for Australian women and girls. She adds to her 2011 ANZ Championship premiership Network Ten's 2011 ANZ Championship Player of the Year and the 2011 World Netball Championship winner's medallion. The highest individual honour in Australian netball, the Liz Ellis Diamond, is named after former captain and most capped Australian player of all time, Liz Ellis, who was on hand to present Geitz with a $5,000 cheque and the superb one-carat diamond from Michael Wilson Diamond Jewellers.

Kimberlee Green was named Holden Australian International Player of the Year, recognising her outstanding performance during the Holden Netball Test Series when she stepped in to the centre position following an injury to captain Natalie von Bertouch. Diamonds shooter Catherine Cox was named New Idea's favourite Diamond by the publication's readers.

In closing, I echo the comments of Noeleen Dix, President of Netball Australia, who thanked everybody for being part of the special evening, extending her thanks to everyone in the netball community—the players, coaches and umpires—whose dedication and passion have allowed them to reach the pinnacle in their sport, being the world champions.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, earlier this year I participated in a delegation to Africa. That formed part of the committee's inquiry into Australia's relationship with the continent. Together we visited South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ghana and Ethiopia. The committee's comprehensive report was tabled back in June.

Tonight I will address one of the recommendations of the committee. While not forming a central theme within the committee's report, it is nevertheless of vital importance to Australia's mining industry. Let me first provide some context on what I suspect is a little known feature of Australia's relationship with Africa. In this time of global financial insecurity, we are blessed with a wealth of mineral riches in Australia. We are also blessed, thanks to generations of good government, with sound governance arrangements, allowing for the extraction of minerals in a socially and economically responsible way, providing financial returns for the common good. We have efficient transport, good technology, environmental safeguards, and the protection of the public interest in a free market economy, all of which we take for granted. Yet across the Indian Ocean the African continent is only opening the first chapter on perhaps the same experience. Let us hope that it can be, because on the proper development of minerals in Africa rests the greatest contributor to its political, economic and social salvation.

It is estimated Africa has about 30 per cent of world mineral resource production, broken up as follows: bauxite, 43 per cent; copper, 13 per cent; diamonds, 27 per cent; gold, 21 per cent; iron ore, 17 per cent; nickel, 6.5 per cent; platinum, 78 per cent; and uranium, 38 per cent. Goodness knows what the potential resource base might be, as survey work is probably best described as being in its infancy. In commodities such as bauxite, iron ore, copper and uranium, Africa has the potential to be a major competitor to Australia. This is especially true of trade with China, with which it is already deeply engaged. Australia's interest in Africa, however, is much more. It is reported that 150 ASX listed mining and exploration companies are active in 40 African countries. Others estimate that as many as 230 companies could be involved in a wide range of interests. Of these companies, 30 are estimated to have African based operations, with a further 50 routinely involved on assignments. It is a very active part of the Australian mining industry, with estimates of $24 billion in investments.

At government level there has also been a longstanding association. The Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism has an active remit for advice. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is engaged, particularly in conjunction with Austrade and AusAID. State agencies also have an important role to play overseeing mining industry development, extraction and export. More than any other country in the world, we have a long history of the institutional stability and know-how African countries crave. There are myriad ways Australia can assist African countries to maximise the benefits of a profitable mining industry. The obvious area for many is skills transfer, in which we are rich. More-stable African countries, such as Ghana, are said to have that capacity.

However, the area which most caught my attention is that of legal regimes and the appropriate regulatory framework. The importance of a stable institutional framework and sound regulatory frameworks for Africa cannot be underestimated. In fact a key recommendation in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade was that:

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism should establish and fund a special unit tasked with establishing a regulatory framework model for the mining and resources sector which African countries could consider adopting according to their requirements

I quote that in full knowledge of the massive demands it would place on the aid budget. This is especially true in areas of humanitarian effort such as health, education and other social infrastructure assistance.

However, to repeat my earlier point, nowhere could assistance have more long-term economic benefit than in addressing regulatory regimes. The fact is that since the time of early multinational colonial settlement, the attitude to mining in Africa has been one of crude exploitation. Indeed it is still said that the greatest attraction of mining in Africa is that returns can be in excess of 100 per cent. That is, of course, if the appropriate risks are taken. As WA exporters to Africa, who currently have a trade valued at $427 million annually, have found, those risks are many. The most serious risk of course is political instability. This is fed by serious levels of corruption and the lack of simple and transparent legal regimes, occurring across the board. Added to that is limited financial capacity, poor infrastructure, clogged and inefficient ports and poor transport. There is also ineffective government administration.

Yet, with respect to mining in particular, some African nations are looking for assistance. Some are already engaged with government mining regulators in both Western Australia and Queensland. They speak highly of the codes in these two states. They speak highly of the state agreements system in Western Australia. Indeed, during the committee's visit African officials and ministers could not have made their request more strongly—hence the committee's recommendation. They know that without such legal foundations the benefits flowing from mineral riches cannot be tapped for the national good. They know that without those foundations foreign investment is difficult to attract. They know that control over exploration and development is needed to ensure investment in economic and social infrastructure and to generate worthwhile jobs. Therefore the need for regulatory investment is paramount. Addressing social symptoms is worthy and understandable, although it is a poor alternative to building economic capacity. That is a simple truism. At the same time, the difficult nature of the task should not be underestimated. I am indebted to the 2009 submission by Geoscience Australia to AusAID in which the complexity of such regulatory regimes is explained in detail.

The effects of the 'resources curse' are well understood: exploitative behaviour leads to poor financial practices, corruption, environmental degradation and social unrest. It is recognised that, in the short term, the successful growth of mining industries depends on the good practices of international companies. I acknowledge the evidence that companies such as BHP Billiton, Paladin, Rio Tinto and others adopt the same standards that apply in Australia when local standards are inadequate, in the knowledge that international standards are also. Here I should note that many Australian companies are signatories to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. The Gillard government has joined 11 other nations to support the initiative on a pilot basis. The announcement was made on 4 November by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Rudd, and the Minister for Resources and Energy, Mr Ferguson. Funding of over $12 million will support the initiative.

Proper governance has its roots in political stability, strong institutions, full transparency and effective accountability. A tall order for some, but there is growing evidence of success that now needs to be built upon with adequate regulation. The emphasis must be on sustainability, certainty in the investment environment and strong commitment to economic infrastructure. A good regulatory environment can provide all of this.

Most important for investment certainty is the need for established law and regulation on granting mining tenements—that is, after granting exploration permits, the issue and certainty through legal protection of mining leases for the long term. There also needs to be certainty around the application of royalty regimes. Underpinning all is the means by which mining companies and governments agree on both exploration and development. The process must be transparent, consistent, fair and predictable in such a way that long-term investment is low and financial risk is low. Hence, the importance of what Geoscience calls a draft template, so gaps can be identified and filled from ready-made examples.

This is a large and complex area crying out for Australian assistance. We have the corporate support and wealth of operational knowledge. I have spoken to my colleagues the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Resources and Energy, who are both very committed to this process. (Time expired)

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

Before I call Senator Macdonald, it is encouraging to know that senators are included in Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee delegations.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I recently received an invitation from the Board of Directors of the Tweed Aboriginal Cooperative Society to attend the 50th anniversary celebration luncheon honouring a Miss Margaret Kay and to pay tribute to the first Aboriginal senator appointed to the Australian parliament some 40 years ago in 1971. Indeed, that celebration will recognise the birthplace of former Senator Neville Bonner AO. Unfortunately, because of prior commitments I was unable to accept the invitation but I have sent my best wishes.

I do not know Miss Kay, but clearly she is a community leader of note and has obviously done much for the people of her community over many years. However, tonight I want to speak in the Senate to acknowledge the 40th anniversary of the appointment by the government of Queensland, on the nomination of the Queensland division of the Liberal Party of Australia, of Neville Bonner to fill the vacancy in the Senate caused by the resignation of Senator the Hon. Dame Annabelle Rankin, thus marking the first person of Aboriginal descent to become a member of the parliament of Australia.

I knew Neville Bonner reasonably well in those days following his appointment to the Senate. I was always impressed with his ability, his genuineness, his care for others and his determination to help all Australians regardless of background or race. In doing that he helped improve the lives and futures of the people of Aboriginal descent. I well remember Neville always insisting to me as a young Liberal, in the early days of his term as a senator for Queensland, that he was a senator for Queensland and not a senator for any one particular cause or group of people. He was obviously very proud of his Aboriginal heritage and wanted to do everything he could to help that disadvantaged group, but he was always insistent that he was a senator for all Queenslanders.

I assisted Neville in his campaigns for election to the Senate in the years following his appointment in 1971, and I was always pleased to welcome him to North Queensland. I fondly remember one night when he was visiting Ayr, but for some reason did not have any accommodation, and he accepted my invitation to stay in my bachelor's pad for the night. My place in those days was party central in Ayr, and I was always proud and even a little nonplussed that Neville had chosen to stay in my flat, notwithstanding its local reputation.

I fondly remember in later years when Neville, by accident, came into a room in the Innisfail Conservatorium building where the Apex service club—the young men's service club—was having its annual zone convention. Neville came in by a side door of the room where Apexians were holding their convention and was so well and favourably known that the convention stopped its business and, as one, started applauding Senator Bonner, who then immediately walked onto stage to deliver his address. It was only after he had been going for a little while that the chairman of the Apex meeting interrupted him and pointed out that he had actually come into the wrong room in the building and that he was scheduled to speak to another group of people in another part of the complex. But having done that he was then invited to speak to Apexians off the cuff about his work to assist disadvantaged people, and he won the hearts of all Apexians with his genuine compassion and concern.

Neville Bonner was born in 1922 in Ukerebagh Island at Tweed Heads in northern New South Wales, and I am delighted that the Tweed Aboriginal Cooperative Society has chosen to acknowledge Neville's election to the Senate with this function on 8 December this year. During his life, Neville had many jobs around Queensland. Even though his formal education was very brief—basically one year at the Beaudesert State School in 1935—he was clearly prepared to work. In his life he worked as a dairy hand, station hand, stockman and vegetable picker. He did tree clearing, ring barking and fencing. He worked as a cane cutter around Ingham and as a native policeman. He then managed a dairy farm and worked as a labourer on the Brisbane City Council. He had his own business manufacturing boomerangs under the trade name of Bonnerang. He also worked as a carpenter for the Moreton Shire Council. He attempted to enlist during World War II but at the time, unfortunately, army enlistment was not encouraged by people of Aboriginal descent.

Neville and his wife spent a significant part of their lives on Palm Island off the coast of Townsville, where their children were born and where, apart from a brief stint on the mainland, they lived from 1945 to 1960. Neville is perhaps best known for his involvement in a OPAL, the One People of Australia League, which was formed in 1961 to channel Queensland government assistance to areas of Aboriginal need. As he says in his recorded conversation, 'OPAL's ultimate goal was to weld the coloured and white citizens of Australia into one people.' In 1965 he was elected to OPAL's state committee and served as the league's president from 1968 to 1974. Neville once accepted an invitation by some friends to attend a Liberal party meeting and, although he always considered himself a Labor voter, he went along and was impressed with the party documents and particularly a statement of liberal beliefs by the late Sir Robert Menzies. During the campaign of May 1967, leading up to the successful referendum by the Liberal government to change the Constitution to give the Commonwealth the power to make laws for Aboriginal people, Bonner handed out how-to-vote cards for the Liberal Party. He says in his recorded story that he was challenged by the local MHR, Bill Hayden—later Labor leader and Governor-General—who argued that the ALP did more for Aboriginals than the Liberals did. Bonner was annoyed that Labor should presume the automatic support of Aboriginal people and decided to join the Liberal Party, becoming a member of the One Mile Branch in 1967. From there Neville became very involved in the Liberal Party organisation and was elected to the state executive of the party. He stood for preselection for the half Senate election in 1970 but as No. 3 on the ticket was unsuccessful. But in 1971, on the retirement of Dame Annabelle Rankin, he obtained the party's nomination for the casual vacancy in the Senate.

Senator Bonner, whilst a loyal member of the Liberal Party, did not always vote with the party. He crossed the floor of the Senate on some 34 occasions during his term. Of course, as a Liberal he was able to do that. Had he been a member of the Labor Party he would have been expelled after the first show of independence. Senator Bonner had a very auspicious and distinguished career in the Senate and by the power of his argument, and the fact that he crossed the floor on many occasions to get a better deal for the causes he espoused, he was able to implement a number of changes for the benefit of Australians. As Neville Bonner said in his maiden speech on 8 September 1971:

I assure honourable senators that I have not attended a university or a high school and, for that matter, I do not know that I can say that I have spent very much time at a primary school. But this does not mean that as a Senator from Queensland I am not able to cope. I have graduated through the university of hard knocks. My teacher was experience. However, I shall play the role which my State of Queensland, my race, my background, my political beliefs, my knowledge of men and circumstances dictate. This I shall do, through the grace of God, to the benefit of all Australians.

As he concluded his maiden speech:

I look forward to my association with my fellow senators. I trust that our deliberations will be, in fact, for the true welfare of all Australians.

There are many books written about Neville Bonner to which senators may care to refer. Indeed, there is an article by Tim Rouse which describes a great person and a great career.

On 5 February 1999 Neville Thomas Bonner AO passed away. There are very fitting tributes made to Neville Bonner by then Prime Minister John Howard, opposition leader Kim Beazley and the late David Jull—a good mate of Neville Bonner's—recorded in the Hansard of 8 February 1999. There was an equally significant speech by the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Robert Hill, on 15 February. These tributes give a snapshot of the very high regard in which Neville Bonner was held by all sides of Australian politics.

I was very proud to have known Neville as a member of the Liberal Party. Although he fought some tough preselection battles, and did succeed, it was the double dissolution of 1983 that led to him being dropped from first position to third position on the Liberal Senate ticket. This unwinnable spot caused Neville to resign from the Liberal Party and run as an independent, and he only just missed out on being elected. I was ever so delighted in 1998 to be present at a national convention of the Liberal Party held at that time in Queensland when the Prime Minister was able to confer upon him life membership of the Queensland division of the Liberal Party, an honour that he accepted warmly.

Neville Bonner was a great Australian, a great Queenslander and a leader of his people. In my view he started the public push to restore Aboriginal people to their rightful place in this country. Indeed I think his very strong involvement in the One People of Australia League says it all. For me it was an honour and a privilege to have known this fine man, the first Aboriginal person ever to be elected to the parliament of Australia.

Senate adjourned at 22:26

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, upon notice, on 22 August 2011:

In regard to the Clean Energy Future document, 'What a carbon price means for you', which was sent to all households:

(1) In relation to the paper used for the document:

(a) where was the paper sourced;

(b) was the paper made in Australia, if not, where was it made;

(c) where did the pulp that made the paper originate;

(d) what was the type of paper used;

(e) what was the total cost of the purchase of the paper; and

(f) which company was successful in providing the paper.

(2) With reference to the statement 'China is now the world's largest manufacturer of both solar panels and wind turbines' (p. 5), what quantity of these solar panels and wind turbines are manufactured for export to other countries in the world, including Australia.

(3) With reference to the statement that 'by 2020 the carbon price package will take 160 million tonnes of pollution out of the atmosphere every year'(p. 6), does that statement take into account the possibility of any carbon leakage whatsoever from manufacturing moving from Australia to other countries.

(4) With reference to the statements 'average incomes grow strongly' and 'national employment is projected to increase by 1.6 million jobs by 2020' (p. 7), does this modelling indicate that the growth in average incomes and employment will be slower than if there had not been a carbon price imposed; if so, why was this not stated in the document.

(5) With reference to the statement 'some businesses will pass on the carbon price' (p. 8), can a detailed list be provided of businesses which are anticipated will not pass on the carbon price.

(6) Does the document refer to the increased marginal tax rates increasing:

  (a) if not, why not; or

  (b) if so, by how much will the marginal tax rates increase.

(7) With reference to the statement that '9 in 10 households will receive tax cuts, increased payments, or both' (p. 14):

  (a) is it acknowledged that not all of those 9 in 10 households will in fact be better off; and

  (b) is it a fact that less than 50 per cent of the population will be better off if Treasury's modelling and assumptions are accepted.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) In relation to the paper used for the Clean Energy Future: What a carbon price means for you document:

  (a) The paper was sourced from Australia.

  (b) The paper was made at the Australian Paper Mill in Maryvale, Victoria.

  (c) The pulp originated in Australia and was manufactured at Australian Paper Maryvale from wood sourced from VicForests and Hancock Victorian Plantations. Both suppliers hold Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification chain of custody and both suppliers are accredited to the Australian Forestry Standard.

  (d) The type of paper used was 100 grams per square metre Envi offset Carbon Neutral.

  (e) The total cost of the purchase of the paper was $1,080,000.00 (GST exclusive).

  (f) Australian Paper was successful in providing the paper.

(2) According to the International Energy Agency document Technology Roadmap: Solar photovoltaic energy, 95 per cent of China's photovoltaic systems are manufactured for export. According to the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century document Renewables 2011: Global status report, China was the top installer of wind turbines and by the end of 2010 had the largest renewable energy capacity (including hydro) in the world.

(3) The statement, 'by 2020 the carbon price package will take 160 million tonnes of pollution out of the atmosphere every year', refers to the reductions in Australia's net national emissions.

(4) As stated in the Treasury modelling report Strong Growth, Low Pollution: Modelling a carbon price, the modelling shows that with a carbon price real wages grow slightly more slowly than without a carbon price and the level of employment is largely unaffected. However, this exercise modelled the impact of a carbon price on the economy but did not model the impact of climate change on the economy. For a net assessment of the impacts of climate change policy on both the economy and people's welfare, both would need to be taken into account. Previous studies which have done this, such as the Garnaut Review (2008) and the Stern Review (2006), both conclude the costs of action are smaller than the costs of inaction. The Clean Energy Future: What a carbon price means for you document only provides a summary of the modelling results. The reader is directed to the Treasury modelling report, Strong Growth, Low Pollution (2011), for more information.

(5) The Treasury modelling was undertaken at an industry level. As a result, it is not possible to provide details of individual businesses. However, businesses which are not anticipated to pass on carbon price impacts are in heavily trade exposed industries and for this reason will recieve assistance through the Jobs and Competitiveness Program.

(6) Page 12 of the Clean Energy Future: What a carbon price means for you document, says, 'While some statutory tax rates will be higher, the combined changes mean this will better match the effective rate that a lot of taxpayers are actually paying at the moment. All taxpayers under $80,000 will pay less tax, and those on higher incomes will pay no more tax than they do now.' The document further directs readers to the Clean Energy Future website at: www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/What_a_carbon_price_means_to_you.pdf, where more information about the changes to the statutory personal tax rates and thresholds is available.

(7) (a) Page 14 of the Clean Energy Future: What a carbon price means for you document states that 'around 90 per cent of households will receive assistance to help meet the impact of the carbon price on their costs of living'. The inside cover states that, 'almost 6 million households will be assisted to meet their average price impact', of which, 'over 4 million households will get assistance that is at least 20 per cent more than their average price impact'.

  (b) Two in three households will get some combination of tax cuts or increased payments that cover their expected average price impact.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, upon notice, on 15 September 2011:

(1) How many asylum seekers were transferred in the first group, and can a detailed breakdown be provided of the cost of transporting the first group to the centre.

(2) What is the anticipated total cost of transporting asylum seekers to the centre.

(3) Will the centre still close in October, as initially committed to by the Government; if not, why not, and when.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

The first group of 35 asylum seekers were transferred to Pontville Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) 1 September 2011.

The total cost for transporting this group via charter flight from Curtin IDC to Pontville IDC was $185 900.

Decisions to transfer asylum seekers between immigration detention facilities are based on careful consideration of a range of factors, including individual client circumstances; the overall capacity and occupancy of facilities within the detention network; staffing; interpreter and service provider requirements; the good order and safety of each facility; and appropriate management of any health or security risks to the community.

Due to the dynamic nature of the immigration detention population, and associated accommodation requirements, it is difficult to estimate specific anticipated transport costs for asylum seeker transfers to particular facilities.

As the Minister has said, Pontville IDC will close on 1 March 2012, six months from when it opened on 1 September 2011.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 19 September 2011:

In relation to the Minister's media release entitled 'New health and safety regulations to boost national productivity' issued on 14 September 2011:

(1) On what date and time was the media release placed on the Minister's website.

(2) On what date and time was the attachment, the Decision regulation impact statement for national harmonisation of work health and safety regulations and codes of practice uploaded to the website.

(3) Why does this statement not appear on the Safe Work Australia website.

(4) On what date and at what time was it decided to release the report to the public and who made the decision and on whose advice.

(5) Did the Minister or his office receive any requests for a copy of the report on 14 September 2011; if so, how many requests were there received and in each instance, were copies of the report provided; if not, why not.

(6) Which industry stakeholders were provided with advance copies of the statement and when were they provided.

(7) Did the Workplace Relations Ministers Council resolve to release this report; if not, under whose authority was the report released.

(8) What consultation with other members of the Workplace Relations Ministers Council, if any, was done on the release of the report prior to release.

(9) Under whose direction was the report released to select journalists prior to the public release of the statement, and in each instance, on what date and time was the copy provided and what was the name of the journalist.

(10) Had any party or stakeholder requested an advance copy of the report; if so: (a) who and how many; (b) were any of these requests granted; if so, on what grounds, who received an advance copy and on what date was it provided; and (c) for those requests that were not granted, on what basis were they rejected.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

The Regulation Impact Statement for the Model OHS Regulations and First Stage Codes of Practice was prepared by Safe Work Australia. Safe Work Australia consists of representatives of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments as well as ACCI, Ai Group and the ACTU.

Consistent with the requirements of the Office of Best Practice Regulation, the Minister provided copies of the approved Regulation Impact Statement for the Model OHS Regulations and First Stage Codes of Practice to members of the Workplace Relations Minsters' Council (WRMC) on 13 September 2011.

At 8.38am on 14 September 2011, Safe Work Australia provided its members with a copy of the approved Regulation Impact Statement. At 9.18am on the same day, the Minister issued a media release announcing the findings of the Regulation Impact Statement.

The approved Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) was attached to the media release on 15 September 2011 at 10.45am.

As is the usual practice, the Office of Best Practice Regulation will publish a copy of the approved Regulation Impact Statement on its website once WRMC has made its decision. At this point, Safe Work Australia will also publish a copy on its website.

The approved Regulation Impact Statement is not a confidential document. If members of WRMC wish to provide copies of the Regulation Impact Statement to stakeholders, then that is a matter for them.

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, upon notice, on 19 September 2011:

In regard to cost estimates of the Coalition's direct action scheme:

(1) Given that on 2 March 2011, the Minister put out a press release on cost estimates of the 'Coalition's Direct Action policy', citing analysis undertaken by the Department, is the Minister familiar with that analysis?

(2) Given that the Minister's statement claimed that the department's figures showed that the Coalition's Direct Action policy would cost more than $30 billion by 2020 rather than the claimed $10.5 billion, is the Department comfortable that the figures in its analysis are reliable?

(3) With reference to evidence given in a Senate hearing on 10 August by Treasury officials that, on Treasury advice, the Gillard Government had not prepared fiscal impact estimates of the Clean Energy Future package beyond the forward estimates (e.g. beyond 2014-15), and in particular, Ms Luise McCulloch, General Manager, Industry, Environment and Defence Division at Treasury who stated that estimates of fiscal impact beyond the forward estimates were 'unreliable' and 'misleading':

  (a) does the Department agree with Treasury that any fiscal estimate of climate policy proposals beyond 2014-15 would be 'unreliable' and 'misleading'; and

  (b) why has the Department issued cost estimates of the Coalition/Direct Action policy through to 2020 when Treasury has concluded that any fiscal estimate of climate policy proposals beyond 2014-15 would be unreliable and 'misleading'?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) The Minister is aware of the analysis contained in his media release of 2 March 2011.

(2) The Department considers that, based on the information available at the time, its analysis that the Coalition's Direct Action policy would be unlikely to achieve sufficient abatement to meet Australia's 2020 emissions targets remains valid. The Department's estimates of the fiscal cost of the Direct Action policy were based on the following public information sources from the Coalition and the Department:

The Department's analysis of the cost of the Coalition's Direct Action policy comprised two elements: the estimated cost of the Emissions Reduction Fund and the cost of purchasing international abatement to achieve the 5 per cent reduction.

(3) (a) The Department agrees with the Treasury that longer-term fiscal costings have a lower reliability than those over the forward estimates. The Department agrees with the Treasury that the fiscal estimate of climate change policies can only be prepared to budget quality over the forward estimates period.

  (b) The Department analysed the Coalition's Direct Action policy to the year 2020 in order to determine whether the policy would deliver Australia's 2020 bipartisan greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. The Department's analysis showed that the Direct Action policy could achieve approximately 25 per cent of the required emissions reduction. In the absence of further action, the Department considered the cost of achieving the shortfall in abatement through the purchase of international carbon permits.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 21 September 2011:

Are all aspects of the Fair Work Act 2009 working as intended; if not:

  (a) what sections or aspects of the Act are not working as intended;

  (b) what has the Government done to correct these areas; and

  (c) how does the Government intend to correct any areas of concern.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

Available evidence indicates that the Fair Work Act is working as intended. However, the Government notes concerns raised by some stakeholders. The scheduled review of the Fair Work Act will provide an opportunity to further examine the evidence relating to the operation of the Fair Work Act.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 21 September 2011:

(1) What preparatory work is being done by each of the following for the review of the Fair Work Act 2009:

(a) the department;

(b) Fair Work Australia;

(c) Fair Work Ombudsman;

(d) Australian Building and Construction Commission; and

(e) Safe Work Australia.

(2) Will the review occur as foreshadowed in the Fair Work Act, as a review on the principles of the Act or as a review with separate terms of reference.

(3) Who will conduct the review, and will it be conducted independently.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

(1) The preparatory work being done by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations for the post-implementation review (the 'Review') of the Fair Work Act 2009 includes:

Fair Work Australia, the Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner and Safe Work Australia have not undertaken specific preparatory work for the Review.

(2) The Review will involve an evidence-based assessment as to the operation of the legislation. Terms of reference for the Review will be settled in due course.

(3) The Review will be conducted independently, with further details to be announced in due course.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 5 October 2011:

Can the Minister confirm no judicial consideration has been given to sections 357 to 359 inclusive of the Fair Work Act 2009?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

There has been some judicial consideration given to these provisions. My Department is aware that section 357 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) has received judicial consideration in the following cases:

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.

My Department is not aware of any judicial consideration of sections 358 and 359 of the FW Act.

My Department is aware that the provisions have also been referred to, but without substantial consideration being given to their meaning and effect, in:

Lend Lease Project Management & Construction (Australia) Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 3)

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, upon notice, on 11 October 2011:

With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 689 (Senate, Hansard, 17 August 2011, p. 4762) and specifically (a) (viii):

  (a) what was provided for the sum of $7 880;

  (b) did this include the camera and camera personnel; and

  (c) can a list be provided of all that was bought for the sum of $7 880.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Human Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(a) Production support on 30 occasions in respect of information and training videos for Department of Human Services customers and staff. Services provided are a package which includes autocue operation and make-up services for major audio visual productions.

(b) No.

(c) See (a).

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice , on 12 October 2011:

(1) In regard to expenditure, can a breakdown be provided of total expenditure (departmental and administered) by program component and service within outcome 5 for:

  (a) the 2010-11 financial year; and

  (b) the forward estimates.

(2) In regard to staff, for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 financial years can a breakdown be provided of the number of staff that worked within each program, program component and service within outcome 5 by Australian public service level.

(3) In regard to regulations, can a breakdown be provided of the number of regulations that are associated with each program, program component and service within outcome 5.

(4) In regard to staff travel, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided for each program, program component and service within outcome 5 of the following:

  (a) the total value of flights (domestic and international) flown by employees who have the entitlement to travel, broken down by class (economy, premium economy, business, first); and (b) the total value of accommodation expenditure by employees employed who have the entitlement to travel.

(5) In regard to advertising, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of advertising expenditure by program, program component and service within outcome 5.

(6) In regard to hospitality and entertainment, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on hospitality and entertainment (food, beverages, alcohol, catering, room hire) by program, program component and service within outcome 5.

(7) In regard to information and communications technology, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on information and communications technology including equipment (computers, ipads, phones) and services (contractors), by program, program component and service within outcome 5.

(8) In regard to consulting, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on consulting by program, program component and service within outcome 5.

(9) In regard to staff education and training, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on staff education and training (university courses, classes, seminars, workshops) by program, program component and service within outcome 5.

(10) In regard to external accounting, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on external accountants by program, program component and service within outcome 5.

(11) In regard to external auditing, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on external auditing by program, program component and service within outcome 5.

(12) In regard to external legal advice, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on external legal advice by program, program component and service within outcome 5.

(13) In regard to memberships, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on memberships to stakeholder organisations by program, program component and service within outcome 5.

(14) Can a list of all office locations used by the department under outcome 5 be provided, by program, program component and service, indicating:

  (a) whether the office location is leased or owned;

  (b) its size (in square metres);

  (c) the value and depreciation of the buildings that are owned; and

  (d) the rent per square metre of the buildings that are leased.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator ' s question:

(1) (a) and (b), (2) to (3), (4) (a) and (b), (5) to (13) and (14) (a) to (d) To provide the information sought would entail a significant diversion of resources and I do not consider the additional work can be justified.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 31 October 2011:

In regard to the Fair Work Ombudsman, has any advice been provided to Fair Work Inspectors on their 'ethical obligations'; if so, what ethical obligations are Fair Work Inspectors advised to observe.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

Section 700(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 provides that the Fair Work Ombudsman may appoint a person as a Fair Work Inspector only if the Fair Work Ombudsman is satisfied that the person is of good character.

In order to meet this requirement, nominees for appointment as Fair Work Inspectors must sign a 'Good Character Declaration', a declaration that they have been informed of, and will perform their duties as inspectors in accordance with, their obligations under the Public Service Act 1999, the Fair Work Act 2009 and the APS Values and APS Code of Conduct. They must also declare that they are not engaged in any activities which would constitute any potential conflict of interest with respect to their duties as inspectors and that they are aware of the need to disclose any potential conflict of interest in relation to a particular case to their supervisors. They must also declare that they are not aware of any personal activities which, if made public, would bring their good character into question or compromise the activities of the Fair Work Ombudsman.

The nominee's reporting manager must also sign a declaration that to the best of his or her knowledge the nominated Fair Work Inspector is of good character. The manager must also declare that the applicant is aware of the powers and responsibilities in exercising the powers of a Fair Work Inspector under the Fair Work Act 2009.

'Fair Work Inspectors must also attend an induction training program which teaches the general skills, expectations and knowledge required of a Fair Work Inspector.' The training includes a practical exercise regarding ethical challenges faced by Fair Work Inspectors.'

The Australian Public Service (APS) Code of Conduct, set out in section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999, specifies the standards of behaviour and conduct that are expected of all APS employees. The APS Code of Conduct incorporates the APS Values set out at section 10 of the Act. The APS Code of Conduct and APS Values apply to all APS employees including Fair Work Inspectors.

The Australian Public Service Commission's Ethics Advisory Service provides advice and resources to APS employees for the application and interpretation of the APS Values and Code of Conduct. It is available to all APS employees seeking advice on ethical issues in the workplace. All Fair Work Inspectors can contact the Ethics Advisory Service either directly or via the Fair Work Ombudsman's Ethics Contact Officer.

The Fair Work Ombudsman has a policy on 'the APS Code of Conduct' and a guide on 'Handling Breaches of Conduct'.

All Fair Work Inspectors are required to identify and manage conflicts of interest.

Under the Fair Work Ombudsman ' s Risk Management Policy, all managers and staff are required to integrate risk management procedures and practices into their daily activities.

All SES employees, including those acting in SES jobs for longer than three months, are required to make a written declaration of financial and personal interests. Some non-SES employees whose responsibilities also require them to be particularly transparent about their private financial and personal interests, are required to make the declaration.

The Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is a confidential counselling service available to assist all Fair Work Ombudsman employees including Fair Work Inspectors, with a wide range of personal and/or work related concerns. It is a free service. It is available to give assistance for personal and work related concerns, including interpersonal conflicts and work environment problems.

The Fair Work Ombudsman provides ongoing training and education on ethical issues, such as a recent three-part video chronicle published on the intranet, about a fictional character Billy, who was found to be in breach of the APS Code of Conduct for sending inappropriate work emails.