1998-03-243816REPS137701998-03-24Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. I. McC. Sinclair) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Ministerial Arrangements13771377Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) will be absent from question time for the remainder of this week. He will be travelling to New Zealand to attend the annual Australia-New Zealand defence ministers' talks. The Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop) will ably answer questions on his behalf while he is absent.Questions Without Notice137713771377Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, on another matter, could I add to an answer that I gave yesterday, before question time formally commences?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is granted.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yesterday the member for Hotham asked me a question in the following terms:My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you recall telling the parliament that Senator Parer had declared to you his direct personal shareholding in QCMM Group (ESP)? Did Senator Parer also tell you that through that company he also had a 730,000 share interest in Pan Australian Resources NL?He then went on to make some remarks about the nature of that company's holdings in the mining sector.DT4CREANMr Crean—Read it out. We would like to be reminded.ZD4Mr HOWARD—You might not like to be reminded of what I am about to tell you. Mr Speaker, as a result of that question, I have had some inquiries made and it is the case that the company referred to in the honourable member's question did own some shares in Pan Australian Resources NL, but it is also the case that those shares were sold before Senator Parer became a minister. I repeat: those shares were sold before Senator Parer became a minister.I want to ask the honourable member: did you know that they had been sold before he became a minister? I think the honourable member for Hotham has misled the parliament. I say to the honourable gentlemen that those shares were sold. A rights issue attaching to those shares was subsequently made. That rights issue was paid for by the purchaser of the shares and the purchaser of the shares had no relationship at all to the minister or to the Parer family. The scrip for the rights issue was incorrectly issued to the ESP company and that was subsequently fixed up.But the bottom line is that you have misled the parliament. You have falsely accused Senator Parer of something and you owe Senator Parer an apology. You ought to be man enough to get up and give Senator Parer an apology. I will be interested to see if we have any more questions about QCMM (ESP).10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Are there any questions?DT4CREANMr Crean—On indulgence, Mr Speaker, because of the allegation of the Prime Minister, I seek leave to table the share register showing the holding.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted?Leave not granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Are there any questions?DT4CREANMr Crean—You are a fraud.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat.Questions Without Notice137713771377Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Senator Parer yesterday told the Senate in relation to his Pan Australian interests:I have no knowledge whatsoever of any investments. . . I had no record of any investments in Pan Aust—a fairly familiar term for someone who does not know anything about the company—I did not know about it. Is the Prime Minister aware that on 17 November 1995, five months before he became minister, the senator chaired a meeting of QCMM and involved himself in the detail of disposal by QCMM of Terra Firma interests to Pan Australian? Is he also aware that the discussion on the disposal involved Bob Bryan, current chair of Pan Australian, and that the meeting determined a continued role for QCMM and Kiskin in Pan Australian? How could Senator Parer claim ignorance of his interests in Pan Australian, and hasn't he misled the Senate yet again?1378Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The situation is that I have been informed that the shares held by QCMM (ESP) were disposed of before Senator Parer became a minister. I repeat: they were disposed of before Senator Parer became minister. Is the member for Hotham claiming that somebody who became a minister in March 1996 is in some way to be criticised for a commercial interest he may indirectly have had—DT4CREANMr Crean—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is this: my question was specific about his misleading of the Senate—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is within the standing orders. The honourable member will resume his seat.DT4CREANMr Crean—And I would ask you to ask the Prime Minister to answer that question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No amount of flustered hectoring from the member for Hotham can alter the fact that you owe the parliament an explanation as to why you made a false allegation. You owe the parliament an explanation. My advice is that those shares were sold before he became a minister.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I trust this is a relevant point of order. The honourable member for Hotham on a point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, my point of order is this—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When we have some silence, I will hear you.DT4CREANMr Crean—The Prime Minister is arguing—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will wait until I have called him. The honourable member for Hotham.DT4CREANMr Crean—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point of order is this: the Prime Minister is saying I owe the House an apology.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?DT4CREANMr Crean—I have sought to table the document—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is no point of order. Resume your seat.DT4CREANMr Crean—showing the shareholding—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat.DT4CREANMr Crean—and he—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Hotham.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Noise is no substitute for substance. According to my advice, these shares were sold in 1995, before Senator Parer became a minister. As to what Senator Parer said in the Senate yesterday, I will have a look at what Senator Parer said. I have long since learnt not to take the word of the member for Hotham for what somebody says in another chamber.13781378Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREWHE4WakefieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of any additional steps the government proposes to take to ensure full compliance with the national agreement on firearms control reached in 1996?1378Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Wakefield for that question. As I know all members of the parliament are aware and the Australian public is aware, the agreement willingly and freely entered into by all states and territories and the Commonwealth in 1996 brought to this country an unprecedented prohibition on the possession and use of dangerous firearms and was in response to an outraged Australian community in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy. That particular decision represented a collective determination by the governments of Australia, representing the people of Australia, to reject in this country the gun culture and to avoid Australia going down the path of the United States.I think it is fair to say that, overwhelmingly, that agreement has worked well; that there have been hundreds of thousands of weapons reclaimed in the buyback, which was financed by a special Medicare levy; that those weapons have been destroyed; and that Australia is undeniably a safer country, particularly for women and children, than it was before the nationwide agreement was concluded in 1996. It is therefore a matter of some concern to my government, and I think it would be a matter of concern to all members of this House, that there are some signs that some jurisdictions are endeavouring—however much at the periphery that endeavour may be—to water down in some way the national agreement.I want to say on behalf of the government that we are totally opposed to any watering down of the national agreement. It had been my intention at the Premiers Conference last Friday to put a proposition to the premiers and chief ministers to the effect that, firstly, all present should endorse the national agreement concluded in 1996, that there should be an examination and a report to the next COAG meeting about the extent of compliance with that agreement by the various jurisdictions and that in the meantime no state or territory government should take any action at all that could be regarded as watering down the agreement.It is now a matter of record that the premiers and chief ministers chose to leave that meeting and deliberately rejected my suggestion that the matter should be discussed. As a consequence of that, I have examined what steps can be taken by the Commonwealth to further strengthen observance of that agreement, having in mind the fact that the Commonwealth has no direct constitutional power to prohibit the sale of firearms in the various states. As a result of that, any action that we might be able to take under existing constitutional power would be limited to our authority regarding customs and some other matters, perhaps including the taxation power.I am therefore pleased to inform the House that as a first step the government will be putting a recommendation to His Excellency the Governor-General this afternoon so that, with effect from midnight tonight, there will be a ban introduced on the importation of weapons designated as category C in the 1996 agreement. The two exceptions allowed under that agreement are primary producers, subject to a police authorisation test which requires the police to certify that the user is a primary producer; and, secondly, sporting shooters, subject to a test that they meet the narrow exception for clay target shooters in the agreement. That will require the written authority of the Commonwealth Attorney-General.The amendments to the customs regulation will also allow licensed dealers to import a limited number of such firearms to be kept in bond for use by individuals who meet the tests and to take effect once appropriate custodial arrangements are in place. That is the first step being taken by the government to further strengthen compliance with the agreement.Let me say again to the states, let me say again to the premiers of all states, that the overwhelming desire of the Australian people, wherever they live, is to have full compliance with this agreement. We have limited constitutional power in this matter; the states have most of the constitutional power. I say again: we will use all of the constitutional power we have to enforce observance of the agreement. I hope a like attitude is taken by all premiers and all chief ministers.13791379Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, hasn't Senator Parer breached your code of conduct yet again by divesting to his family, a course prohibited by your code? I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls being asked by Derryn Hinch on 2GB on 14 October 1996:What if I put shares into a family trust that I have no say in, just my wife and my children have access to . . .And his answer:Well, the guidelines don't allow you to do that if you have owned the shares at the time the guidelines operate.Prime Minister, haven't you not only torn up the code but misled the public?1380Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will come to that but, before I do, I would like to, if I may, deal with a question that the member asked me yesterday. He asked me a question about Senator Parer and Kiskin. He asked me to tell the House whether Senate Parer told me that his $2 million holding in QCMM also involved 100 per cent ownership of a subsidiary called Kiskin.The situation is that there is a holding in Kiskin by the Parer family trust and that represents about two to 2½ per cent of Kiskin. As Senator Parer, I understand, told the Senate yesterday, the acquisition of the shares in Pan Aust. took place without any knowledge at all by Senator Parer. That was perfectly obvious because Senator Parer was not in fact involved in any way in the operation of QCMM when the acquisition took place.As the Leader of the Opposition will be aware, and as others in the opposition will be aware, the draft proposal regarding blind trusts that was circulated to the opposition and to the Leader of the Australian Democrats at the time quite correctly made the observation that references in guidelines to families ought to imply and ought to state that those references are meant to include spouses and children who are dependent upon the person who makes the transfer.Let me say to the honourable member for Perth that the whole purpose of the prohibition is to prevent a situation where somebody transfers nominal ownership of something to a body or a group of people over whom he has control. That is self-evidently the case with dependent children. When you have made a transfer to adult children, which is the situation in relation to Senator Parer, that clearly does not apply.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Has he disinherited them?UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—He is a non-custodial parent.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable members of the opposition will remain silent. The honourable member for Wills!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Could I further say to the honourable member for Perth—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Wills! When you are ready the Prime Minister can resume his answer. The Prime Minister has the call, but he will resume his place at the box when the House remains silent.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Get up and answer!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Lyons! If you want to leave the House, you may.ZD4Mr HOWARD—That debate can, in any event, be put to one side. The reality is that, for the circumstances that I explained on the first occasion when this matter was raised, Senator Parer has not been involved in any conflict of interest. The reality is that Senator Parer has not used his ministerial position to advantage his interests or the interests of his children. Senator Parer has not been guilty of any dishonesty. Senator Parer has not been involved in any conflict of interest. You have had now 2½ weeks to find a conflict of interest. You have totally failed and in the process you have deliberately misled the Australian parliament.138010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Deakin.1380Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—Thank you, Mr Speaker.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You do not have the call. The honourable member for Deakin has the call. The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He cannot interrupt a member in the middle of asking a question. You can have your point of order after that. You will resume your seat. The honourable member for Deakin will ask his question and then I will take the point of order.ZJ6Mr BARRESI—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Is the minister aware of the case of an Indian student who recently died on the Gold Coast from TB? Can the minister inform the House of the health testing procedures in place to protect the Australian community from such infectious diseases?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Hotham on a point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point of order is that I immediately jumped to my feet when the Prime Minister accused us—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—After somebody had the call. You will not question the Speaker's ruling.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!DT4CREANMr Crean—I am not questioning your ruling because I am up on my feet. But I am just trying to make the point—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You currently have the call, but you will not unless you make your point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—I am trying to make the point that I jumped up at the first point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?DT4CREANMr Crean—The Prime Minister accused me of deliberately misleading. I understand you to have previously said—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did not hear him say that.DT4CREANMr Crean—He did say that. If he did say it, I ask you to have him either withdraw it or move a substantive motion. Can I just say, why is it the Prime Minister alleges it when he refuses—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. Did the Prime Minister accuse the member of deliberately misleading?ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Since he is a bit sensitive I will say `misled'.DT4CREANMr Crean—Why won't you allow us to table the documentation?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. You do not have the call.1381Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question. I appreciate very much the interest that the member for Deakin displays in immigration questions and the constructive approach he takes on these matters. I am aware of the tragic case involving the student who died on the Gold Coast over this last week.The first point I would like to make in relation to the immigration program itself is that all migrants and long-term entrants to Australia are required to meet stringent health criteria that are designed to protect the Australian community and designed to protect us particularly from active tuberculosis where there is the possibility of transmission to other people.Those measures, which have been in place over a long period of time, are a very important part of the immigration program. In this particular case, the student was assessed, X-rays were taken and those X-rays divulged that he was suffering active TB. Unfortunately, he had been visaed incorrectly before that particular information had been received by the overseas post. That visaing should not have occurred. It had a tragic outcome for the student because he would have obviously been able to be treated if it had become known at an appropriate time. Certainly, that would have been the case because this was some seven months before he died.It was a tragic loss of his life, and it disclosed a number of irregularities which I will draw to your attention. First, a locally engaged staffer had the authority to deal with student visas. That locally engaged staffer incorrectly issued a visa without that information being taken into account. That locally engaged staffer has now been dismissed, because, quite clearly, he was not—RH4KERRMr Kerr—You have been replacing Australians with locally engaged staff.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I might say to the honourable member for Denison that it is a very tortuous route you go down if you want to go down that path and look at the nature of the delegations that were put in place under you and your colleagues—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that the minister reply through the chair.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Which I have been systematically reviewing and continuing to review to put right what has occurred. But I do not think you want to go down that path.There are further matters that are the subject of investigation, because this matter is of very serious concern. As a result of what we have discovered in relation to this matter, we have now embarked upon systematically checking, urgently, all of the visas that have been issued to students over the last 12 months, starting particularly in New Delhi, but also following those posts where TB is known to be a factor. We will then move to check all students who have been visaed because we want to be assured that there are no other students who have entered Australia in these circumstances.The further step that I have ordered to be taken is that from today all health deferrals issued by the Health Assessment Service in Australia will be entered on my department's movement alert list. That should ensure that even if a person receives a visa in future inappropriately, they will not be able to be entered into Australia because they will be on the movement alert list. This is a very important step. I want to assure the House that I regard health testing as absolutely crucial to being able to maintain an efficacious system.One ought not to be alarmist in relation to these matters because there is little evidence that there is significant transmission of active TB to the Australian born population from visitors or migrants overseas. In fact, it is more likely that contact is liable if somebody is travelling outside of Australia and meeting with people in other places where they are likely to have TB.The further information I would like to provide to the House is that the data from the national micro-bacterial surveillance scheme shows that Australia has experienced no increase in the incidence of tuberculosis over the last 20 years. In fact, over the last 10 years the incidence of tuberculosis has re mained at between five and six cases per 100,000. This is the lowest rate in the world, equalled only by Norway.13821382Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why did Senator Parer go to great length yesterday to tell us why he cannot sell his 16 shares in the coal mine worth $2 million but yet make no attempt to divest of his 44 shares in QCMM (ESP), which were issued to him at 1c each but are now worth $56,000, in continuing breach of your code? What sort of superannuation scheme provides such a return, Prime Minister? Is it not true that he can divest of these shares immediately? Why do you not insist that he does so? Isn't the reason for non-divestment that even larger benefits are due to accrue to Senator Parer in the future?1382Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—You always know when they have run out of new information. The telltale sign is that they repackage yesterday's question. The trouble is that yesterday's question has blown up in your face because you had the wrong facts.13821382Sharp, John, MPMr SHARPAJ4HumeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Can the minister inform the House of the government's efforts to attract doctors to rural and remote Australia? Can the minister inform the House of the success of those efforts?1382Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I have some good news for him. We have been determined to get more doctors into rural areas, as evidenced by the fact that we were prepared to have a substantial fight with the organised medical profession to introduce legislation in December 1996 that would make sure that doctors were fully trained before going into general practice.We have also instituted a number of reforms since coming to government, such as the John Flynn scholarships. Today 10 per cent of the medical students in Australia are on these scholarships, which give them exposure to rural and remote practice. By the end of the year, 20 per cent of all the medical students in Australia will be on such scholarships. We have allowed tax deductibility for communities supporting someone from their area to go to medical school. We have established departments of rural health, and we have improved arrangements for locum relief.I have just been made aware of the figures for the number of doctors practising in rural and remote areas for 1997 over 1996. Australia-wide, the number of GPs practising in urban areas dropped slightly, down 0.7 per cent. The number of GPs practising in rural areas went up four per cent in 1997 and the number of GPs practising in remote Australia went up nine per cent in March 1997.The pattern shows that what we are seeing is a lot of doctors who have not quite finished their training working in remote areas for a period of time. Even when you look at full-time equivalent doctors, for the first time in very many years in 1997 we had more doctors going into rural and remote areas than was the population growth in those areas. It is a good start. We clearly need to do a lot more, but it is a very welcome success.13831383Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that yesterday's statement by Senator Parer continues to breach your guidelines in three ways? Firstly, Senator Parer still holds $2 million worth of shares in Queensland Coal Mine Management; secondly, he still holds his personal shares—44—in QCMM (ESP); and, thirdly, he cannot divest to his family. Does not the device of moving control of the shares to his family only represent a parking of the benefit until such time in the future when he regains control, as well as the continuing capital accrual in the shares? Prime Minister, why do you and Senator Parer continue to mock your code?1383Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Another example that this is nothing new; just a repackaging. As you have not given me a new question, let me give you the bottom line of this whole situation. Senator Parer has done nothing as a minister which has in any way advantaged himself or any member of his family. Let me say that again: Senator Parer has not used his position as a minister to enrich himself or any member of his family. While he has been a minister, Senator Parer has not derived any income at all from any resource investments; Senator Parer has not been involved in any conflict of interest; Senator Parer has not done anything dishonest; and, on top of that, Senator Parer is a minister of great ability, and he continues to have my total support.13831383Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer explain why the gap between US 10-year notes and Australian 10-year bonds continues to be minimal at around 0.2 of one percentage point, despite the fact that the US economy is less reliant on trade with Asia? Does this prove that the Australian economy continues to be recognised by world financial markets as a strong and reliable economy in a volatile region?QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: under standing order 144 a question should not ask for an expression of opinion. Clearly, the second part of the question is nothing more than an attempt to express an opinion on this issue by the Treasurer. It should be ruled out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. The question, in fact, relates very much to a field in which we all have considerable interest, including the Treasurer. It falls within his responsibility. I call on the Treasurer to respond.1383Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to answer a question on interest rates. You will never get a question on interest rates out of the Labor Party in the House of Representatives; you will never get a question about tax out of the Labor Party; you will never get a question about jobs out of the Labor Party; and you will never get a question about debt out of the Labor Party. And, when you do get a question about interest rates, you have the brains trust of the Labor Party trying to prevent it from being answered. I welcome the fact that there are, on this side of the parliament, people who are interested in the things that the Australian public is interested in, particularly interest rates—and the member for North Sydney in particular.The member for North Sydney draws attention to the fact that there is a very low difference between long-term interest rates here in Australia compared to the United States. It was not always the case. In March 1996, Australian investors were paying 2.2 percentage points more in interest rates than they were in the United States. That was in March 1996. After the government brought down its first budget in August 1996 and set out a path to take the Australian economy back into low inflation growth with a budget coming back into balance, the differential had fallen to 0.5 percentage points—about a quarter. Today, as the government goes about its fiscal repair target, the differential is minimal, at only 0.2 percentage points. That is great news for Australians. No longer do Australians have to pay more for their interest rates than Americans or other people in other parts of the world. Why? Because we are making the big economic decisions. It reflects the fact that our policies have given the lowest inflation rate amongst industrialised nations, an economic growth rate which is amongst the highest in the developed world and a budget which is due to move into surplus for the first time in a decade. It is good news for Australian home buyers.We also look at the situation at the moment where we face one of the big challenges we have not faced in this country for a long time—the Asian financial downturn—something that no other Australian government had to grapple with in the last two decades. As you get weaker external demand with the strong internal demand, you will have pressure on the current account, a point that I have made on a number of occasions. But the good thing about the situation we now find ourselves in is that we go into this cyclical turn with much stronger financial fundamentals. In 1994-95, during the current account blow-out, the differential on interest rates was 2.5 percentage points; today it is 0.2. In the 1998-99 blow-out on the current account, the differential was 4¾ percentage points; now it is 0.2. And in the 1985-86 banana republic Labor first current account crisis the differential on the interest rates was 6½ percentage points. That was the first current account deficit crisis of Keating-Beazley Labor. At the moment it is 0.2 per cent compared to a position of 6½ percentage points.You might say that with good, strong growth, with low inflation, with a budget coming back into balance, and with the lowest standard variable mortgage rates that we have seen in the last 30 years, there are a lot of people who are going to say, `Perhaps you could risk the irresponsibility of Labor again.' But you cannot; people have got to know this. The Labor Party still has the same policy: unfunded promises, a budget deficit, a build-up of debt—pushing up interest rates and pushing up the burdens on Australian home buyers. I say this to the Australian home buyers, the people who are saving nearly $3,000 a year in relation to their mortgage interest rates: you cannot trust Labor. They have not learned a thing. And now is not the time to risk your financial affairs on an incompetent group like the Labor Party.13841384Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and follows the answers that he has given to his previous questions. Prime Minister, part of your code reads:Ministers are required to divest themselves of all shares and similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of their portfolio responsibilities. The transfer of interests to a family member or to a nominee or trust is not an acceptable form of divestment.Does this still apply?1384Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Leader of the Opposition has asked—what is it?—the sixth or seventh question—not on interest rates, not on unemployment, not on health, not on anything that has any relevance to the mainstream of the Australian community.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order absolutely centred on relevance: the question was specific—whether or not that code still applies. End of story. No preamble. No coda. Does it apply? It seems to me that it requires a yes or no answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will address the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—All of the questions that have been asked by the opposition so far this question time are irrelevant to the mainstream interests of the Australian community. They are absolutely irrelevant. Mr Speaker, the code has been published and I have said repeatedly that the ministerial guidelines are a guide; they are not a death sentence. I have said that repeatedly before and I will say it again.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I will also say to those who continue to interject opposite that the intelligent, commonsense thing to do in relation to guidelines is to look at the quality and the substance of an individual's behaviour. I say again that Senator Parer has done nothing that has in any way advanced his interests or the interests of his family. He has not been engaged in any dishonest conduct. He has not received any income stream and as far as I am concerned he remains a highly competent and respected member of my ministry.13851385Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of media reports concerning the viability of a South Australian Job Network member, Workskil Inc., following allegations in the House yesterday by the member for Batman? Can the minister advise the House of the true situation?1385Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Boothby for his question. The member for Batman yesterday got up in this House and made sweeping allegations about Workskil Inc. Of course, the member for Batman was running true to form; he was wrong on every count of the claims that he made. He is very reliable: he is always wrong. These comments were completely misleading and irresponsible. Not surprisingly, when the journalist rang up yesterday after question time and talked to Workskil they found that the organisation was not guilty of the charges which the member for Batman had made. The organisation is financially viable.The member for Batman criticised in particular the fact that the government had awarded a contract to this organisation—a contract that he said could be worth around $7 million. He said that it was simply irresponsible to award a contract that could be worth this. Admittedly, in our case, if someone gets a job then Workskil gets paid, but he said it was irresponsible to award this contract.I have done a bit of investigation into the contract history of this organisation with the government. We have checked the facts, which the member for Batman has not done. I have discovered that Workskil Inc. was awarded contracts by the previous Labor government. How much were these contracts worth? Were they worth $50,000 or $1 million, perhaps? Four million dollars? Eight million dollars? Ten million dollars? Fourteen million dollars in contracts were awarded to this organisation by the party which says that the government should not enter a contract with them.Not satisfied with this scurrilous attack, he then went on to condemn the premises of this organisation as being unsuitable premises for an organisation wanting to help unemployed people. Of course, as we know, the member for Batman never does any research into these questions. If he had actually travelled there and visited the premises of this organisation, he would have seen on the wall a bright shining plaque which says, `Opened by the Honourable Simon Crean on 1 February 1996.' I can see that the member for Hotham remembers. He looked rather queasy yesterday. And I thought the solidarity between these presidents of the ACTU was much better. Just give him a few tips next time.The member for Batman has no credibility. He just bungles away. They have no plans to help the unemployed—no policies. We have a plan and we are putting it into effect.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I seek leave to table a document dated 9 September 1997 and going to the financial viability of this company. Leave not granted.13861386Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it follows the previous question and the non-answer that I got to it.WI4REITHMr Reith—Check the facts.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Don't worry about it, sport; we have the facts. My question to the Prime Minister goes to his non-answer to my previous question. Prime Minister, do you recall telling Paul Lyneham on Nightline :The guidelines say that you've got to get rid of shares in companies that are operating in the areas of your responsibility.Does he recall telling John Stanley on 2UE:. . . (Gibson and Short) were technically in breach . . . and in those circumstances they had to go . . . they are the rules.I quote you again:I mean, a lot of people are saying to me, John, you're too tough . . . this is an unreasonable, unreal standard. Now I do not think it is . . . Prime Minister, in light of your response to the Parer affair haven't you adopted the Watergate justification that today's statement is the operative position; all previous statements are inoperative?1386Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Once again, I say to those opposite: if you refer me to statements that I have made in interviews or to remarks made by other people, then, as I have learnt from long experience, I never accept that as gospel. I go and have a look at what I have said in context. Again I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and I will keep repeating this because it goes to the very substance of what this issue is all about: at no stage has Senator Parer done anything where he has enriched himself or his family or in any way advantaged himself and his family as a result of his ministerial position. That is point No. 1.Point No. 2 is that he has not received any income from the resource investments that have been referred to during the course of this saga. Point No. 3 is that he has not been involved in any conflict of interest. He remains a competent minister, he remains an entirely honest person, and he retains my full support. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Lindsay.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I move—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You do not have the call.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You cannot interrupt proceedings. Members of the opposition will remain silent. The honourable member for Lindsay has the call.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. If you want to leave the House, you may do so. The honourable member for Lindsay has the call.13861386Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, media reports today suggest that threatened strike action by the Maritime Union of Australia is going to proceed tomorrow at Port Botany. Could you outline to the House what has been the level of industrial action taken by the MUA since P&C Stevedores established their operation on Webb Dock and what impact this is having? Also, could you advise the House of the reasons behind the seven-day strike?1386Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. I am pleased to have a chance to answer a question about the waterfront. Perhaps after he has been Leader of the Opposition for 10 years the Leader of the Opposition might work out how to run tactics during question time. This dispute and industrial action in Port Botany is certainly serious indeed. In fact, we have seen now a running campaign of industrial action by the MUA against Patricks in a campaign of vengeance and greed against their own employer for the fact that the union is opposed to the actions of Patricks in subletting a part of their property to allow the farmers to establish a new business.This government fully supports the right of the farmers to set up a new and competitive business and we wish them well. It is about time we had a bit of decent competition on the Australian waterfront. As for this weak and pathetic Leader of the Opposition, his very own party conference resolved to support competition on the Australian waterfront, yet, when John Coombs rang you up and gave you your starting orders, you walked away from your own party resolution. There is no clearer example of the weakness and the pathetic lack of leadership we have from these people—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will address his answer through the chair.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, I am delighted to address my remarks to you because, as a distinguished member of the Australian parliament, there will be, I am sure, no question in your mind about the extent of damage being done by the MUA, supported by the Labor Party, in the campaign of industrial action they are running against their own employer.Just look at the facts. We have now got delays on clearing imported goods of seven days. We have got delays costing shipping lines $25,000 a day. We have got shipping customers who are facing the dreadfully debilitating circumstances of being held up in the operations of their shipping schedules and the containers being reshuffled at Patricks' expense.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—The excited interjections we have from the opposition show you what an embarrassing issue this is for these people. I address my remarks through you, Mr Speaker, to the Australian people. I say particularly to exporters and to importers that the government stands shoulder to shoulder with those who are in the business of exporting and we will stand shoulder to shoulder with all those Australians whose jobs rely on having an efficient waterfront. Where do the Labor Party stand? They stand shoulder to shoulder with the MUA. That is why they are unable to condemn this outrageous industrial action by their mates in the MUA, and their only response is a series of pathetic juvenile interjections from a crowd who are unable to state the public interest and who sit weakly behind this weak and pathetic leader.As this may be the last question and answer during question time, let me take the opportunity to go on and say that the latest excuse from the MUA for taking industrial action is that they want to be paid while they are taking industrial action. What that does is bring them in conflict with the Workplace Relations Act, which under its provisions ensures that people are not rewarded for taking industrial action.I understand the impatience of the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to get onto other matters, but let me assure him that the embarrassment of your position on the waterfront is going to be placed in front of you so that you cannot forget and so that you cannot walk away from the embarrassment of your position.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Go to 3 o'clock so he misses the broadcast.WI4Mr REITH—I may go to 3 o'clock because, to be relevant to the question that has been put to me, a full and comprehensive answer, to the embarrassment of the Labor Party, is hereby required. The point about the Workplace Relations Act is that—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members of the opposition will remain silent.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, let their interjections flow. Let the level of their response escalate, because it demonstrates—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Boring!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If you persist in making this noise, there is no earthly chance of my asking the minister to sit down. I suggest you might well allow him to give his answer.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, I appreciate your support.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will draw his answer to a conclusion.WI4Mr REITH—I will, Mr Speaker. I conclude by making this point: all through this dispute we have seen the effective operations of the government's Workplace Relations Act, whether or not it is the Trade Practices Act bans on secondary boycotts or, in this most latest episode, the bans which prevent companies rewarding employees for taking industrial action—which is, from the MUA, the reason for this week's industrial action.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will conclude his remarks.WI4Mr REITH—I am concluding. The stevedoring industry award provides a requirement that overtime be worked, and they have imposed a ban on overtime. So, clause 22 of the stevedoring industry award ends up as catch-22 for the union when dealing with this issue. Unlike the opposition, we condemn this industrial action.Censure Motion1388138814:55:001388Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—by leave—I move:That this House censures the Prime Minister for:(1) his continuing unwillingness to enforce proper ministerial standards in relation to his Minister for Resources and Energy, who remains in breach of the Prime Minister's Guidelines on Ministerial Conduct and the Senate's Register of Senators' Interests, and who has misled the Parliament in relation to his interest in Pan Australian NL;(2) his endorsement of the flawed certification by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (Mr Moore-Wilton) that the Minister's financial affairs were in compliance with the Prime Minister's guidelines, when all of the evidence which has emerged regarding the Minister's conflicts of interest points to serious non-compliance;(3) his approval of the revised arrangement, announced yesterday only ten minutes before question time, whereby Senator Parer has been allowed to divest his financial interests in the two Parer family trusts to his children, in defiance of the Prime Minister's guidelines which state "The transfer of interests to a family member or to a nominee or trust is not an acceptable form of divestment";(4) his constant re-definition of the meaning of his own guidelines to suit his political needs, and doing so in a manner which has no regard to the standing of those guidelines, or to their consistent application, credibility or transparency, most recently demonstrated by the Prime Minister's spokesperson now conveniently saying that the rule against divesting to children was only ever meant to apply to "young children"; and(5) his refusal to require—in the face of all of the compelling evidence regarding serious breaches of the Prime Minister's guidelines, and ignoring universal editorial opinion—Senator Parer's immediate resignation.DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, I invite you to comment on the length on the motion, which has been the subject of comments by previous speakers. This is obviously a very long motion. The difficulty they are having with this subject is nothing new.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The length is unusual, but it is in order.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, Boris Yeltsin yesterday sacked 35 of his ministers—probably fewer than deserved it. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has been called upon by editorial writer after editorial writer to sack one of his, and he has refused. I do not think I could sum up better the reasons he should than to go through an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald today which went through the Prime Minister's code—which is not yet inoperative, even if compromised by the statements the Prime Minister has made today. It said:Ministers should divest themselves of all shares and similar interests in any company or business involved in any area of their portfolio.But, as they point out:But Parer held, through his family trust, a $2 million interest in a coalmining venture and other interests in Pan Australian Resources.It then went on with another guideline:The transfer of interests to a family member or a nominee or trust is not an acceptable form of divestment.Then there is the comment:But Parer now claims he will satisfy the code by passing his trust holdings to his children.It goes on:Ministers should not intentionally mislead the Parliament or the public.But Parer did not declare his trust holdings as required under Senate rules, and has repeatedly failed to declare them when speaking or voting on related legislation.Then it says:Ministers should avoid giving any appearance of using public office for private profit.But Parer led a trade delegation to Japan and held discussions with two coal companies which had holdings in his mining operation and were the major consumers of its coal.Then there is another guideline:Ministers must not engage in any professional practice or in the daily work of any business.The article goes on to comment:But Parer has admitted to ongoing contact with Mr Harold Shand, managing director of the mine's operating company, although he denies company specifics were discussed.Prime Minister, every single major point of your guidelines to ensure the honesty and the appearance of honesty of your ministers—not just the honesty of them; the appearance of honesty of your ministers—you have permitted Parer to breach. What did you say about your guidelines? You said that they were only meant to apply to non-dependent kids. Did you say at the time you put them down that they were just sort of rough guidelines that you interpret in the circumstance of the time?How did poor old Short feel over there? Short hits the fence on a technicality, and the Prime Minister is up here saying that Parer is not in blatant breach because he is in some way an honourable man. So a judgment was arrived at by the Prime Minister, clearly, on the implication of that, that Short was not. That is the implication of what the Prime Minister had to say, though I do not recollect him saying it at the time. But what did the Prime Minister so bravely say when he wanted to score a point off us as he dramatically presented his guidelines on 7 May 1996? He said this to the parliament as he wrapped himself in his cloth of unction, as he so often does in this place:The guidelines that were laid down in this document will be complied with in full.That was the Prime Minister on 7 May 1996. These are the incredible shrinking guidelines. But, after the resignations of Jim Short and Brian Gibson, the tone in October 1996 was a little less strident:This government adopted clear public guidelines which are far more specific than those of former governments.Then, as John Moore entangled himself in the guidelines, the Prime Minister said on 14 October 1996:I understand, incidentally, that the guidelines in the document I put out are substantially similar to the guidelines that operated under the Hawke and Keating governments and also, from my recollection, similar to those that operated during the time of the Fraser government.Again, on 15 October:The guidelines that I am operating now are the guidelines that were operated by Keating, Hawke and Fraser governments.Yes, Prime Minister, they are. Those indeed are the guidelines—and the Hawke and the Keating and the Fraser governments managed to observe them. And, I might say, so did the Menzies government manage to observe those guidelines—and, when ministers failed to observe those guidelines, out the door those ministers went.What an extraordinary series of statements the Prime Minister has made to various people who have interviewed him on these things. He came out and said to John Stanley on 2UE—and recollect his defence here on Parer:Both Gibson and Short were technically in breach, and in those circumstances they had to go. They are the rules.Then he goes on:I mean a lot of people are saying to me, `John, you're too tough, this is an unreasonable unreal standard.' Now I don't think it is.The Prime Minister had specific questions put to him by me here today which I would have thought would have been simple for any other Prime Minister—not just himself, but any other Prime Minister—to answer, if those questions had been put to him in this place at the times in which other governments were in office in this country. Does a prohibition continue to apply on a minister owning shareholdings in his portfolios? The Prime Minister's code does not say, `It does not apply if the minister is a good bloke; it does not apply if the minister sort of disports himself well around the parliament and cohabits with me in a flat with all our other mates in Canberra.' That is not in the code. It does not say: provided that is the case, the guideline does not apply.It is simple; it is a simple, straightforward statement to preserve the integrity of our political system, Prime Minister—an integrity that you cannot uphold. You are getting a bit used to your ministers, which is one of the reasons why you are in full retreat on the standards of honesty you put in place and the standards of integrity you put in place, you said, to run this country—and these were the standards of honesty and integrity that had applied for a very lengthy period of time.I can recollect you on so many occasions saying that these sorts of standards, this sort of outlook on life is what has meant that federal politics in this country have been kept free of corruption—and, indeed, they have been basically free of corruption. In that regard, it is almost unique in federal systems around the world that the national parliament should experience that. But what has kept us there?What has kept us there is that we do not have Bjelke-Petersen standards in this place. What has kept us there is that we have these sorts of standards of integrity. That is what has kept us honest. One of those things that has kept us honest—and nobody needs to look further than the sorts of state government operations which have occurred over the last 30 or 40 years in this country; nobody needs to look further than the experience of those particular state governments with what occurs when a minister has a set of business interests or potential ownership interests in a particular operation, and decisions are subsequently taken, to know how important in the preservation of the integrity of our federal system—is the set of guidelines that you have reissued. Nobody ought know better than you, who have been in politics for a very long time period of time, how very significant those guidelines are.Every now and then, of course, in extremity, we get some real reasons tickled out. Is the real reason here as to why he is being let off—according to Senator Parer's staff—the fact that Senator Parer is a good bloke? Is the real reason here that, somehow or other, black is white, and we have found a totally new interpretation of the guidelines? Is that why Senator Parer's staff feel that he is going to stay and he is thoroughly protected?No. What we have here is a spokesperson for Senator Parer who said that Mr Howard was standing by his minister because he was concerned that, if the senator resigned, the opposition would then move to pick off each of the other ministers with family trusts. Nineteen government frontbenchers have family trust arrangements. So the position of the Prime Minister is this: if there is a family trust arrangement that involves you in a clash of interests potentially with your portfolio, then you must ignore it.You have finally come to this position. It has finally come to this: as far as the Prime Minister is concerned now, he does not believe that his ministers can meet what has been a traditional standard of integrity. As far as the operations of this parliament and these governing processes since time immemorial in this country, he cannot be protected any longer. That standard cannot be protected any longer by this Prime Minister leading this government.That may be all right for the Prime Minister. But, if you ask us a question as to why we raise these issues day after day in question time, Prime Minister, the reason why we raise these issues day in and day out in question time is this: one of the duties of an opposition is to hold the government accountable. One of the duties of an opposition is to uphold standards which go beyond governments. They are there for governments, whether Labor, Liberal or any other particular coalition of interests in this country. They are out there to ensure that the people of this nation are governed impartially by whoever happens to be the government of the day—and so that people in this nation can be assured and can take the view, and can take some comfort in the view, that, whatever else is going on, nobody there in politics is enriching themselves, nobody there in politics is in any way sullied in their decision making by a feeling that they have an ownership interest in the issues that relate to their portfolio. That is an absolute requirement of the Australian people.The Prime Minister tries to get up there and say, `Well, the Labor Party is engaging in the politics of envy.' When did I last hear a leader of a government talk like that; when did I last hear it? The last person I heard who persistently argued that position was none other than Joh Bjelke-Petersen—`Ministers are not meant to have the seat out of their pants. You're just all envious of Russ Hinze. That's what you're all worried about. You are envious of Russ Hinze. That's why you're raising the complaints. You're envious of me; you're envious of the fact that I run a terrific peanut plantation; you're envious of the fact that I have these terrific business interests with all these people who do business with Queensland.' He would continue,`You're not complaining that people may be being disadvantaged; that there is no impartiality in the Queensland government. You're not complaining about corruption. You're not complaining about the sort of thing that destroys people's confidence in the democratic process. No. What you are is envious of us making a bit of money.'That is what the Prime Minister has finally descended to in his argument. As he stands here, he has the Richard Nixon argument—`All other statements I may have made about this are no longer applicable.' He has the Joh Bjelke-Petersen argument—`As far as I'm concerned, you're only raising this issue because you feel a sense of envy.'There is another attribute to this, and it does not go just to the question of whether or not there is a position which in some way or another is a question of impartiality that people can look to and approve of. It goes to the moral authority of the government. What right have you got as a Prime Minister of this nation to stand up and say to any one of your fellow Australians that you are earning your income in a way that is other than from the sweat of your brow, that you are earning your income in a way that disadvantages the rest of the Australian community, that you are earning your income in a way that is a product of laziness, that you are earning your income in a way that is a product of moral pressure or whatever on your employers?What right have you got to stand in this place and make an argument like that while you are prepared to defend the potential rorting of a governing process by your own ministers? In this particular instance he may be a good bloke, and he may not be out there actively enriching himself, but what one of those people whom you lecture so thunderously from the dispatch box here—and that your Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) entertains so thunderously from the dispatch box and that from time to time your Treasurer (Mr Costello) does—have got themselves awarded a 1c share that turns into $56,000 that is still held? While it may not be enriching them, there is capital accruing nevertheless while he happens to be the minister in charge and in authority in this portfolio. He may not receive a disbursement but the disbursements he gets comes through his hands and goes into his children's portfolio. But he sure as heck benefits from the capital gains associated with that and anything that is held in the company which he may subsequently rejoin when he leaves this portfolio.That is why your guidelines, Prime Minister, which, you are right, you did not invent, are very clear on how you divest. You do not divest to such a group of people because you can rejoin them. You divest to people completely unassociated with you. That is what you do. You do not divest to your children, be they adults or be they juniors. You do not divest to your wife. You divest. That is what your rules say, and Senator Parer did. He is not here acting in ignorance. Senator Parer did that with a set of shares for BHP, for Santos and for CSR—he divested. He did not divest to anyone in his family. He divested. In fact, his family makes a positive point on that; that within the family trust itself they divested of a series of these shares when the minister took office because they thought of a potential clash.What was not divested, what was very sparsely declared, what was in one instance not declared at all was something quite different from that: not a small amount of appreciation on the odd share in which a very small interest is shared, but a massive benefit; $300,000 disbursed in one particular instance via a company controlled by him into the family trust, a capital gain of 44c up to $56,000 and capital gain accruing still on that set of shares still with that company with investments in the mining industry. What is going on here? What do you say to a waterside worker or a coalminer or anyone else that you choose to target when you go down to the coalmines and say that you have to improve your work practices, you have to improve so that you earn from the sweat of your brow in the same way that the companies of the minister for resources earned from the sweat of their brow?I will tell you who is producing that $300,000. It is being produced by the workers in the coalmines with which he is associated and which are subject to repeated abuse for their work practices by this government. If you are going to be the Prime Minister of this country for any length of time, like another three or four months, at least pass your baton on to your successor on the basis of uncompromised standards as far as these issues are concerned. There is always going to be, in any issue about whether or not a person is in conformity with a set of guidelines, finetuning from time to time. There are going to be fine distinctions drawn. There can be no fine distinctions drawn in this case—none at all, no fine distinctions.You can only stand here, Prime Minister, and argue that black is white. That is all you can do. For anybody who is interested in listening out there—and you desperately do not want them to. You have had your cheer squad here in question time today cheering away at members of the gallery saying, `Aren't they a dreadful opposition? Aren't they terrible? They are not asking us questions about employment. They are not asking us questions about interest rates. They are not feeding us the same rotten dorothy dixers we get fed daily by our backbench so we can stand for five to 10 minutes in this place and abuse the opposition,' as though the Australian public were for one minute interested in any of that.What the opposition has to do is get up and ask some dorothy dixers! That is what the opposition is supposed to do, and that is what all of those in the press gallery are invited to stand here for and see the smug, smarmy performances from the Treasurer and see the over-the-top performances from Penthouse Pete, the minister for industrial relations, and then hear the sort of unction with which the Prime Minister likes to enclose himself. The Prime Minister ignores, as he defends his ministers, what is part of his fundamental duty and takes enormous umbrage when we decide that we will defend the public interest in the positions that we take in this place. And he gets himself tangled up repeatedly.Take a while to cast your minds back to those ministers who were sacked when the Prime Minister had standards. Jim Short and Brian Gibson—technical breaches. They were technical breaches. What the Prime Minister had to say was quite correct; they were technical breaches. There was not any personal enrichment. I could not see anything in anything that Jim Short or Gibson had that involved the disbursement of $300,000 through a company. There has been so much error in the public portrayal of this. The assumption has been that the $300,000 a year went straight into the family trust. It did not. It went through a company personally controlled by the minister; eight of the nine shares was what it went through. It went through that company. That was where the $300,000 stopped first, and then it went on its way into the family trust.There is nothing in what Jim Short or Senator Gibson did that compares with that—nothing. There is nothing that compares with a 1c share improving, an easily dispensed with share. There are no problems getting rid of this—44 shares converting themselves into $56,000 with a gallop of capital appreciation from investments from that particular operation in a whole range of activities that are of direct interest to the minister's portfolio.There is no equivalent with anything that Jim Short or Gibson did—none whatsoever. What did the Prime Minister say about it at the time, when toughness for him meant actually getting rid of a few people? `Oh,' he said, `I mean, a lot of people are saying to me, "John, you're too tough. This is an unreal standard."' I can just see the way he would have said it: the brow wrinkled, the jaw thrust forward. He said, `Now I don't think it is.' He was in full duck mode when that particular issue was presented to the Australian people via Radio 2UE.Prime Minister, you have standards to uphold and you have not upheld them. You have an obligation as far as Parer is concerned and you have not conformed with it. You are weak as a Prime Minister as far as this matter is concerned—weak because you do not want to be stabbed in the back by the other 19 ministers who are scared about what might occur in their portfolios if you do conform with it. Prime Minister, at one point of time in your history you tried to exercise leadership on these critical matters; the trouble is you do it no longer, and therefore you should be censured. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?DT4CREANMr Crean—It is, Mr Speaker, and I reserve my right to speak.15:16:001393Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I think it is fair to say that all of these things tend to have a life of their own. We have had a pretty good indication that this thing is starting to run out of puff. You get a good idea that it is running out of puff when, firstly, those who are putting forward these allegations at question time have nothing new; secondly, and more damningly, the principal prosecutor, namely, the member for Hotham (Mr Crean), not only has nothing new to offer but also has demonstrated that his latest muck raking allegation is completely false. Just remember that today's question time opened with the member for Hotham being exposed as having provided the parliament with incorrect information.DT4CREANMr Crean—Why didn't you allow the tabling?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—The member for Hotham can interject, shout, fulminate and carry on as much as he likes. But the fact of the matter is that the whole basis of what he said yesterday has been demonstrated to be wrong.We heard this confected sort of class anger from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley)—the new-found friend of the miner, the new-found friend of the battler, the new-found friend of the low income earners in Australia. The reason he sits opposite is that the former leader of the Labor Party, whom he supported through thick and thin, through right and wrong, through black and white, lost all contact with the battlers of Australia, the miners of Australia and the working class people of Australia.After we had been treated to a dose of this sort of confected class anger, we then got on to morality and integrity. We had a long lecture from the Reverend Kim about how full of integrity he was and how lacking in integrity those who sit opposite him were. This is the man who was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Carmen Lawrence. He was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ros Kelly. He was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Graham Richardson. He was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Paul Keating when, as Prime Minister of Australia and therefore exerting the most powerful influence over the whole of the government's operation, Keating regarded it as perfectly okay to retain a financial interest in a piggery. That is not to be forgotten by any of those who sit behind the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Now we start on the farms.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—There we have the classic interjection. The Australian people ought to be told what that interjection is. He said, `Now we will start on the farms.' These interjections are very revealing; people should never get too excited during these debates and make interjections that they do not mean. Let the Australian people understand that what the opposition is now being reduced to is an exercise in muck raking and nitpicking and pursuing matters of no substance. He said, `Now we will start on the farms.'Here is the alternative government in the year leading up to an election, and what does the Leader of the Opposition have to say about rural policy? He says, `Now we will start on the farms.' What has the Leader of the Opposition got to say about employment? What has the Leader of the Opposition got to say about interest rates? What has the Leader of the Opposition got to say about taxation reform? What has the Leader of the Opposition got to say about waterfront reform? What has the Leader of the Opposition got to say about the fact that we have the lowest level of industrial disputes in Australia for 85 years? What has he got to say about small business? What has he got to say about foreign policy? What has he got to say about defence policy? In other words, we have been treated once again to a leader who has nothing to say to the mainstream of the Australian community about issues that affect their daily lives.Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition: the Australian people out there are not foolish; they are very shrewd. They have a very good comprehension of what is right and what is wrong. What the Australian people are asking themselves are a number of simple questions. The first is: did Senator Parer use his ministerial position to advantage himself? The answer is no. If those who sit opposite choose not to take my word on this—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Ha, ha!ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Well, don't. I am glad you laughed. You laugh on call. You laugh on cue, you really do. If you want a bit of a laugh to liven up your speech, always look at Prospect, because she is always obliging.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—It must get under your skin.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect.10000Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Prospect, you are marvellous. We like Prospect. There are a few over there that—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—I am talking to him, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Prospect.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I must say, Mr Speaker, there are a few over there that do wear a bit thin, but good old Prospect can always be relied upon to laugh and interject at the right time.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Who's your resources minister?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—If they choose not to believe me, Mr Speaker, let me rely on—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison!RH4KERRMr Kerr—I just wondered whether the Prime Minister knew what he was talking about.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—You poor fellow. In the Senate on 12 March—and I think this really says it all—Senator Ray was speaking on a motion dealing with Senator Parer. Let me read to the House what he had to say. He said:Senator Parer jumped on the point I made yesterday. I will repeat it for him if he wants to jump on it every time and grab it like a lifeline. I do not think Senator Parer would ever deliberately go out and enrich himself in this area by an action to favour a particular company where he has an investment.They are not the words of John Howard, they are not the words of Peter Costello, they are not the words of Senator Parer; they are the words of Senator Robert Ray, the self-styled right wing head kicker from the Victorian Labor Party. They are the words of Senator Ray. That is what Senator Ray had to say. Let me repeat it:I will repeat it for him if he wants to jump on it every time . . . I do not think Senator Parer would ever . . . go out and enrich himself in this area by an action to favour a particular company where he has an investment.Mr Speaker, that goes to the very core of what this issue is all about. This issue is all about whether or not Senator Parer has done anything wrong.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Oh!ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—She says, `Oh, it's not.' If it is not about that, what on earth is it about? We are engaged in an exercise about talking in commonsense terms to the Australian people.Mrs Crosio interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—We now have the member for Prospect saying it has got nothing to do with right and wrong, it has got nothing to do with integrity and it has got nothing to do with ministerial standards. You have reduced this to a farcical debate in society if that is your point of view. Guidelines are what the word suggests: they are guidelines, they are not a death sentence. They are designed to be guidelines and what is required in this situation is a commonsense application of ordinary sensible principles.What I have done in this case is to ask a number of simple questions. The first and most important question I have asked myself is: has Senator Parer been guilty of using his position to enrich himself or any member of his family? On the authority of no less than Senator Ray, the answer to that is no. The second point is: has Senator Parer been involved in any conflict of interest? The answer to that also is no. The third point is: has Senator Parer derived any income stream from the resource investments that have been spoken of? The answer to that is also no. The fourth question is: has Senator Parer been involved in any acts of deliberate dishonesty? The answer to that is also no. The fifth question is: has Senator Parer in good faith sought to comply with the guidelines? The answer to that is undoubtedly that he has, because he has. He reorganised his affairs. The guidelines were checked by the secretary to my department and it was made abundantly clear—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Show him up, Pete.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Batman!ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—In reliance on that, he has quite properly, I believe, endeavoured in good faith to comply with the guidelines.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Just keep your mouth going.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Batman.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—We were warned over the weekend by the member for Hotham that they had something new, they had something dramatic. They had a time bomb, they had something that was absolutely going to blow us out of the water. What was it? It was a pathetic allegation about some shares which blew up completely in the face of the member for Hotham today. The member for Hotham tried yesterday to say that in some way there was something sinister about shares that had been owned by the ESP company. In reality, those shares had been disposed of before Senator Parer became a minister. So the great explosion, the latest revelation, the final piece de resistance, the final killer punch that was going to bring Senator Parer down and undermine the authority of the government on this issue was revealed to be a complete mistake. In other words, they blew up just as much as those fake letters blew up in the face of the member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) two days before the last election. What the member for Hotham was guilty of in relation to that was in fact misleading the parliament.The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), in moving his censure motion, made enormous play of my remarks about the politics of envy. He was not right to say that the last person who used that expression was the former Premier of Queensland. The last person that I remember in this place using that expression was, of course, none other than the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating. That was the piggery defence, remember? Remember when he said that you were just a bunch of—what were you?—scrubbers that could not run a couple of zacks together. If that was not an attempt to sort of invoke the politics of envy, it certainly was out of the mouth of the then leader of the Labor Party.I think the most revealingly hypocritical aspect of this whole debate today is the way in which, for almost 20 minutes, we were delivered a sermon of supreme unctuousness from the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition stood up and he lectured us about integrity. He said that there once was a day when ministerial standards meant something. There once was a day when prime ministers were prepared to stand up in this parliament and were prepared to defend principle, they were prepared to guarantee integrity and they were willing to deliver honesty. Is the same man that stood shoulder to shoulder with Paul Keating? Is the same man who voted every time to defend allegations that were made against ministers in the Labor government? Is this the same man who stood shoulder to shoulder in relation to Carmen Lawrence? Is the same person who was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Brian Burke, the convicted former Premier of Western Australia? Is he the same man that would have us believe that every Labor administration was a paragon of honesty, a paragon of integrity and a paragon of virtue?I would agree with the Leader of the Opposition—and I think this does go very much to the heart of the issue—on one thing and that is that federal politics in Australia has been, by and large, refreshingly free of corruption. I say that of behaviour on both sides of the House, Labor and Liberal. May I say that that remains the case, and it is for that reason that I stand by Senator Parer; it is for that reason that I have said that I do not believe he is deserving of censure and that he will continue to enjoy my support.I do that not out of personal friendship but because I do not believe that, on a commonsense application of ordinary principles of judging the behaviour of men and women in this place, he has done anything that deserves his removal from the ministry. He has not been involved in a conflict of interest. He has not enriched himself through the abuse of his ministerial office. On the acknowledgment of people like Senator Robert Ray, he is an honest man, he is a man of competence, he is a man of decency and, on top of all that, he is an extremely fine minister for resources, and therefore I completely reject this phoney censure motion.15:31:001396Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has come in today believing that the knock-out punch is that these shares were divested, that the QCMM Group (ESP) holding in Pan Australian was sold prior to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer, becoming a senator. Why Prime Minister, before you scurry out, does the share register dated 18 March 1998—not so long ago, Prime Minister—show the holding of QCMM Group (ESP) of 726,000 shares? Why does it show the holding of 3.7 million of them by Kiskin? Now we find the Prime Minister introducing a new family trust today—Kiskin Unit Trust. Why does it also show, Prime Minister, the holding of 874,000 in Pan Australian by Segencourt Pty Ltd, also associated with QCMM, Senator Parer's coal company? Why wouldn't you let us table this document today if you believed you had such a watertight case?Isn't it funny that the so-called defence of Senator Parer is that these shares were wrongly listed? Isn't it funny that it is only our questioning in the parliament that has turned up that pathetic excuse when the document, the public record, two years after the event—this man was sworn in almost two years ago—still shows the holding of shares? Where is your defence, Prime Minister? More importantly, where are you? You are absent from the dispatch box. This is the pathetic leader who scurries out of the place, the leader who would not bring a cabinet minister or even a minister into this House to hear the apology over that disgraceful slur from the member for Swan (Mr Randall). This is a Prime Minister claiming to uplift standards in the place, but he debases them.Just assume that there was an error in this. So what? Did Senator Parer—this is the question—have a shareholding in Pan Australian through his coal related shares? He still has not given them up. In the document that we were handed yesterday late in question time there is not one mention of Pan Australian in this statement, this conclusive statement by Senator Parer, but what do we see? We see the minister telling us how difficult it is to get rid of his shares in IM Pty Ltd and therefore he is keeping them, on the advice of his stockbroker—advice that he obtained when? In March 1998, not March 1996 when he was sworn in, not when Max Moore-Wilton checked his records on three occasions—October 1996, May 1997 and later in 1997.When does he run to the stockbroker to get this pathetic defence? When we raise it, only when Labor raises it, only when we draw attention to this issue—and he still holds the shares in the coal company. He and his wife own the nine shares worth $2 million in a coal company; and he is the minister for coal! But he does not tell anyone; he hides it. Not only does he hide the $2 million in shares; he also hides the dividend stream that has come to the same company that he still holds the shares in of $850,000—300,000 of them in his first year as minister. That same first year as minister saw the coal shares increase tenfold to $2 million. Before he was a minister the shares were worth $200,000. When he became a minister a year later they were worth $2 million.Nice little year's work for the minister! Nice little bit of money on the side! No wonder he did not want to tell anyone about it! No wonder he wanted to keep it hidden! But he did tell the Japanese coal companies; they knew he was a shareholder. Why did the Japanese coal companies know he was a shareholder when the Australian public did not? Well you may ask, because this minister has tried to hide that which he thought he could hide. He has tried to hide the shares that do not show up in the publicly traded register. He gets rid of his shares in Santos, BHP and CSR because they have an indirect link into a bauxite mine owned not by CSR but by Nabalco. If you want to look at the graph that we put up in terms of the indirect link between QCMM (ESP) and Pan Australian, just substitute CSR and Nabalco. This minister saw fit to discharge himself of the CSR shares but saw fit to keep hiding these shares.Where is the consistency in that? I will tell you the reasons why he wanted to hide them. There are two. First of all, he did not think he would be caught out. He did not think that this would be disclosed. The second reason is these shares—and when the Prime Minister first answered the question on this he said, `Oh, he has only got 16 shares'—5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Only 16?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It's true. There are only 16, but they are worth more than two million bucks. Where are the other shares in this community worth that sort of money?The other thing is these shares were issued for $1. One dollar of consideration; $16 converted to more than $2 million. Don't people realise that, if in fact Senate Parer were forced to sell the shares, as the Prime Minister's code said he must—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—He gets a dollar!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—No; he has to pay capital gains tax on the difference. And this government has the gall to moralise about tax reform! Let us start with family trusts. Let us start with the example of the Parer family trust. Let us have a decent argument, Treasurer, about tax reform. Why have you scrapped the report on trusts? Because 19 of your frontbench are all sitting on some sort of family trust. And you have the gall to talk about wharfies rorting the system! Where does it stop? Where do you get off, you hypocrite! The next point that is important today is the new information that has been disclosed. Senator Parer said yesterday he knew nothing of Pan Australian. He knew nothing—that is what he said in the Senate. Bear this in mind: he has already misled the Senate on many occasions, but in the Senate yesterday he said he knew nothing of Pan Australian. I might say he seemed so familiar with Pan Australian that he called it `Pan Aust.'—the vernacular for this company.Senator Parer says he knew nothing about it, yet the question that we have asked today and that the government have not answered relates to Senator Parer knowing about Pan Aust., because in November 1995, five months before he became a minister, he presided over a meeting in Brisbane that saw the transfer of a subsidiary, Terra Firma, into Pan Australian and he knew those discussions for the divestment involved Mr Bryan. He knew that. If, as he says, he has not misled the parliament, let him produce the minutes of that meeting to demonstrate he has not misled. That is the challenge to Senator Parer today.What we are alleging today is that he has misled the Senate when he said he knew nothing, when five months before he was sworn in as a minister he presided over the very meeting that transferred Terra Firma into Pan Aust., that made the decision about the continued interest in Pan Aust. by QCMM, by Kiskin, by Segencourt. He knew about it. He chaired the meeting; he asked questions about it. If he says otherwise, get him to produce the minutes to say otherwise.This is a minister who has covered up. He has not disclosed what the Prime Minister's code said he should disclose. This is a minister who has continuing conflict of interest demonstrated against him. Bear in mind that Jim Short did not go for other than a technical breach. Senator Parer has admitted a technical breach. Why was Senator Short dumped from the frontbench but Senator Parer remains?Also, the Prime Minister, in justifying his high standards by sacking Short, Gibson, Prosser and all of the others, said it is not the actual conflict of interest; it is the appearance. We have demonstrated an appearance of conflict time and again—not only in relation to the coal industry but indeed in relation to just about every other industry that the minister for resources has responsibility for. Gold, coal, diamonds, cobalt, lead, zinc—he has share interests in every one of these. There is almost nothing left in terms of his portfolio interests.Senator Parer has misled the Senate again today, just as he misled it previously: the technical breach; the no involvement whatsoever in the company—remember that—until Mr Shand, his friend of 10 years, blew him out of the water last week. Remember the fact that he thought QCMM(ESP) had been wound up, and it was not; the fact that Mr O'Keeffe, the registrar of senators' interests, had sent him two reminders about what he should declare, but he did not get them—funny about that; no record of receiving them—and that Kay Denman in the Senate reminded him of the need to do it and he ignored that. Then, what did he say in the Senate, and the Prime Minister repeated it in this parliament? He said that he received no payments to the company in the year 1995-96. He received almost $300,000 directly into the company that he controls. Where he decides to dispose of that money is not the issue. It is the question of what he controlled. And he made the decision, together with his wife, as to where that money went. Of course, we all want our kids to get on well, don't we? But it is a nice little start, isn't it—$2 million worth of shares, $850,000 in a dividend stream. Come off it! Say there is no conflict of interest!What has been argued by the government today and for the last fortnight is they have been unable to get any momentum going on any other issue. What has been argued is that we have fired all of our bullets and we have not really landed the big one. I tell you what, the Senator Parer episode is emerging like a scene in the first Godfather movie. Senator Parer is like Sonny Corleone at the turnpike: he is riddled with bullets. Remember when the Godfather calls in a cheque from the undertaker, because he did a favour for the undertaker at the beginning of the movie. He says to the undertaker, `Can you do me a favour? Can you make him up as we remember him?' So they patch him up, take out the bullet holes and say there is nothing wrong.In the meantime, the Queensland Liberal mafia are running around accusing each other of leaking the story. `Senior Liberals threaten to sue colleagues over Parer leak': in the holy of holies, the Courier-Mail in Queensland, it is reported the Liberal mafia is cutting each other to pieces, with David Jull, another deposed minister, saying `I'm just looking for someone I can sue'.What sort of an outfit is this? No more bullets to fire? This bloke is riddled with them. The sooner you give him a graceful burial the better. For so long as you try to defend the indefensible you diminish the Prime Minister further. We know, in terms of the opinion polling, that this is a Prime Minister that has already lost the honest John image. He will continue to lose it further.I saw the piece today by Dennis Shanahan in the Australian about this tough new Prime Minister, this man that wants to lead. He has been reading the polls too; he has been reading the circumstances in which his leadership is perceived to be weak and how he crumbles in a crisis. Now he has decided to be tough. But he has decided to be tough on the wrong thing, which further exposes his weakness.Next to the Dennis Shanahan article I picked up the front page of the Advertiser and saw the headline `You're sacked'. I thought at last they had got it right. But, no, it was not brave, courageous Johnny Howard; it was Boris Yeltsin. Boris Yeltsin has done what John Howard should have done two weeks ago. For so long as he continues to hang on to him he will suffer. This minister has misled; this minister has not disclosed; this minister must go. (Time expired)15:46:001398Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Well, you had a rant and rave but you had no substance whatsoever. Never before have I seen someone trying to go through the motions with his pre-prepared little jokes about Sonny Corleone and the Godfather. He brought his little cutting in about Boris Yeltsin and he held it up to great silence in the chamber. He has been working on these little one-liners all morning and nobody laughed—nobody in the gallery, nobody in the press gallery, nobody from the television. Nobody actually paid any regard whatsoever to these little jokes.Frankly, to waste the time of this parliament on such an inconsequential, insubstantial speech as that pathetic little performance really is making a mockery of the censure. When you move a censure in this parliament—you would know this, Mr Speaker—you have facts, you have serious allegations to make and you document them. What did we actually see? A little clipping of Boris Yeltsin sacking his cabinet. That is a big knock-out point against Senator Parer that one. Sonny Corleone in The Godfather being riddled with bullets. That is a real big point against Senator Parer that one—the obvious connection to ministerial capacity in the coal industry.Then we went on to tax reform—a real big connection to Senator Parer. That is a big issue for Australian politics so we will get on to tax reform, along with the debate on trust losses in the Senate last night. It is the function of a disordered mind to stand at the dispatch box and try to make these pathetic, childish little points and allege that this amounts to a censure on the Prime Minister (Mr Howard).Question time started off on a bad angle today for chief parliamentary grub, the member for Hotham (Mr Crean), over here. It started off on a bad footing for him. Yesterday he made all these allegations. We recall them. Yesterday he made the allegations that the company ESP had shares in Pan Australian. Do you remember that he stood up here and read out all the metals that Pan Australian was in—tin, cobalt, gold, silver. We had it in one question. The tactics committee must have said, `Put it in the second question; put it in the third question.' The member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith) read them all out. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) comes in here today and says, `One problem. ESP does not have any shares in Pan Aust.'This is a major problem. This was the major allegation of yesterday which has been completely disposed of. So where does that leave the case? The case was built on a fraudulent premise yesterday. Instead of coming in and apologising, instead of coming in and saying that they had wasted the time of the parliament yesterday by making allegations about the shareholdings of ESP, which have been proven wrong, what do they do? They try to up the ante. It is almost as if they get these written speeches which say, `Weak point, shout louder at this particular stage.' That is what the member for Hotham gets to. His big allegation is that ESP owns these shares in Pan Aust.—`weak point, shout it louder at this stage', as if that is going to make up for the insubstantial nature of the allegation.Yesterday we had this big smokescreen erected about ESP and its shares. Today it turns to dust. So, rather than withdraw, the Labor Party goes straight into a censure motion hoping to overcome the weakness of their position with volume and noise. This is not the first time we have seen this tactic, is it? We saw chief parliamentary grub, the member for Hotham, go on television at the weekend—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This may well be a censure motion, but on two occasions now the Treasurer has clearly used language which is unparliamentary.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He has indeed, as have several members of the opposition and other members in the House during the course of today. Therefore, there is no point of order.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—How useless! The member for Hotham has been up hill, down dale abusing everybody, including the Prime Minister, in the most florid language. The Prime Minister sits here and takes it and the chief parliamentary grub has you protect his reputation. Get serious, please. Call in the big guns. Call in the intellectuals if the member for Hotham seeks a bit of protection.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his remarks on the censure motion.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—We saw him go on the television on the weekend, do you recall? He promised that—Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Brisbane!ET4BEVISMr Bevis—He was talking across the table.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—He has lost it. Keep it going old son. You have lost it.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—It is okay for him. He was doing it to me.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Brisbane!CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—He went on the TV on the weekend and said that he had new revelations. Do you recall this formulation before? Do you recall the travel rorts affair where he went on to the television on the weekend and said that he had new revelations. He was asked, `Have you downloaded the DAS computer?' He answered, `I couldn't say whether we downloaded the DAS computer or not.' Remember he was back here in the parliament running all these little smears and slurs on everybody? We all remember where that landed the Labor Party. The big boomerang came back on the Labor Party over that little affair.He did the same trick on the weekend claiming that he had new revelations. What was the new revelation? That ESP has disposed of the shares of Pan Aust. That is the new revelation. The new revelation was entirely false. Why does the member for Hotham run these allegations? Why would you run a false allegation against Senator Parer in question time? Why would you eat up a censure motion after it has been proven to be wrong? Why would you do that? It is probably because you do not have a position on tax, employment, interest rates, home buyers or the budget.What do they say in the morning? They say, `We will go in there and run the Parer stuff. That will buy us one more day.' We were just amazed last Thursday when the Labor Party announced a policy. Last Thursday the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) solemnly announced a policy. We thought that this was the beginning of the election campaign. The policy was that they were going to abolish negative gearing. We said, `That's not a very good policy, but it is a policy.' Then they absolutely gobsmacked us because that day they announced a second policy. The second policy was that they were not going to abolish negative gearing. Minus one, plus one, no policy for the day, no policy for the opposition.I have always thought to myself that the person who best described the Labor Party was a man by the name of Kim Beazley, who said something about the Labor Party that has always stuck in my mind. He said that when he joined the Labor Party it contained the cream of the working class and when he left, it had the dregs of the middle class. I have often thought about that quote. That was Kim Beazley senior, not the current Kim Beazley.Once upon a time when the Labor Party had some principles, when it actually had some people who had done some manual work and when it actually had a representative group that it stood for in this country, they would come into places like the parliament and argue policy. They would argue about budgets, interest rates, taxes, jobs and all of those sorts of things. That was the cream of the working class. The dregs of the middle class sneak around with these little investigations on travel allowance. They sneak around in relation to shares. They sneak around with all of their investigations because they have no position.Then we hear the Fergusons, the Creans and the Beazleys—second generation politicians. What is it about the Labor Party? Do you get born into it? Do you have to have a father who was a minister to get a place on your front bench? Talk about born to rule! The Fergusons, the Creans and the Beazleys really thought they were born to rule. They come in here and they want to run all of these things in relation to honesty. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) said that the guidelines that were put down by the—8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—This would have been a good defence for Jim Short.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—There is one of them there.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Reid will resume his seat if he wishes to intervene.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Sorry, I take it back. If you had a father who was an MP, you do not get on the front bench. The Leader of the Opposition was right in saying that these were the guidelines of the Hawke-Keating government. Then he made this astounding claim. He said that these were the guidelines of the Hawke-Keating governments which those governments managed to observe. That was the allegation that was put by the Leader of the Opposition—that these were the standards of the Hawke-Keating governments which those governments managed to observe.Does anybody here remember a piggery? If a Prime Minister had loans out from a commercial bank in relation to a piggery where there were arguments about the importation of pig meats into Australia and where there were arguments about the environmental conduct of that particular piggery, would anybody think that that was a conflict of interest? Would anybody think that, reading these guidelines, that might have been a relevant matter? Yet we saw the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, stand up here day after day and defend those arrangements. This was a government that he said managed to observe these requirements. We saw him stand up day after day and say that there was nothing wrong with being involved in a piggery in those particular situations.More than that, we heard the then Prime Minister, Mr Keating, stand at this dispatch box and say that anybody who was opposed to his shareholding was only engaging in the politics of envy. He said to the opposition in this House on 22 June 1995:You are mostly scrubbers. Most of you have not got any ability or two zacks to your name . . . Who was running the argument about the politics of envy? The Labor Party. This was the man that you said in March 1996 was the only person who had the ability to lead this country. You lined up behind him. You said he had to be re-elected. He was the man who used to come in here and run those arguments. For the Leader of the Opposition to say that he had not heard this since Joh Bjelke-Petersen, when he heard it at this dispatch box on 22 June 1995, is unbeliev able. But he has an unbelievable position on this.The Leader of the Opposition also says that the Hawke-Keating government managed to observe standards. Let me read the Hansard of 23 August 1995. Mr Beazley was asked about the then Minister for Human Services and Health, the present member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence). This is the man who claims to uphold standards. He said:From my point of view, as far as Dr Lawrence is concerned, I believe her to be a woman of great capacity and integrity.There was a finding of a royal commission in relation to this. I will repeat it. He said:. . . I believe her to be a woman of great capacity and integrity.What did the Leader of the Opposition have to say about the Ambassador to Ireland, his old mate Brian Burke, somebody who I believe went through the courts of law as well? He said:. . . I provided a testimonial as to Mr Burke's character at the conclusion of his trial.So Carmen Lawrence has integrity, we are giving testimonials to Brian Burke and this is the upholder of parliamentary standards! It is like putting Jack the Ripper in charge of the pro-life association. He is coming in here and running these honesty gags against the government. You have to have a hide to do this kind of thing—to come in here and say, `These are the standards and we are the people who are going to observe them.'But you do not have to go back as far as that. The Leader of the Opposition has Senator Bolkus on his frontbench. Senator Bolkus goes out to a press conference with a court document which cannot be released without a court order. He holds it in front of the media and says, `This is off the record,' and reads out the confidential material. I am talking about the would-be first law officer of the Crown. We have a Leader of the Opposition who is incapable of exercising any discipline whatsoever over Senator Bolkus.The Leader of the Opposition was not in a government that observed standards. He was in a government that had the lowest standards of any government in Australian history—the Keating government. He was out there defending Brian Burke, he was out there defending Carmen Lawrence and he is now out there defending Nick Bolkus. He comes into this chamber and he wants to attack the standards of the Prime Minister. You have to have a real hide to be in the Labor Party these days.We know what is going on here. We know that this is probably the worst opposition and the worst opposition leader since Dr Evatt. In fact, even Dr Evatt could hold a policy position longer than this mob can. They have a morning policy position, a lunchtime policy position and an afternoon policy position. They are upstairs, downstairs, around and under every bush and over every stile because they have no position. They are ill-equipped to form a government in this country. They are running around saying that they believe in surpluses with $6 billion of unfunded promises. They want to abolish negative gearing in the morning and return it in the afternoon. They want to be in the tax debate but they oppose all tax reform. They have no position in relation to mortgage interest rates or home buyers. They have no position in relation to jobs. They want to defend the MUA. They go into the tactics committee and say, `Geez, we're a bit short this week. What we'll do is run the Parer material again, and when we are proven to be false at the beginning of question time, don't worry about that because we'll run a censure and we'll try to cover it with noise and movement.'This is a pathetic opposition. This is a pathetic motion. We reject it in its entirety. This is baseless smear and slur against a man who is a decent minister and who, by your own account, has not acted improperly in any way. Far from being condemned, Senator Parer ought to be congratulated for the good work that he has done as the Minister for Resources and Energy. Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.16:05:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. I. McC. Sinclair)48Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Baldwin, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.87Anderson, J. D. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Costello, P. H.Dondas, N. M. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Howard, J. W. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Rocher, A. C.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C.Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.Mossfield, F. W. Downer, A. J. G.Price, L. R. McLachlan, I. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations140316:09:001403Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILE—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILE—Earlier today at a press conference the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) indicated that in my comments yesterday I was abrogating the government's commitment to the curfew at Sydney airport. Any fool knows that the curfew at Sydney airport has been legislated and it will remain that way.16:10:001403Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—The member for Denison (Mr Kerr) last evening in this place and his Labor colleagues Senator Ray and Senator Faulkner in the other place on earlier occasions have made allegations about my role in relation to Natural Heritage Trust grant applications submitted by the Frankston City Council. It is alleged that I aided or undertook to aid the consideration by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) of applications not lodged by the city within the required time frame. The facts are that the council-sponsored applications were sent by courier to the lodgement address on the final day for receiving applications. A telephone call by a council officer the following day to the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment confirmed that the applications arrived on time. The allegations are clearly false and baseless and this is known by the Labor source. Any decent person would withdraw them accordingly.Questions to the Speaker140314031403Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, today I sought to take a point of order because the Prime Minister had said something that I found offensive and, as required, one has to take it immediately. This is the extract from today's Hansard , Mr Speaker. When I stood on a point of order, you said:You do not have the call. The honourable member for Deakin has the call. The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat.. . . . . . . . .He cannot interrupt a member in the middle of asking a question. You can have your point of order after that. You will resume you seat.Mr Speaker, can you tell me about your re-interpretation of standing order 98, which I quote:Any Member—Government members interjecting—DT4Mr CREAN—I would like a bit of silence so we can hear this, Mr Speaker. Don't you want some silence to hear this, Mr Speaker? You only call us to order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will address his point of order. If he wishes to proceed, he may do so.DT4Mr CREAN—With noise, okay.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable members will remain silent.DT4Mr CREAN—Standing order 98 says:Any Member may at any time raise a point of order which shall, until disposed of, suspend the consideration and decision of every other question.I submit to you that you were wrong in not taking my point of order immediately. Have you re-interpreted the standing orders?1404Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The honourable member should understand that a member who has the call and who is moving a motion or asking a question is normally allowed to do so before a point of order is raised. It is the way in which I interpret the standing orders and I intend to proceed on that basis.14041404Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, my question relates to your response to a question I asked of you yesterday when you sought to draw the distinction between standing orders 75 to 79, which are about imputing something against members, vis-a-vis standing order 144, which is about the asking of questions. When I said that you should have called the member for Swan to order when he was making a scurrilous attack on the member for Holt, you were making the point that there was a difference between standing orders 75 to 79 and standing order 144. I then interjected and said:Why did you allow it to happen?You said:Why didn't you raise it?I said:It was raised. You heard it today.You said:It was not.That is the Hansard from yesterday.WI4REITHMr Reith—This is not a question.DT4Mr CREAN—It is a question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is not a question; if you have a question, please proceed.DT4Mr CREAN—My question to you is this, Mr Speaker: why is it that you are saying that we have to take a point of order when someone is being impugned on our side yet you took no point of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This is starting to reflect very much on the chair. I suggest you ask your question.Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have already warned the honourable member for Batman.DT4Mr CREAN—Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the Hansard of Wednesday, 11 March. Remember the web of deceit and the deceitful web? No point of order was taken about my term `web of deceit' but you, of your own volition, chose to rule me out of order. Why are we having these double standards applied to us?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat. If the honourable member for Hotham wishes to reflect on the chair, he can do so according to the proper motion. The honourable member for Hotham has asked his question.CU4GALLUSMrs Gallus—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, but if the honourable member has sat down I withdraw my point of order. It was simply that the member was not making a point of order or putting a question; he was debating and reflecting on the chair.1404Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The honourable member for Hotham raised a question regarding proceedings in this House the other night. In terms of the Hansard , if you check after the honourable member for Swan raised the issue to which objections have been made and about which yesterday withdrawals were made, you will find there were no interjections after those remarks. If you wish to object, they need to be raised after the remarks. The interventions were all made before. Neither the honourable member nor any other member in this place raised any objection after those remarks were made, and in fact they were withdrawn yesterday.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What about a bit of leadership from you?WI4REITHMr Reith—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: there has just been an interjection from the member for Batman which was a reflection on the chair.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw that interjection.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I withdraw the question about your leadership.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Oh, very smart!Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Hotham has been warned once. If he wants to stay in the House, I suggest he remain silent.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, if I may, as an aside, this latest series of so-called questions from the member for Hotham is again just a disguised means of challenging proceedings which have been before the House.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He raised a point of order, and he is quite at liberty to do so. Does the honourable member for Chifley have you a point of order?QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, I apologise, but I was—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Are you raising a point of order? I have not given the call to anybody except the Leader of the House.QI4PRICEMr Price—I am. Mr Speaker, I apologise, but I did not hear the Leader of the House seeking indulgence or taking a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House.Documents14051405Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—Review of the operation of the Act, February 1988. Christmas Island Act—Casino Control Ordinance—Casino Surveillance Authority and Casino Controller—Report for 1996-97.Department of Industry, Science and Tourism—Report for 1996-97—Corrigenda.Employment, Education and Training Act—National Board of Employment, Education and Training—Higher Education Council—Report, including the Board's comments—Quality implementation and reporting in Australian higher education 1997, January 1998.Wheat Marketing Act—Australian Wheat Board—Report for period 1 October 1996 to 30 September 1997.Matters of Public Importance1405140510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand (Mr Beazley) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The need to maintain ministerial standards and to strictly observe the Prime Minister's guidelines on ministerial conduct.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—16:18:001405Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker—Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the business of the day be called on.Committees1405140514051405Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 30 March 1998. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 30 March 1998Pursuant to sessional order 28D, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 30 March 1998. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on Australian industry participation in the North West Shelf project.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 25 minutes.Speech time limits—First Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceOrders of the day1CHILD LABOUR: Resumption of debate (from 23 March 1998—Dr Nelson, in continuation ) on the motion of Mr A. C. Smith—That the House:(1) condemns the practice of child labour and calls on governments around the world to do all in their power to outlaw this evil practice; and(2) calls on governments and the private sector to boycott products from countries that use children in this shameful way.Time allotted—10 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Notices1 Mr Eoin Cameron to move:That the House:(1) expresses its abhorrence of domestic violence;(2) notes that children are as much victims of domestic violence as women;(3) welcomes the Government's initiative, `Partnerships on Domestic Violence', to further address the consequences of domestic violence and prevent it from happening in the future;(4) notes that children who are exposed to domestic violence suffer psychological, behavioural, developmental and physical problems, as a result, and that many children who are exposed to domestic violence unfortunately grow up accepting it as a fact of life; (5) urges greater consideration of children in seeking solutions to domestic violence and providing resources to protect victims of domestic violence and prevent domestic violence in the future;(6) encourages the federal and State government's to maintain funding to prevent domestic violence and protect victims of it; and(7) urges all Australians to be open in their revulsion of domestic violence by speaking out against it, reporting it and assisting victims of it.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2 Mr Sawford to move:That this House:(1) notes that the current dispute between Patrick's Stevedoring Company and the Maritime Union of Australia is not in the national interest; and(2) calls upon the Government to urgently bring together all the players on the Australian waterfront, namely exporters and importers, stevedoring companies, the Maritime Union of Australia, the shipping companies and the port authorities to constructively and collaboratively recommend actions required to achieve world's best practice.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Next 2 Members speaking—10 minutes each.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Miscellaneous1406Motion (by Mr Andrew) agreed to:That the following bill be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 Committees14071407140716:20:001407Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development of the Eastern Region Operations Centre at RAAF Base Williamtown, NSW.The Department of Defence proposes to construct new facilities in the operational zone on the base. This will enable the No. 41 Wing Headquarters and the No. 3 Control and Reporting Unit to be collocated and integrated, leading to operational efficiencies, and will replace existing unsatisfactory accommodation occupied by No. 3 Control and Reporting Unit at Duck Hole Hill near the base. The proposal will provide administrative, operational, technical and training accommodation for the two units, which will have a combined strength of 170 personnel. The estimated outturn cost of the proposal is $18 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction would commence in September 1998 and be completed by March 2000. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.1407140716:21:001407Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Redevelopment of facilities at RAAF Base Amberley, Qld.The Department of Defence proposes a redevelopment of facilities at RAAF Base Amberley. A variety of new facilities and upgrading works are aimed at maintaining the required capability of the units located at Amberley. These redevelopment works will address shortcomings in the existing infra structure that have contributed to the inefficient work practices and reduced productivity levels and will contribute to increased compliance with modern occupational health and safety standards. The development proposal will provide RAAF Base Amberley with appropriate functional facilities and working environments for long-term efficient support for the strike, reconnaissance and other ADF capabilities whilst ensuring flexibility for future uses. The estimated outturn cost is $73.7 million. It is anticipated that construction will commence in July 1998 and be completed in the financial year 2001-02. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1407The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Bill 1997 Family Trust Distribution Tax (Secondary Liability) Bill 1997 Medicare Levy Consequential Amendment (Trust Loss) Bill 1997 Committees14071407140716:23:001407Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following report: Report 357—Jindalee Operational Radar Network Project .Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—In June 1991 Defence entered into a contract with Telstra—or Telecom as it then was—to acquire a wide-area surveillance capability based on an over-the-horizon radar technology which had been developed in Australia. From the beginning, the JORN project has been bedevilled with technical and management problems which have so far resulted in an increase in the contracted price of over $600 million and a four-year delay in the schedule. On current estimates, Australia will not have a fully operational over-the-horizon radar network— which is a crucial element of our surveillance system—until the year 2002. The committee's inquiry revealed deficiencies in almost every aspect of the JORN project: in the process of selecting the prime contractor, in the supervision of the prime contractor—Telstra—by Defence, in the management of the project by Telstra and in the performance of a key subcontractor, GEC-Marconi.In selecting the prime contractor Defence ignored the report of an internal review team which concluded, early in the process, that the best approach would be to select a contractor experienced in over-the-horizon radar technologies and with a proven track record in managing major defence projects. The review team had favoured a US based prime contractor with an Australian company in partnership. The committee is critical of Defence's actions in establishing a review team for the particular purpose of making recommendations on acquiring an over-the-horizon radar network, only to ignore the fundamental assumptions on which its recommendations were based. It is ironic that the company now responsible for completing the JORN project is an American company—Lockheed Martin—with an Australian company in partnership.The committee found that Defence exhibited weaknesses in its supervision of the prime contractor. For example, Defence did not intervene early enough or with sufficient rigour to put in place formalised and systematic risk assessment procedures (as required by the contract). Nor did Defence insist on greater Telstra consultation with DSTO—world renowned experts in the field of over-the-horizon radar. Defence's unwillingness to give progressive approval to Telstra's system designs, while understandable given the terms of the contract, contributed to Telstra's difficulties in finalising and progressing a design capable of meeting JORN's very demanding performance specifications.Telstra's lack of experience in Defence contracting and its unfamiliarity with contracts written in terms of required functions and performance became evident in the early stages and were to have damaging consequences for the project. The committee also found a lack of commitment by senior Telstra management to the JORN project. Telstra failed to access relevant expertise in Defence project management or systems engineering, failed to develop an effective relationship with DSTO and encountered significant difficulties in its management of a major subcontractor, GEC-Marconi.The original subcontract between Telstra and GEC-Marconi set out a cumbersome division of responsibilities which contributed to a breakdown in the commercial relationship between Telstra and GEC-Marconi. Remaining unresolved for over three years, the problem of poorly specified interfaces, and the lack of a coherent plan to manage and control hardware and software interface configurations, significantly influenced Telstra's management of the subcontract and impeded progress on the project. The committee is critical that GEC-Marconi, given its experience elsewhere, did not anticipate the difficulties that were inherent in the original subcontract with Telstra. Moreover, the committee was told in the course of the inquiry that GEC-Marconi's inability to deliver transmitters and receivers and associated drivers to quality, performance and time requirements had an adverse impact on the project's cost and schedule.As you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, Telstra has relinquished its management role to a Lockheed Martin-Transfield joint venture company. The future of the JORN project is, however, far from clear. Although Defence asserts that the radar network's performance requirements are technically achievable and the partners in the joint venture company have expressed confidence that the radar network can and will be completed, the committee believes that there are good reasons for a more cautious assessment to be made. Although much has been done to mitigate the technical risks that are still to be confronted, the fact remains that it is in the last years of the project that the high cost, high risk systems integration phase will take place. As Defence's new submarine project has shown, systems integration and testing can be particularly troublesome and time consuming. Since 1983 the Joint Committee of Public Accounts has examined a number of Defence projects and programs which have revealed Defence's consistent inability to gain value for money. It is essential that Defence addresses project management shortcomings and establishes sound procedures which will ensure that high cost projects are completed within allocated budgets and time frames. The committee believes that it is critical that Defence obtains the best project managers, if necessary from overseas, for major acquisition projects. The problems encountered in the JORN project demonstrate conclusively that Defence should choose appropriately experienced consortiums or companies to acquire its major defence capabilities—with a particular focus on choosing the best project managers.A broader issue to emerge during this inquiry was the extent of the Commonwealth's liability for cost overruns incurred by the JORN project. In 1991 Defence had negotiated a ceiling price in its contract with Telstra. However, given Telstra's status as a Commonwealth business entity, any additional costs incurred by Telstra over and above the ceiling price to be paid by Defence are costs to the Commonwealth in terms of reduced dividend payments to the government and its shareholders. This is a matter of immense concern to the committee.In conclusion, I would like to express the committee's appreciation to those people who contributed to the review by preparing submissions and giving evidence at both public and in-camera hearings. I would also like to thank John Alcock from the Department of Defence and Ray McNally from the Australian National Audit Office for their assistance.Finally, I acknowledge the contribution of the former Chairman of the JCPA, the Hon. Alex Somlyay. Also, on behalf of the committee, I thank the members of the sectional committee for their time and their dedication in conducting what has been a very complex and an extremely lengthy inquiry. I also thank the secretariat staff who have assisted in the conduct of the inquiry: Gillian Gould, Laura Gillies and, at an earlier stage of the inquiry, Maureen Chan, Yolanda Rao, Donna Christophers and the secretary to our committee, Margot Kerley. I commend the report to the House.16:32:001409Beddall, David, MPMr BEDDALLQE4RankinALP00—by leave—I rise to support the remarks of the member for La Trobe (Mr Charles), the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, on the inquiry into the Jindalee operational radar network—JORN—project. This was a serious investigation by the JCPA into the funding of an important project. The revelations, to say the least, were of concern to all members of the sectional committee, which I had the pleasure of serving on. Indeed, I believe that they should be of concern to all members of this House.Some of the evidence received in this inquiry was breathtaking, to say the least. As we have heard from the member for La Trobe, the committee found deficiencies in almost every aspect of the JORN project. This was a disturbing feature in what was a long and complex inquiry.The JORN inquiry was well warranted when you consider that the project involved over $1.1 billion of taxpayers' funds. As we have heard, the project is to construct a number of radar facilities which will widen the surveillance capability of the Australian Defence Force. As the committee found out, the project was plagued with managerial and technical problems right from its inception—over some seven years ago.This report by the JCPA primarily sought to find out why this situation developed and what is going to happen to the future of the JORN project. The key players, as the chairman has said, were Telstra Australia, which was the prime contractor; GEC-Marconi, which was a subcontractor responsible for the design and supply of major components of the radar; and Telstar Systems, which was responsible for the radar's software.The committee, to its great distress, found problems with almost every area of the JORN project. Whether it was with the process of selecting the prime contractor, or the Department of Defence monitoring of the prime contractor, or even in the performance of a key subcontractor, problems were found every step of the way. We were told of GEC-Marconi's inability to deliver transmitters and receivers, and associated drivers to quality, performance and time requirements had a critical impact on the project's costs and schedule. It is interesting to note, as the committee was informed, that it appears that GEC-Marconi had similar problems in defence projects in the United Kingdom. Also there were problems with Telstar in their being unable to meet initial contractual requirements.I would like to make some remarks about the conduct of the inquiry. The JCPA was able to inspect the long range sky-wave over-the-horizon radar facility at Alice Springs as well as the JORN sites at Longreach. Those members who were able to attend informed me that it was a very useful exercise. Substantial numbers of public hearings were held in Canberra in 1996 and early 1997, and then later in 1997.We were at all times aware of the sensitivities involved with the project and, as such, evidence was often taken in camera. This unfortunately meant that at times the committee felt—and I think I speak for all members of the committee—that the Department of Defence claimed commercial and strategic sensitivities as a means of limiting open examination of the work that they were undertaking. I stress that the committee fully appreciated the need for confidentiality at some stages of some of the commercial dealings, but the public also has the right to know how public funds are being allocated.To say that the information the committee was after was less than forthcoming is a magnified understatement. The Department of Defence spends about $3 billion a year on major projects. It is true to say that the committee has had a longstanding interest in Defence's management of major projects, as the chairman has said. I am sure, with the record that the defence department has had, that will continue in the future.One of the largest concerns is the actual future of the JORN project. The final cost to the Australian taxpayer is still unclear. I think many members of the committee were shocked at the cavalier attitude to taxpayers' funds shown by various Commonwealth instrumentalities. There seemed to be an attitude from Defence that as long as Telstra or, as it was, Telecom carried the burden then it did not really matter to Defence—in fact, the taxpayer was always going to pick up the bill. I think there should be a greater realisation of the total cost to the Commonwealth rather than to individual departments or instrumentalities.The committee recognised the possible solutions that could come out in some of the key recommendations. One was obtaining managers with the right expertise for major acquisition projects. It appeared to us that, in many instances, the defence department used some of their project teams as burial grounds for people who were not considered good enough to be promoted.We also thought in this instance that we should bring in non-defence experts for senior project positions, and particularly that there should be the establishment of a career structure in procurement and project management. Also, we felt it should be ensured that, in any future Commonwealth contracts and related subcontracts, access to intellectual property is clearly defined. There was quite a deal of debate during the hearings about access to intellectual property, and I am not quite sure whether we ever found out if the Commonwealth has any intellectual property in this project at all.I think the best way for this sort of project—and indeed any future defence project—to operate is to learn from the mistakes that JORN has made since 1991 and include strong financial management of the project. The defence department needs to understand that it has to provide value for money if it is going to maintain the support of the Australian public. Given that this project alone has been in the making for over 20 years, the Australian taxpayer deserves nothing less.I would like to thank the other speakers in this debate, the committee for the work undertaken, the committee members and those who gave evidence, even if the evidence was given reluctantly. Sometimes it was like extracting teeth to get some evidence out of some people, although I must say that it is probably one of the most fulsome inquiries I have been involved in but spread over the longest period of time. I commend this very important report to the House and hope that all honourable members will read it.16:38:001411Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—by leave—The Jindalee operational radar network is a very important defence project. JORN, given its completion, promises to enhance Australia's security by providing an unparalleled wide area surveillance capacity. While JORN's full strategic significance is classified and could not be accurately assessed by the committee, an insight into the importance attached to it by the defence professionals is conveyed by the number of dollars committed to it. If JORN had been completed on budget and on time, it would have consumed eight per cent of total defence capital expenditure over six financial years.The goals of the Jindalee project were to have an over-the-horizon network in operation by 1997 at a target cost to the Department of Defence of $814 million for the prime contract, which would yield the prime contractor a profit of an undisclosed magnitude using an Australian prime contractor which would have a major ongoing defence role. Fundamentally, the story of JORN as disclosed by the JCPA's review is a story of substantial failure to date.Regarding timing, on 13 June 1991 Telecom was awarded the contract to build JORN by mid-1997; a six-year design and construction timetable. The current best estimate for JORN's overall completion is September 2002 or December 2001—four or five years, depending on which date you take, later than the original completion date. The phrase `best estimate' is used advisedly. There have been numerous reschedulings of JORN's completion date. To date none have been met.Regarding price, Defence's original target price for the prime contract was $685 million. By April 1996, $657 million had been paid out. The actual price to Defence is now estimated to go to the ceiling price, which is now $902 million. Even accepting the mysteries of Defence's price escalation, Defence will end up paying tens of millions of dollars more for the project than the originally targeted price.Telstra, far from making a profit, is projecting a loss of $606 million; a loss almost equivalent to the totality of the original target price. I think it is incumbent on me to say, given the disingenuousness of some of the testimony provided to the committee, that the extent of the projected loss may not have been disclosed, despite the committee's efforts, had the privatisation of Telstra not been in the offing.Regarding the objective of engaging an Australian prime contractor in order to avoid dependence on overseas firms and create a long-term Australian prime contractor, Telstra, that prime contractor is now effectively reduced to paying the bills, and is getting out of defence contracting. The responsibility for delivering the project has passed to a US-Australian consortium.In all, the Department of Defence chose a prime contractor that should not have been within a bull's roar of the project. Defence project management of a major project was deficient. There will be a massive loss to the Australian taxpayer passed on through Telstra.Telstra has accepted that it should never have become involved in the project. Defence for its part have minimised the consequence of all of this by saying that, firstly, they will not be paying over the ceiling price and, secondly, they are happy to compromise on time in order to get the capability.The facts, however, are that Australia will pay a higher price for JORN than was ever intended and probably a higher price than would have ever been countenanced. Australia will be denied the delivery of a substantial strategic asset for five years, and the strategic cost of the delay is not just that it increases the risk that the capability will not be available on the day it is needed; JORN is not a point in time asset. The real cost is that Australia is being denied the operation of a fundamental ongoing surveillance capacity for over half a decade.The problems demonstrated by the committee's review of JORN are not a one-off case. Taken together with the problems, inefficiencies and inadequate management illustrated by the Auditor-General's reports on the ADF's food provisioning, health services and the army's presence in the north, it shows that vigilant monitoring of Defence expendi ture is an ongoing imperative. I would like to thank the secretariat of the JCPA, the members of the sectional committee and both chairmen of the JCPA who managed this review.16:43:001412Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—by leave—This report has been one of the most long running and detailed reports produced by the JCPA in the five years that I have been a member, the last two years as deputy chair. I think it has been one of the most interesting areas and issues to look into. But, having said that, I think that in the circumstances we have an area of some significance and that there has been in effect almost a fraud on the Australian people with respect to what has occurred around this project. The fact is that the role of Telstra and the role of the Department of Defence with respect to this particular project deserve probably even further scrutiny, and I worry, as I think other speakers have said, that down the track there may well have to be a son of JORN report on this issue.QE4BEDDALLMr Beddall—Daughter of JORN.QE4Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—Or daughter of JORN, because I suspect that the last page has not been written in this saga. This is a matter which ought be listed before the Main Committee in the future for further discussion. As we have agreed to keep our remarks brief at this stage, I will endeavour to do so. I would like to emphasise a couple of points, while I agree with what all previous speakers have said, because there has been a certain consistent strain coming through from this report.One issue that has concerned me for some time, relating to not only this particular issue but also others, is the role of Defence. When the JCPA examines issues relating to Defence, we continually find ourselves in a situation where Defence says, `Oh, well, we made a mistake; we are sorry, and we won't do it again.' The dog just keeps eating the homework. I for one am sick and tired of hearing about the dog eating the homework, but it seems to be something that will go on for many years to come. The operation of Defence is a very serious issue, particularly in project management. I do not think that Defence has shown that it has learnt the lessons over the years of this and other projects which have shown that there are ongoing problems with Defence and project management.I think we can all be pleased that Telstra is a much better communications company than it is a Defence contractor. I wish it well with respect to phones and other systems of that nature and suggest that it think twice before ever entering this field again—as I am sure it will. If we were talking about Telstra share prices based on it being a Defence contractor, I do not think the government would be crowing quite the way they have been in recent times. The fact is that there is a range of issues which deserve further scrutiny. We also have this ongoing problem with Defence which has been there for many years. Attempts by governments of all persuasions have been made to remedy it, with some difficulty.One of the other issues I would like to refer to at this stage is why it ended up like this. I guess the first point is what happened in the first place. The question has been asked by some about this contention: why were the basic constraints of this project—the Australian components to the overall bids and the technology—sent across to local indigenous producers and companies? I make the point very clear that this, in the context of the times, was a position which was bipartisan, as is clearly shown by statements made around the time of the 1987 white paper by the then shadow minister for defence, the now Speaker, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair).From that, the way that Defence operates as a decision making entity is something that also needs to be reviewed. It even goes beyond the question of project management. It is an issue that is of real concern. We are not talking about small amounts of money. Unfortunately, when you talk about project management in Defence going wrong, you are not talking about a few dollars; you are talking about millions and sometimes billions of dollars. When you make a mistake, boy, it is a big one.I thank all those involved in the report—the secretariat and other members of the committee—and congratulate them on the work that they have done. It has been a long time in its gestation, but that has been necessary because the difficulty has been getting the facts and holding them down. It has been a bit like chasing a rabbit with a fishing net.What we have here now is as good as can be done in the circumstances—given the recalcitrance of a number of witnesses and the difficulty of establishing the facts and maintaining those facts at a particular time. Like I have said, we have a report here that is worthy of consideration to a greater degree. But I will not be surprised if some time in the future I am standing here welcoming son of JORN. I hope that that will not be the case. I commend the report to the House.1413Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I move:That the House take note of the paper.I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills1413r4081413Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.16:50:001413Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997 responds to several of the recommendations that came out of the reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on both the 1993 election and the 1996 election and also the 1995 report on redistributions.One of the features of the politics of the 1980s and 1990s is that the Liberal and National parties, after the 1984 election, were always within striking distance of Labor in terms of seats and votes. In fact, in the 1987 election, the Liberal and National parties outpolled Labor in primary votes. In the 1990 election, the Liberal and National parties outpolled Labor both on primary votes and also on two-party preferred terms. So the results of national elections are often determined by a small number of votes in several marginal seats. For example, part of my seat of Boothby used to be the old seat of Hawker, which I think the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mrs Gallus) won eight years ago today by 14 votes. Sometimes it can be very close.Going back a bit further, there is the apocryphal and famous example of Jim Killen winning the seat of Moreton, which was the swing seat in the 1961 election, on Communist Party preferences, thereby being told by Robert Menzies—again, apocryphal—`Killen, you're magnificent.'Also, in 1993, if 1,500 voters Australia-wide in just a certain number of marginal seats had changed their votes from Labor to the coalition, John Hewson would have been elected in that election. So it is important that we have an electoral system that has integrity and that rorting ballots is made as difficult as possible.The subject of electoral fraud was considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in both its reports into the 1993 and 1996 elections. While it felt that there were no examples of fraud that had changed the results in any division, it did notice, for example, that following the 1996 election there were 302 cases of multiple or dual voting which could not be explained and which were referred to the Australian Federal Police. At the time of the report there had been three convictions.In this bill, item 161 will amend subsection 339(1) of the act. Currently, the act provides that a person shall not wilfully vote more than once at the same election. As the Australian Electoral Commission has noted, the word `wilfully' makes obtaining prosecution very difficult. Item 161 will remove `wilfully' from the act. As previous speakers have mentioned, most of the amendments in this bill are minor technical amendments which respond to problems which were evident in the 1993 and 1996 elections. Most of them have bipartisan support and are uncontroversial.Items 17 and 18 will increase the range of the average divisional enrolment—the size of seats—from plus or minus two per cent to plus or minus 3½ per cent. That is to give more flexibility to the redistribution committee to consider things like physical features, communication and travel within the elector ate, as well as the elusive criterion of community of interests.Increasing that range will allow more flexibility without undermining the principle of one vote, one value. I would sound a note of warning. Looking at the state elections of the late 1980s, one of the features was that often the conservative parties, the Liberal and National parties, got a majority of votes in two-party preferred, yet it was never enough to win the elections. The constitution actually does not provide for absolutely equal electorate size. That has been shown by the case of McGinty and Ors v. State of Western Australia 1996, Commonwealth Law Report 140. So one vote, one value, while we might expect it, is not entrenched in the constitution.MG4LEEMr Lee—Certainly not in the Senate.TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—I might mention, for the information of the member for Dobell, that in the 1989 state election John Olsen won 52 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, but it was not enough to win. In actual fact, it was well known that he probably needed something like 54 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to win. You might remember in the 1989 state election in Western Australia, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Peter Dowding was able to be returned with only 48 per cent of the two-party vote. The Liberal and National parties had 52 per cent of the two-party vote. Again, it was not enough to win.In the 1988 state election in Victoria, similarly, the Liberal and National parties outpolled Labor, but it just was not enough to win. While people remember gerrymanders in terms of the Queensland gerrymander, it is worth remembering that that was initially introduced by the Hanlon Labor government. In my own state of South Australia, while people would remember the unequal electorates of the Playford era, and that had been quite a controversial topic at the time and opposed by university student John Bannon in the 1960s, in actual fact, as many electoral scientists showed, the electoral advantage he had in terms of unequal electorate size and so on was actually just as powerful as the one that Playford had in the 1950s and 1960s.Returning to the bill, there have been a number of sensible amendments previously to remove voters of unsound mind, for example, due to Alzheimer's disease, but the process has been excessively bureaucratic. The objection had to be lodged by an elector in the same division and $2 had to be paid as an objection fee. There is no good reason for this. The bill actually removes those two requirements; and that is a sensible improvement.Also, regarding declared institutions, which are hospitals or nursing homes, the present rule under the Electoral Act—and not everyone is aware of this—is that candidates cannot canvass in the declared institutions once the writ is issued. This does sometimes create problems because the declared institutions are not gazetted for some time after the return of the writ. An amendment in this bill will ban canvassing for five days before and also including the polling day, but it will allow it before that. So that will actually allow some canvassing in nursing homes.Item 150, which relates to the sections in the Electoral Act which saw the gaoling of Albert Langer, will repeal subsection 329(3) of the Electoral Act which led to that gaoling. Albert Langer, you might remember, in 1996 was effectively advocating an optional preferential vote, to vote 1, 2 and then 3, 3, 3 and so on. Repealing this subsection will not allow optional preferential voting, but it will prevent anyone acting as a political martyr by advocating an optional preferential vote.Going into the Electoral Act, section 240 prescribes full preferential voting. However, in the mid-1980s, section 270(2) was introduced to allow voters who missed a square or who repeated a number to have their vote counted. It was a safety net for people who did not fill out their ballot paper correctly but whose intention was quite clear. In the 1987 and 1990 federal elections, there were electors who encouraged an effective optional preferential vote by using that section 270. Before the 1993 election, section 329 of the Electoral Act was introduced. That made it an offence to distribute any material which undermined full preferential voting. In 1996, Albert Langer took out advertisements advocating how to vote for neither. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, in looking into the 1996 report, recommended repealing 270(2), 329(3) and 329A—and that is all in this bill.It is important to emphasise this because it was mentioned by the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) last night and it was actually mentioned in the briefing given by the Department of the Parliamentary Library. Both the comments by the member for Lowe and the comments in the Department of the Parliamentary Library's brief are actually quite wrong. The brief is exactly the same as the comments by the member for Lowe. It says:The result of this amendment is that optional preferential voting will still be valid and people will now be able to lobby others to vote in this fashion.The first part of that statement is wrong. The sections in this act reinforce full preferential voting. Someone like Langer can advocate it, and if someone does it they will not be prosecuted. If anyone does a 1, 2, 3, 3, 3 vote, that will now be an informal vote; so full preferential voting has been reinforced in this bill. As I said before, this is a change in the practice since 1997 whereby there has been a safety net for electors who made a mistake. Just to emphasise this point, I note that last night during the second reading debate the member for Lowe stated:The result of this amendment is that optional preferential voting will still be valid and people will now be able to lobby others to vote in a similar fashion.The first part of that sentence is incorrect. The member for Lowe has proceeded on the assumption that subsection 329(3) is the only subsection to be repealed—the one which dealt with the gaoling of Albert Langer. The amendments will also cause the repeal of section 270(2) and section 329A. Section 270(2), which has previously provided the safety net which has allowed for optional preferential voting, is no longer in the bill. A person could advocate an optional preferential vote but, if they do, that vote will be invalid. It is important that that is recorded in Hansard . I commend the bill to the House.17:02:001415Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The opposition's approach to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997 and to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the 1996 election has ironically been summarised in the contribution of the member for Kooyong (Mr Georgiou). He said that the changes are designed to improve a system which is amongst the very best in the world. Those comments are certainly amplified by the unanimous aspects of the report of the committee:1.12 The basic strengths of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act) and its administration by the AEC were again demonstrated in 1996. It should be a matter of pride that some 11.3 million widely dispersed electors can have their votes recorded so efficiently, and that within a couple of hours of the close of polls they can be told which party is to form government. The continuing overseas interest in the AEC's services is also testimony to Australia's election systems.That is the analysis that the opposition would make of Australia's electoral processes. We know that this bill is not controversial, but it is only one of a number of measures that will be a reaction to this report. Elements in the government pretend that there are major deficiencies and that there is evidence of corruption in the Australian political system. I have to say that very little evidence has been produced in the course of such an extensive report and in its consideration. I commend both chairmen, who were often very partisan, often very controversial. At the end of the day there was no evidence of these allegations. There was no evidence of mass rorting and no evidence that our system is in any way to be compared with those of Kenya, Sri Lanka or any other systems in which such allegations are made.As other people have indicated earlier, there are very few controversies in this legislation. There is a proposed measure that in future we should increase the deposits, which have not moved since 1983. It would seem reasonable to most people that in the case of House of Representatives the deposit should move from $250 to $350; in the case of the Senate, from $500 to $700. In the 1996 election, 402 of the 908 House of Representatives candidates around Australia received less than four per cent of the vote; in similar fashion, 57 of the 85 Senate teams around this country also failed to get four per cent of the vote. It is quite reasonable therefore that we should try to discourage candidates who have minimal electoral support. Once again, I do not think there is any dispute around the place that there should be an enhanced requirement in regard to their obtaining signatures.We know that the disabled's access to polling booths is very difficult because the AEC have to obtain premises from organisations they do not control. The provision here—I gather it is already in Queensland legislation—for disabled people who will face major difficulties in going into the polling booth to cast their vote to be facilitated outside the premises is, once again, non-controversial and quite reasonable.The committee considered that there were quite onerous requirements on Australian citizens who went overseas for a period and could find themselves off the rolls despite a continuing interest in Australian politics. Once again, the committee agreed that they should not be burdened by unnecessary requirements. However, the committee was unanimous in its concern that it did not want a situation like that in the Cook Islands or Italy where people who have no contact or relationship with the country any longer can be flown in, in mass numbers, for election day. The committee's provision therefore tries to find balance. As has been indicated, there is very little controversy in these measures.As for the way in which the poll shall be declared, as was said earlier, the removal of the word `wilfully' from the act will make it a lot easier to prove that someone is guilty of fraudulent conduct in the election, thus making it easier to gain a conviction. There is a large number of procedural aspects in this legislation on which there is no disagreement. However, there is a slight argument on the matter of overseas enrolments. I want to raise a few other aspects of the report and to touch on where this legislation is going. In the Economist of 8 February, which has wide readership within government ranks but probably not too many subscribers on our side of politics, there was a very interesting comment in an article entitled `Politicians for rent'. That article said:Campaign-finance reform is a constant game of catch-up. Matters get out of hand; some curb is introduced; candidates find a way round it, or break it; and a new curb is erected further down the street. In this, America is no exception: most countries set limits on the role money plays in elections and many political scandals have had some connection with campaign finance . . . America's problems are nothing like as bad as—those of some others—but all the same, in the new Congress, dozens of different clean-up bills are being introduced. Some are meant to tighten up laws that are being broken; others are meant to plug loopholes. And, on past experience, most are doomed.We all know in the US a variety of measures have been introduced into the current Congress by Senator Biden and a number of other people. As was indicated by the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan)—once again, that article is spot on about problems in this country—it really is catch up. The current government has a very sorry record in regard to basically trying to exploit the effort by the legislature, the effort by the general public, to make sure money does not run politics.In a previous experience an associated entity had to be created to try to close one of these loopholes. As was indicated by the member for Canberra, the opposition, hopefully with the support of other parties, will try to do something about these latest efforts in regard to the Greenfields Foundation whereby the purported measure this time is a loan of vast amounts of money to the Liberal Party. The AEC has indicated it will take two years to do something about this—two years to investigate it properly to find out whether it is a loan or essentially a donation under other grounds.Whilst there are a few nice provisions in this bill with regard to clauses 309.1 and 314AB relating to minor aspects of public finance in this country, it really does not do anything, quite understandably I guess, about the government's continuing failure—as that Economist article says, this is catch-up politics—and the continuing struggle of the parliament. The member for Boothby (Dr Southcott) has indicated that the Economist is a bible, the Economist is a very reliable journal. He holds it up here today to say that he recognises what it says.The point those opposite make quite reliably is that we do have a problem when the general public does not really understand where money is being sourced from and what favours can possibly be called up. We have had a leading indication of a major political issue in this country: aged care. Mr Moran has said to Mr Ruddock and a number of other members of parliament, `You owe. I was a major donor, and you have not delivered.' Mr Moran's donations were possibly public. That one is out there in the general community, but there are others that are concealed by the Greenfields Foundation and its predecessor, the Free Enterprise Foundation, whereby the current government—TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—The trade unions.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—The member opposite talks about the trade unions—once again, not a very fortunate analogy because essentially there is no foundation that seeks to hide behind loans to the Labor Party of many millions of dollars.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—But you just do their bidding.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—We just do their bidding—that is an interesting proposition. But a fact of life is that we have a major loophole here which this government is not doing anything about. Essentially, this government is about protecting that. As was indicated, an amendment will be moved in the upper house.One other matter I want to raise relates to subdivisional voting. I really do hope that in the legislation the government promises to introduce later something is done about the situation in the Northern Territory and Kalgoorlie. We have a proposition here. The government have argued in the course of discussing this report that they are going to bring back subdivisional voting; that, to counter the supposed alleged unproven corruption that this country faces in elections, they will introduce subdivisional voting.Unfortunately, two electorates already have this. In one of them, the Northern Territory, we have one of the major travesties of justice in this country. Unlike the rest of Australia, the Northern Territory is divided into 25 subdivisions based on the territory electorates. The sad outcome of that is that large numbers of voters in that electorate are deprived on election day in this country of their right to have their vote counted. If they lived in Ballarat, Bendigo or Reid, essentially their votes would be counted.An unfortunate reality is that that electorate has a significant Aboriginal population and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Electoral Information Service has been thrown out the door—it has been deprived of funding and destroyed by this government. People living in that electorate have the other problem that, if they move across the road, half the time their votes are ruled out. If I moved from Guildford to Granville, my vote would still be counted, but people who move across Darwin or Alice Springs are basically deprived of having their vote counted.It is interesting to note that in the whole of Australia only 39.3 per cent of provisional votes are rejected but in the 1996 elections in the Northern Territory over 65 per cent of provisional votes were rejected exactly because of the technicality of people moving from subdivision to subdivision. I was pleased that, despite our political differences, despite our partisan self-interest, the committee could come to the unanimous resolution which appears at paragraph 4.6 of its report:Commonwealth electors should be treated in a uniform way throughout Australia. Until such time as the governments of the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory renegotiate the joint roll agreement, the Territory's subdivisions should be effectively suspended for federal elections.That is a pretty accurate analysis of what should be done. It is up to this government to say that, regardless of how much so many voters basically having their votes wiped out on election day—this is despite their casting their votes properly like people around the rest of the country—helps them, these voters should not be deprived of a vote because of this technicality.It is also interesting to note, when we talk about Aboriginals in this country, that the turnout in the rest of Australia at the last federal election was 95.8 per cent; in the Northern Territory it was only 89.1 per cent. That is an indication of why this authority, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Electoral Information Service, which the Electoral Commissioner went out of his way to basically defend and said that it has been doing a good job and went to bat for it very strongly with regard to its performance—and we all know it is an independent authority that does not try to get involved in the political process and show any kind of partisanship—is so important. But this government abolished it. Quite frankly, we are seeing that there is a need for it which is shown not only by the low turnout in the Northern Territory but also by the fact that people in that state have far fewer rights than the rest of Australia when it comes to voting.This report is non-controversial. It represents those aspects of the committee's analysis of the 1996 elections, which we could all come to an agreement about. But, down the track, we will have proposals from the current government that will fundamentally change elections in this country. Under the guise of saying there is massive corruption, under the guise of saying that the AEC cannot control things, under the guise of saying that people are running around the place in every suburb in this country with nothing better to do than to put people down under false enrolments, they are going to totally change the electoral process in this country to make it more difficult for people to cast votes.The government have come up with ideas, for example, that everyone should run around the place with ID cards on election day. If you are at Bondi Beach and you do not have your ID card on you, you have to go back to Penrith to get the card to cast a vote. They are saying that you have to vote in a very prescribed area, in a subdivision, a small area within the electoral. If you live at Guildford you will not be able to vote at Granville; if you live at Strathfield you will not be able to vote at Burwood.This is what this government intends down the line—to set up a series of processes, a series of hurdles, to deprive people of their rights, to make it difficult to vote, to make sure that those who are slightly less interested, slightly more apathetic than others do not cast a vote.17:17:001418Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—The changes proposed by the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997 now before the House are numerous and many of them can be considered minor. They are changes, however, of an administrative nature which represents more than a refinement of procedures relating to the conduct of elections and referenda. The changes proposed here are indicative of this parliament's recognition of the evolving nature of political, economic, social and technological environments in which we find ourselves. Once assented to, they will attest to the parliament's willingness to respond to such environmental changes in a timely and most appropriate way. This is, indeed, precisely what we as elected representatives have been given the responsibility of doing on behalf of the citizens of Australia. After all, parliament is this country's legislature and we as parliamentarians are charged with legislating to legitimise socially desirable changes.It has been said in these rapidly changing times that the only constancy is change itself. Changes in political, social, economic and technological environments within our country inevitably impact upon our formal institutions. The institution of our democratic practices is not exempt from the need for change. If we were to ignore today's call for change to our electoral laws we would be saddled with a system that would become increasingly irrelevant and ineffective—an outdated vehicle for democracy. Whilst the original Greek or Athenian form of direct democracy was a fine chariot in its time not many would choose to ride in a chariot today. It could not compete with the technologically advanced, finely tuned machines that deliver fast, comfortable travel over the long haul. What we are about here today is constructing a more sophisticated, finely tuned electoral machine that will deliver speed, economy and satisfaction which is capable of taking us into the future.Democracy is generally recognised as being born of ancient Greek traditions from around 500BC. Pericles, on his death bed, extolled its virtues by giving people self rule, free speech, universal citizenship and political power. Furthermore, it enshrined freedom and tolerance in private lives while creating public responsibility and obedience to law. This may have been the ancient Greek's intention, but reality fell a little short of this favourable depiction. Public works were accomplished through slavery, women were not considered citizens and therefore did not have the right to vote and free thinkers such as Socrates were put to death in such a democracy. Nevertheless, Athenian democracy introduced the concept of citizen self rule through direct and continuous participation of eligible citizens in legislative and judicial processes. There was a general assembly of all citizens, and a council of 500 elected members met every day. These 500 were selected by multiple methods and were paid for their services. A rotation system was in place which ensured every citizen took his turn on the council.Although the system became unwieldy and fell into decline, democracy resurfaced in an evolved form after the revolutions in England, France and America. In place of direct democracy representative democracy was born. Liberal democracies took hold in the Western world, although democratic systems bore different characteristics in different countries. These differences reflected each country's unique history, culture and values. It also was indicative of varying interpretations of the word democracy.The most readily recognisable definition of democracy is Abraham Lincoln's given in his `four score and seven years ago' Gettysburg address—that is, `government of the people, by the people, for the people'. This definition can be loosely interpreted. The so-called social democracies may claim to provide government of, by and for their people, but they are vastly different beasts from the Liberal democracies. Liberal democracies read into the definition of democracy Liberal concepts of individual freedom, freedom of opportunity, protection of private property, the rule of law and limited government. This is the case in Australia where we are fortunate indeed to have strong Liberal tradition embed ded in our history, our culture and our political system.In Australia over time we have interpreted democracy variously. Like Greece, citizenship was not universal in our original democratic framework. Women and Aborigines were declined the vote and did not obtain it until 1908 and 1967 respectively. The fact that changes were made extending the franchise is a reflection of the change of attitudes. Likewise, changes have been made to many elements in our electoral laws—including electoral boundaries, the number of elected representatives and the voting system itself. A Liberal democratic tradition pervades not only our political culture but also our electoral system. It adapts the system as needs arise and political opinions dictate.As I said earlier, we as parliamentarians are charged with legislating to legitimise desirable change. There are a number of changes proposed by this bill that have arisen through the need for public demand and through the opportunities made available through technology. These are changes that have been well researched and recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its report on the conduct of the 1993 federal election, the report on electoral redistribution and the report on the conduct of the 1996 federal election.There has been extensive research on the effectiveness and relevance of our electoral practices. There has also been widespread consultation. This research and consultation have given rise to the recommendations contained in the bill currently before the House, and I believe those recommendations deserve bipartisan support.I would like to highlight the links between a number of the bill's provisions and some of the changes in our social, political, technological and economic environments that have prompted this legislative response. We have recognised that there is a social benefit to be gained through the proposed amendment that allows the gender of electors to be disclosed for the purpose of approved medical health research and public health screening surveys. This trend towards public screenings has gained widespread public approval. Indeed, there is now an expectation that services of this nature be provided. This is largely due to the success rates associated with advanced methods of early detection of a number of conditions such as breast cancer. We believe that disclosure of the gender of electors for approved purposes is in the interests of the community, and we have responded with this amendment.A social concern that we have recognised is the inconvenience imposed on some members of our community through bureaucratic red tape associated with enrolment objection processes. I refer here to the close relatives and friends of electors of unsound mind. Where these friends or relatives apply for the elector's removal from the roll, an unnecessarily long objection process currently has to be gone through, including payment of an objection deposit. We have identified that this is an unjust and inequitable imposition on carers and a hindrance to their individual freedom. These carers are people whom society should value and encourage in their compassionate role. They should not be put through an obstacle course in their endeavours to assist the disabled.This bill improves the objection process to allow relatives and friends who do not live in the same subdivision as the elector to make application for removal from the roll based on medical advice and without payment of an objection deposit. It is a Liberal tradition to keep government out of the private lives of individuals wherever possible. This amendment is consistent with that tradition.The next amendment I refer to is also one derived from the basic Liberal tradition—protection of private lives. John Stuart Mill, who is often regarded as the father of modern liberalism, in his essay On Liberty, identified that there were public and private spheres in every individual's life and that there was no justification for government to intervene in individuals' private spheres unless harm to others was being caused.As Liberals, we find it necessary to make an amendment to the current laws to ensure that personal details of people who specifically nominate to be recorded on the electoral roll as silent electors will not be disclosed to persons inspecting applications for postal votes. Clearly, this protection of individual privacy is expected by society in a Liberal democracy today and causes no harm whatsoever to others. Therefore, we strongly advocate the inclusion of this socio-political amendment to our electoral laws.This bill also addresses the social demand for change to disallow canvassing in and around hospitals that are polling places on polling day and in special hospitals during the five days before, and including, polling day. Confusion regarding hospital status as special hospitals will be eliminated because once hospitals are gazetted, they will remain so on an ongoing basis unless abolished by gazettal.Technological advances have given rise to the possibility of saving time and money in the election process. It is incumbent upon us to be prudent economic managers, making savings to the community where possible and where appropriate. As progressive Liberals, we propose that amendments be made to current electoral laws to introduce relevant technology that will allow the Australian Electoral Commission the option to use an up-to-date method of security printing of the ballot papers instead of using watermark ballot papers. Considerable savings will be achieved in storage and production costs as a result.We also propose to enable the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct Senate scrutiny of all `below the line' votes using a computer process. In view of the fact that it is possible that some Senate election papers will be almost a metre long at the next election, this is most certainly a timely amendment that will save time and error in scrutineering. As the report on the 1996 federal election says, it `ought to be implemented before the next federal election'.We propose in this bill some political amendments that one would expect to be initiated by a Liberal government such as this one with a strong mandate from the people. I refer to the proposed amendment regarding electoral redistributions. This government is committed to openness and accountability and therefore recommends that comments and objections in relation to redistributions are made available for public scrutiny. It also recommends that the tight constraints on electoral variations between electorates be relaxed to allow for the community of interest factors to be considered. Liberals acknowledge that not all communities are identical—that the interests of people within boundaries are at least as important as the numerical statistics.My final comment is with respect to the bill's provision for increasing from six to 50 the number of signatures required in support of a nomination by a candidate not endorsed by a registered political party. Registered political parties nominating members are required to have at least 500 members. We agree with the 1996 federal election report that a candidate for the Senate who is not able to attract 50 signatures within a division, let alone a state or a territory, would have no hope of election. Potential candidates must therefore be required to demonstrate at least a modest level of support.The abovementioned proposed amendments to our democratic system are strongly characteristic of a Liberal democracy. They are what the people of Australia demand. I would like to think that the changes proposed by this bill have bipartisan support, because they make good sense. Questions have been raised about what change will create the most effective vehicle for democracy in our country. Some of those questions are answered by the proposed amendments contained in the Electoral and Reform Amendment Bill 1997 before the House today.I commend the bill to the House. It is one that will make our electoral system more efficient, user friendly and economical and will serve us well into the future. By supporting this bill, parliament will demonstrate its commitment to adapting to one of our most important institutions—our democratic institution—to give it relevance and effectiveness in today's circumstances.17:30:001421Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—If one listened very closely to the member for Boothby (Dr Southcott) earlier in this debate on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997 , and to other comments that have been previously been made by members of the coalition, they almost made it. They almost made it in 1993. They almost made it in 1990. They would have been in government if it had not been for problems within the electoral system that Australia currently has. They almost made it, and they would have made it, if it were not for a few votes in a few electorates—and that is why they lost.Given that that attitude is not just unique to the member for Boothby but shared by a number of people in the coalition, it is not surprising that they thought the 13 years they spent in opposition was not a direct result of the positions that they took, the issues that they argued and the fact that they could not convince the electorate at large. There were always the grand excuses, which essentially came down to the fact that they did not get enough seats, and they did not get enough seats because there were just a few people who went the wrong way.The most significant and most controversial matters within the 1996 federal election report that has been produced by the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters will come in a later bill. The key thing we expect to be debated in that later bill will in fact be whether or not there should be voluntary voting. If we link that question to what was intoned by the member for Boothby earlier today, and what other members have concentrated on previously, they almost would have made it in 1990 or 1993 but they were done out because of deficiencies in the system, but one way to fix that would be to do away with compulsory voting, which has been here since 1924, and replace it with voluntary voting.I suspect that the reason we have not got it in this bill and we will be dealing with it in a later one is that a number of people within the coalition actually argue that compulsory voting is important and should be retained. I have been pleased previously—not only here within this debate—to read one of the papers the member for Kooyong (Mr Georgiou) put out on this whole issue of compulsory versus voluntary voting. If he is being joined by others, I expect that we will not deal with that issue directly here. In at least a good part of the coalition—but not in the members who brought down this majority report—there is a strong sense that the benefits in the electoral system that we have, which the member for Kooyong pointed out, have been progressively improved since 1901 and that those benefits should not be simply thrown away.I will return to that when we actually debate the bill, if the government brings that before the House. But, at this point, I want to point out my utter, total and strong opposition to the notion that we should move from compulsory to voluntary voting. That path has been prefigured by what happened in the elections for the Constitutional Convention. Compulsory voting has stood us well. It is not just a right but a duty of the citizens of this country. It is a duty that should be maintained into the future if we are to have a completely viable democracy—one in which people exercise their duties and responsibilities and not simply their rights.I want to speak about a number of the provisions in this bill before going to some wider matters that the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) and other speakers dealt with as to what is not, and should be as a matter of urgency, in this bill in regard to political funding. I first wish to deal with a concern I have in regard to the allowable range between electorates when one has a redistribution. In the current act the allowable range is from 98 per cent to 102 per cent. So an electorate may be two per cent below or two per cent above the quota that has been struck. This has not always been the case. In the past in the Commonwealth we have had a situation where there has been an extremely wide variation in the numbers of people in different seats. Indeed, at state level—and particularly in Queensland—there was an electoral system which was completely and utterly distorted in terms of the number of people in country seats as against the number of people in city seats.What Labor did when it was in government, in bringing in the changes it made to the Electoral Act to ensure that there would be only a two per cent variation above or below, was to get as close as possible to the notion of one vote, one value. It is important to recognise that, in the provisions of this bill which seek to change that variation, instead of the two per cent either way, it is a question of 3½ per cent either way. So, where the quota is struck for a House of Representatives seat, this bill, when it goes through, will have 96½ per cent as the lower level and 103½ per cent as the upper level.According to the background paper produced by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, this was the `most contentious issue' in the inquiry on these matters. It was contentious, I think, in two areas. The core one, as outlined in this background paper, and also as a result of the arguments put by a number of people on this particular matter, is that instead of just the numbers determining what happens when redistributions take place—those numbers currently, they argued, are too strict—you need to do two things: firstly, you need to expand the percentage of variation from the quota that was struck from two per cent either way to 3½ either way and, secondly, that the redistribution commissioners should look to the existing boundaries as an important and central consideration and flip it around to use the general community of interest provisions as more important considerations.What is the source of this? Why is it important and necessary—according to this committee and in this bill—to so expand the relevant range? It goes to what the member for Boothby was speaking about: the fact that the coalition just missed out in 1990 and 1993 and that they would have won if they had had more people in those marginal electorates. By increasing the range between seats from two per cent either way to 3½ per cent either way the coalition members of this committee think that they can embed themselves in marginal electorates and gain electorally as a result of that.If you look at the comments that have been made at that committee's hearings, that stands up as a reasonable surmise. They talked about communities of interest and holding those together and there being greater flexibility. I quote from the background paper at page 2:The 2% range did not, according to the proponents of change, allow any flexibility and was all about number-crunching.The number crunching was about bringing, as far as possible, one vote, one value into the electoral system. From all I have seen throughout the coalition's periods in and out of office they have never been happy with the proposal that we should get as close as possible to one vote, one value. Hence the rationales for why they lost; hence this provision within this bill that the range should be increased and that the community of interest provisions be made broader.The second thing I wish to deal with is the question of the relationship of these particular provisions to the Privacy Act 1988 and how that Privacy Act should be amended in order to take account of what is provided in this bill. At item 38 there is a recommendation that the Electoral Commission should:. . . provide in electronic form, extracts of the electoral roll (including the sex of electors) to individuals or organisations conducting medical research or running health screening programs, Senators and Members and to registered political parties.For all those last groups, that information is already provided to our electorate offices and to registered political parties. It is also provided to Commonwealth departments. But all of those entities are covered by the fact that this is information taken in by a government entity, the Australian Electoral Commission, and provided under strict conditions that directly relate to the Privacy Act 1988.The recommendation in this bill that information in electronic form should be given to private medical research groups or to those running health screening programs would seem to be on the face of it a reasonable thing to do because people may have their health looked after better and they may be able to access that information for the benefit of individuals. Currently there is absolutely no control whatsoever under the Privacy Act 1988 in relation to those private companies which would be in receipt of that information. There is no control except in general guidelines and no real penalty for on-selling of that information to other organisations. The strict controls that are currently there for government institutions and registered political parties are there to retain the privacy of individuals who give that information to the Electoral Commission. Unless amendments to the Privacy Act are made, this is a proposition that opens up the prospect of individuals' privacy being utterly hampered as a result of this.I wish to conclude my remarks in relation to these provisions and this bill by referring to what should be in it and what the member for Canberra alluded to in his speech. The relevant minister here is the Special Minister of State, Senator Minchin. On 9 March 1998, as reported in the Canberra Times, Senator Minchin indicated that he had refused to disclose details of a shadowy organisation which the federal opposition had claimed was being used by the coalition to circumvent rules for declaring political donations. This was, in fact, the Greenfields Foundation, which was the stepchild of the Free Enterprise Foundation, which had previously been used to funnel moneys into the Liberal Party of Australia. Senator Minchin said, very interestingly:The Electoral Commission made it clear in evidence that it saw nothing improper about this loan.He then went on to argue that there was nothing wrong with it, there were no problems and that the Electoral Commission really had no interest whatsoever in pursuing this matter much further. He said to the journalist from the Canberra Times , `Don't ask me any more about this. Go and talk to the Liberal Party or someone else.'As indicated only three days later in an article in the Australian by Dennis Shanahan, the Australian Electoral Commission did not have that point of view. The Australian Electoral Commission are in fact seeking tough new powers to close loopholes and end confusion about the sources of millions of dollars in political donations which they claim are undermining the public disclosure system. Rather than having no problem with this scheme—this latest scam from the Liberal Party of Australia, as the member for Canberra indicated—the Electoral Commission are asking that this problem be fixed. They say that they cannot demand that the Greenfields Foundation disclose to them the information they need in order to determine whether this organisation is an associated entity. They are in a position where they require this parliament to take speedy action to close the loophole. But we have seen nothing in the first instance in this bill which is non-controversial.This is the first opportunity the government has had to put its cards on the table in relation to this matter. Have they taken action in relation to closing that loophole that the Greenfields Foundation is using? The answer is no. Is it likely that they will take action in the future to do that, given that they have not taken it in the first instance? I would argue again that the answer is most probably no. We have a commission arguing that it is not in a position to effectively enforce the electoral laws of this country in relation to this scheme where, instead of donations to the Liberal Party of Australia being covered by the Free Enterprise Foundation as in the past, a loan is made to the Greenfields Foundation, as this scam has it, and where, as the member for Canberra pointed out, there are direct directorial interconnections, post office box interconnections and phone number connections between those two organisations, the Free Enterprise Foundation and the Greenfields Foundation.What has the federal government done in relation to this matter, the fact that, I think, $4.6 million has been loaned to the Liberal Party of Australia from the Greenfields Foundation and the Electoral Commission is not in a position to determine whether or not that is an associated entity? They have done nothing, and I expect that they will do nothing, because, whilst every member of the coalition has argued here that the electoral system is important and should be protected, we have yet another direct example of two things. First, the letter of the law for the coalition government will be skipped around and other vehicles will be found to subvert the provisions that are in those laws in regard to funding of its political processes.The second thing is that there is no strong and direct commitment from the coalition government, apart from a few of its members, to an electoral system that is utterly and absolutely and straightforwardly fair. That is why they have moved to increase the range from two per cent to 3½ per cent, because they think it is just number crunching to get close to one vote, one value. They have no concern about that except to expand the range and attempt to make sure that that range is expanded not just for the purposes of ensuring community of interest but because they are convinced that they should have won in 1990 and they should have won in 1993.This bill is largely non-controversial, firstly, because the controversial provisions have been left out for another bill because the coalition government cannot decide itself whether to take the step that was recommended by the government majority on their committee to propose the end of compulsory voting and its substitution by voluntary voting. Thankfully, there are still some people in the coalition who actually believe in compulsory voting, such as the member for Kooyong, and who are arguing forcefully that an electoral system which we have had operating since 1901 all up, and compulsory voting since 1924, is an absolutely world standard system. It can be improved, it can be adjusted, it can be moderated and it can be amended, and that has been done in the past.The second thing is that, where they have not made a decision to run those controversial matters here, they should be utterly condemned for maintaining a loophole in the existing system in relation to the Greenfields Foundation. That system should have been fixed straight away. Contrary to the argument put forward by Senator Minchin that the Electoral Commission had no real concern about the loan, it is absolutely apparent in that article of 12 March that the commissioners are concerned, that they are in a position where they cannot act as a result of the situation of the current legislation and accordingly they have asked the minister, they are asking the parliament and they have asked the committees to take precipitate action to end this rort, to close that loophole and to ensure that the validity, importance and strength of our Electoral Commission is assured.17:50:001424Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—in reply—I wish to thank all members who have contributed to this debate on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997 . As I pointed out in the opening of the debate in December of last year, this bill contains a number of technical amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. Many of those amendments, as has been pointed out by a number of those who have contributed to the debate, were recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its 1993 federal election report, its 1996 federal election report or its 1995 report on electoral redistributions. In the main, the matters contained in this bill result from those recommendations and they have received support from all parties. They have received that support either in the electoral matters committee or in the course of this debate. I am thankful for that. There was, of course, a debate in the previous parliament on some amendments at that stage which, as I understand it, did not reach conclusion before the parliament itself was dissolved.It is worthy of note that the Australian Electoral Commission has estimated that none of the amendments to the bill will give rise to additional costs and in fact two will provide some savings. That, of course, is always of interest to a finance minister. The amendment relating to alternative printing arrangements for ballot papers will give rise to estimated savings of some $800,000 over a three-year parliamentary term, and computerisation of the Senate scrutiny will provide estimated savings of $300,000 at each Senate election. In addition, the computerised Senate scrutiny will reduce the time taken to distribute preferences of Senate ballot papers, and all parliamentarians, I guess particularly those from the other place, become very frustrated with the time that is taken to resolve the Senate ballot after any election. A computerised system of scrutiny was successfully used in the Constitutional Convention election and in the 1997 election for the Legislative Council in South Australia. So it has been proven in a couple of instances and it will certainly lead to a more efficient process and a quicker outcome for that particular house.Members would be aware of press articles in recent days which speculate on the government's position regarding issues of electoral reform that were recommended by the electoral matters committee in its 1996 federal election report, such as `Truth in political advertising', `Raising the threshold for tax deductibility of political donations', `Measures to strengthen the integrity of the enrolment and voting process', and so forth. The government is considering these more complex issues, and some of these, of course, are quite contentious. I assure honourable members that the government will address them as part of its formal response to that committee. However, the matters that are now before us in the form of this amendment bill are not controversial, and I note that all members who have contributed to the debate agree that the amendments are not controversial and those amendments are supported.I note the intention of the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) to move an amendment to item 48 with respect to overseas elector provisions. Item 48 provides a mechanism for eligible persons who are overseas or who have been so for up to two years to enrol without first establishing a residency qualification in Australia, as is now required. I also note that the honourable member for Canberra indicated that the amendment does not fully implement the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I am advised that the relevant recommendation of the report is not clear and, subsequently, further advice was sought from the committee as to its intention. The advice of the committee was that the period for allowing enrolment while overseas was to be for a period of two years, and the amendment was drafted accordingly. However, the government is amenable to extending this period to six years, as is proposed by the opposition. I do indicate, however, that we would like to have a little more time because there is a technical problem with this which perhaps I will deal with when we get to the consideration in detail stage.I also foreshadowed an amendment to the bill which has been circulated and which the government intends moving at the appropriate time. That amendment will enable postal vote applications to be incorporated into campaign material sent to voters. My understanding is that that is acceptable to the opposition.Most of the members opposite in making their contribution made some comments with regard to allegations with respect to loopholes in the disclosure provisions covering associated entities. There is nothing at this time to suggest that there is any loophole in the disclosure provisions. Where a loan is made to a political party on commercial grounds from whatever source, there is no financial benefit being derived. However, if a loan is made on favourable, non-commercial grounds, then the lender may well fall within the Electoral Act's definition of an associated entity and may be required to furnish comprehensive disclosure returns to the Australian Electoral Commission. I can assure honourable members that evidence provided in respect of the Greenfields Foundation—to which I note honourable members have made reference—clearly indicates that there is a commercial basis for that, and the Electoral Commission has no reason to doubt from information provided anything to the contrary.I again thank all honourable members for their contributions and commend this amendment bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.1426Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.17:56:001426McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I move:Schedule 1, item 48, page 13 (lines 5 to 6), omit paragraph (2)(b).I spoke to this amendment at length in the second reading speech and the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) responded to it, in the main, in summing up. I thank him for the positive tone of the response and look forward to hearing the technical issues to which he referred. I accept that the appropriate course in the circumstances that he has outlined is that this is a matter that we will deal with in detail in the Senate after the government has had more time to consider it. Hopefully then we can come to some agreement. Of course, I will still formally move the amendment, and I am interested in hearing the minister's response. I appreciate the positive nature of it.This amendment deals with this question of the two-year waiting period. I do not think that is a logical basis, and I outlined that before. It would be tedious repetition to do it further. We are all trying to create a circumstance in which every Australian who should be entitled to vote is and nobody who is not entitled to vote can. That is the agreed set of principles that we are trying to implement. It is a question of whether this is or some alternative version is the best provision to do it. This amendment is our preferred version, but we do not have a closed mind to the government suggesting a better way of achieving the shared goal we have. This is not a matter of a partisan contention; it is a question of trying in the best way we can to ensure that Australians who happen to be overseas and who wish to participate in our democratic process are facilitated in doing so.17:58:001426Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I indicated a technical difficulty. At this time, I am reluctant to indicate this other than there is perhaps a need for clarification. I understand that the opposition lodged this amendment with the Table Office on 10 March. It appears, however, that the Table Office was unable to provide the government with a copy until mid-morning today. I am always reluctant to blame someone outside the political process in such cases, but that has given the government little time to consider the ramifications of the opposition's amendment.I noted the points raised by the honourable member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) in his contribution last evening. What he seeks to achieve through this opposition amendment is that, for a period of six years, there is an opportunity for Australian citizens residing overseas to register and vote. I again refer to my remarks earlier in the debate, whereby the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters felt that the two-year registration period was seen to be sufficient. That was their intention. That was a bipartisan committee. The government has to look at the ramifications, including the administrative costs of running this process for six years as against the two years for registration, allowing votes for up to six years for those who are non- resident in Australia. I am happy to keep an open mind on that subject, to get further advice on it and perhaps to speak to members who are on that joint standing committee and get their views on it. I anticipate that there may be other amendments when this bill gets to the Senate, and perhaps the matter can be given fuller consideration at that time. The government will oppose it at this stage on that basis.Amendment negatived.18:00:001427Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 3), after item 96, insert: 96A After section 184A Insert: 184AA Application forms for postal votes (1) An application form for a postal vote may be physically attached to, or form part of, other written material issued by any person or organisation. (2) For the purposes of the Copyright Act 1968 , if a person other than the owner of the copyright in the application form for a postal vote reproduces the application form, the person is not taken to have infringed the copyright in the application form.(2) Schedule 2, page 42 (after line 9), after item 15, insert: 15A After section 55 Insert: 56 Application forms for postal votes (1) An application form for a postal vote may be physically attached to, or form part of, other written material issued by any person or organisation. (2) For the purposes of the Copyright Act 1968 , if a person other than the owner of the copyright in the application form for a postal vote reproduces the application form, the person is not taken to have infringed the copyright in the application form.The government has considered a further matter which it believes will add to the process, and this relates to postal vote applications. The amendments which have been circulated by the government provide that the approved postal vote application may be incorporated into another document with material issued by someone other than the Australian Electoral Commission, such as a political party or a candidate. The postal vote application, however, must be in the approved form. This will allow political parties and candidates to circulate postal votes for those who seek to register for a postal vote and, within the same envelope and attached to that postal vote, to provide certain other material. The current act does not allow for this to occur.Further, the machinery provisions that back that up comprise the second amendment as circulated. It will not affect the practice of a completed postal vote application being returned to a political party or to a candidate's office before being forwarded on to the district returning officer, regardless of whether the district returning officer's address details are part of the approved form. We see this as being a practical way of assisting people to obtain postal votes and to register for postal votes. I commend these amendments to the House.18:02:001427McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—As I indicated in my speech in the second reading stage, the opposition supports these amendments. We have not had a lot of time to consider them, but they cover issues of the postal vote process, with which everybody in this House is broadly familiar.Even those members who, unlike myself, are lucky enough to have very safe seats have to deal with postal votes from time to time. But many members in this House deal with postal votes very assiduously and, generally, there seems to be a consensus that the government has come forward with amendments with which we can all concur. They achieve the purpose of convenience for voters, without in any way jeopardising the validity of the electoral process, which seems to me to be a fair balance. And, as I have said, we will be supporting them.I cannot foresee it, of course I have to say, given the short time we have had to look at these amendments, but my colleagues in the Senate might, on further consideration, want to raise some queries about them. But, on my advice at the moment, they share the view that these are desirable amendments which we support.HQ5FAHEYMr Fahey—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum in respect of the government's amendments.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.1428Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1428r4351428Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Mr Warwick Smith:That the bill be now read a second time.18:04:001428Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The Labor Party will be opposing this new accommodation charge that is being imposed by the Howard government on nursing home residents. It is yet another charge being imposed on the frail elderly of this country. It seeks to bring about a user pays system for nursing home care—which Labor views as essential health care—for older Australians.Many people must be wondering why it is that we are here tonight debating this bill. In November last year, I am sure that all older Australians in particular will recall, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) did not come into the parliament but went on that very well watched program, A Current Affair. He went on that program to announce that the government finally realised that people would have to sell their homes to pay an accommodation bond; so he said that the accommodation bonds would be abolished. In their place he said—and this is last November—that the government would introduce an accommodation charge.For days it was unclear how much this charge would be. At first he said it was going to be in the order of $4,000. Then it was going to be an average of $4,000. Then it was to be capped between $7,000 and $10,000. And finally it was to be `capped' at $4,380, or half this amount for those with smaller assets. The level of assets and the level of fees to be paid has continued, in fact, to fluctuate right up until late February this year.On 6 and 7 November last year, regulations were put in place that were meant to set the level of this new accommodation charge. When the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) returns to the chamber to respond to the second reading stage of this debate, I would like to ask him a number of questions about these regulations. I would like him particularly to table the regulations that gave the power to the government to raise this fee at that time, being from 6 November, because I have grave doubts about whether or not the government has had the legal right to make these accommodation charges. What I would like from the minister is a direct answer to the question: is that why we are debating this bill? Perhaps the next speaker would like to help the House answer this question: are we debating this bill here tonight because the government is concerned about the legality of the charges that have been in place since 6 November?It is a very serious matter that we are debating here tonight. If the government has any legal advice or uncertainty about whether or not these charges should have been levied in the way they were from 6 November until whenever it will be that this bill that we are debating tonight comes into force, we would like to see that legal advice. More importantly, elderly people in nursing homes who have paid this fee would like to see that advice.On 6 November the government through the user rights principles amendments set a maximum amount of $1 for an accommodation bond. This is the method they used to introduce this new notion of an accommodation charge. First of all, they set the accommodation bond at $1. They also introduced this new notion of a capped bond of $6 and $12. That happened on 6 November. On 7 November they made some additional points about the maximum daily amount—we get the word `daily' introduced here. The word `daily' was not used on 6 November. On 6 November from that regulation it certainly is not clear that this capped bond was to be charged daily.I would like to know how the minister defines a capped bond being a daily accommodation charge. If we look at the definitions in the original act, the Aged Care Act 1997, we go to the definition section and look at the definition of an accommodation bond, it states:An accommodation bond in relation to a person means an amount of money paid or payable to an approved provider by the person for the person's entry to a residential care service . . . Over the page under the definition of entry it states:Entry in relation to a person and an aged care service means the commencement of the provision of care to the person through that aged care service.That does not seem to me to be the same thing as a daily accommodation charge. As I said, we would be pleased to see how it is that the government has used these provisions of the act to set this new daily charge.I notice that two weeks ago on 4 March another amendment was put through to the residential care subsidy principles. On that day, 4 March this year, an accommodation charge was finally defined. I wonder what went on in between. It seems to be the case that the user rights principles amendments that were put in place on 6 November last year tried to use the accommodation bond section of the Aged Care Act to set the accommodation charge to a maximum of $6 and $12 a day.It is the case that section 57-12 of the act permits the setting of a maximum amount for a bond in the user rights principles and to overcome the maximum daily amount of residents' fees restrictions that exist in section 58-1 of the act it seems to us to be the case that the government is using part 5 section 23.82 of the user rights principles to specify an amount to be added to the daily amount of the residents' fees. But an accommodation bond, according to the user rights principles, can only be paid by lump sum, periodic payment or a combination of lump sum and periodic payment. It is later specified that the frequency of periodic payment cannot be more often than weekly.As the accommodation charge is a daily charge, and therefore not an accommodation bond lump sum, it must be a periodic payment. But according to the act the frequency cannot be more than weekly. So our question is: if it is neither a lump sum nor a periodic payment it cannot be a bond. If it is not a bond, it seems to us there may not be any legal basis on which the government has introduced it. We are extremely concerned about what is going on. I ask the minister again: is this why we are debating this legislation tonight? Is it because the regulations made last year do not give the power to the government to raise those charges?Labor will be opposing this accommodation charge of $4,380 a year or $12 a day which has replaced the iniquitous uncapped accommodation bond. As I am sure most members of the public are well aware by now, from Labor's point of view access to nursing home care should be on the basis of people's health care needs, not on the basis of how much a person has to pay. This new nursing home charge has been justified by the government as an essential step in meeting the capital needs of nursing homes and for preparing the ground for what the minister likes to call the tidal wave of older Australians that are apparently likely to need nursing home care in the future. But the real reason that all older Australians now know is behind the introduction of this government's new charges for nursing home fees is that this government slashed $500 million from the aged care budget in 1996.The economic underpinning of this legislation—the resource that the government hoped to tap after taking $500 million out of the aged care budget—was and still is the family home and savings of older Australians. Even though we have had so many backflips, so many backdowns and so many changes from this Prime Minister about nursing home care, it is still the case that the family home remains in the nursing home assets test.New nursing home residents have been told that they can pay the accommodation charge by a range of different options. They can rent their homes or mortgage their homes, which is not a very attractive option to somebody in their nineties who has spent 50 years paying off their home and, needing to go into a nursing home, is told by this Prime Minister, `Go out and get another mortgage on your home.' The final option, one which the government does not like to give too much attention to—nevertheless, it is still a very real option for most people—is selling their homes. The reality is that selling your home is still a very real option.The Australian Catholic Health Care Association, in their journal, said:The annual fee, or accommodation charge, is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. Selling their home will be the only option for many consumers.Just last week the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation, in a letter to the minister, said that a full or part pensioner will have no option but to sell their home. More than 70 per cent of people who go into nursing homes are full pensioners. They have little more than their pension. They have just one asset: their family home.The other option put forward by the Prime Minister, which equally, along with selling and mortgaging your home, is not getting too much of a response, is that the elderly people needing to go into nursing homes should ask their families for the money. How many families around Australia have a spare $4,380 every year for five years to pay for the nursing home care of their elderly relatives because this government took $500 million out of nursing homes? People do not have that sort of money. It shows how out of touch this government and this Prime Minister are.While the maximum charge is now set at $4,380, where is the guarantee that it will stay at this level? The minister wrote a letter to the Prime Minister last year, which we happen to have a copy of, saying:Cabinet discussed this issue—That is, the maximum level of the charge—and agreed a cap of $5,500 on 17 November.This was after the regulations had set the level—seemingly; that now seems to be in some doubt—at $4,380. The implication in the letter is: even though we set it at $5,500, we will leave it at $4,380—and here I quote—`to avoid raising community concern'. That is what the letter says from the minister to the Prime Minister.We have to remember that all this was going on in the context of the Prime Minister's extraordinary backflip on accommodation bonds. The government had become totally panicked by community outrage. That is what it was about: community outrage about the way in which this government has been treating older Australians. So we have to look at this letter from the Minister for Family Services to the Prime Minister in this context.While it obviously was the case that the government was very concerned `to avoid raising community concern', it was also equally determined to make older Australians pay for their nursing home care. Having taken $500 million out of the aged care budget, another $500 million had to come from somewhere.Even though the Prime Minister had appeared on A Current Affair saying, `You will not have to sell your homes anymore,' what has remained the case is that older Australians will have to make up that $500 million. Those older Australians are to continue to be the source of that funding. Because it is the case that most elderly people have only the pension and generally have only one asset—that is, their home—we all know now what the source of the money is going to be.We are concerned about another statement that is in this letter from the minister to the Prime Minister. It says:. . . the existing cap of $4,380 should remain pending a more detailed analysis of the industry's capital needs.What are the industry's capital needs? In asking this question, it is very important to remember that, if it is the case that the industry's capital needs are not going to be met by the amount of money that is currently being taken from older people, what we are going to see is a move to increase the accommodation charge.It is the case that nursing home providers have constantly told this government that this is simply not the way to go about upgrading nursing homes, that they cannot upgrade their nursing homes on the basis of the accommodation charge alone. We have here press releases from all the different organisations representing the different types of nursing homes and their consumers in this country.On 27 February the Catholic, Anglican, Baptist and Uniting churches said:. . . the present capital funding arrangements are totally unsatisfactory. The continued lack of resolve by the Government to restore its portion of the capital budget has left the residential sector stranded.`Stranded' is what the church groups had to say. The National Association of Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals had this to say:Under the present arrangements while some nursing homes will be able to achieve building quality by the year 2001, many others requiring substantial upgrading or rebuilding will not.The private for-profit providers have been in open conflict—in fact, threatening legal action with the government—about the issue of additional recurrent funding since the changes were introduced on 6 November. This funding was given to provide nursing homes the capacity to borrow larger amounts to pay for upgrades. But, under the new legislation, the government demanded that providers choose to take either the additional recurrent funding or the bonds.As the additional recurrent funding was for past upgrades and the accommodation bonds or charges were supposed to be for future upgrades, the providers felt it was reasonable that they have access to both. The minister continues to fail to see the logic of this argument and so the capital upgrade problem continues to become that much greater. The providers of nursing home care in this country, I would have to say, have become so frustrated over this issue that they feel they are being put in a complete holding pattern by this government, being fobbed off until after the election, when goodness knows what will happen. An accounting body, Bentley's Chartered Accountants, came out with a statement on this in December last year. They said in a press release:. . . the survey highlights the problems facing the Howard Government on Aged Care reform and underlines the need for urgent measures to be taken on funding improvements. They have three reality checks, and I will read the first one: Reality Check 1: only 25% of Nursing Homes and 17.5% of Hostels believe they have funded policies for the replacement of their buildings!A very serious state of affairs. The Council on the Ageing, an organisation that actually represents consumers of aged care services, said in December last year, after all these changes had taken place:COTA has always argued that the Government should pay for current upgrading needs before fees and charges are applied to new residents.They go on to say:The $20 million—which the government has announced—is a start but we think it is not nearly enough and we will be seeking further funding from the next federal budget.The Council on the Ageing release raises this issue of the $20 million. It was referred to in the release announced by the Minister for Family Services last December. It was supposed to be for nursing homes that needed urgent capital upgrades. What everybody would like to know is where is the $20 million? When will it be allocated? Who will get it?The most telling evidence of the inadequacy of capital provision comes from a survey carried out by the Uniting Church, the largest supplier of residential aged care in Australia. This survey showed that in the last six years the church had spent an average of between $3 million and $13 million every five months on new hostel and nursing home development or on major refurbishment. In the last five months, since the implementation of the government's appalling aged care legislation, not one cent has been spent. The money is simply not provided for in the legislation. John Ireland, the President of Aged Care Australia, is quoted in the February edition of Australian Health and Aged Care Journal as saying:I predict there will be further imposts on consumers—and this is the critical issue because, in the end, it is the elderly people of Australia that this Howard government is going to take the money from—because, at the end of the day, a maximum charge of $4360—he says $4,360 but it is actually $4,380—just isn't enough.The article goes on to say:Ireland is calling for urgent recognition of the need for "further tinkering at the edges".John Ireland is on the minister's new technical reference group so we should be able to give some credence to his prediction that elderly Australians are going to be paying more. Despite this almost universal condemnation of the adequacy of the current capital funding arrangements, it is obvious from the government's total silence in response to all these calls that the minister and this government intend to do absolutely nothing about the needs of nursing home residents in this country—certainly not until the election. What we have to say—and what I know that all older Australians, in particular, are saying to me—is: given what they have done, what on earth will they do next? If they do not fix this problem after the election and, by some misfortune, they get elected again, what on earth will they do next to older Australians?Last November we had all of the main not-for-profit providers meeting with the minister on the subject of capital needs. They thought they had reached agreement that they would spend some time—eight weeks, I understand—actually calculating their exact needs. They wrote formally to the minister on 20 November letting him know what they intended to do. Nearly four months later the minister has yet to respond. As I said, what on earth can older Australians and their families draw from this? There is absolute certainty that nursing homes will get none of the capital that they need to upgrade from this government and that once the election has been held and, as I said, if we do find that this government is re-elected, the accommodation charge will certainly go up. People who need nursing home care will be paying more for essential health care. That is what will happen if this government is re-elected.There are some other serious problems associated with the bill that is before us tonight, in addition to the accommodation charge. I will turn to those briefly. Members on both sides would know that the residential aged care sector in this country is highly regulated to make sure that high quality care is provided and that nursing home and hostel beds go to those who need them most. That was the principle that was established under Labor and it is a principle that should remain under this government. But, under this bill, people seeking nursing home care must be classified as suitable for nursing home or hostel care—that is okay. This will be done by aged care assessment teams, also a good initiative put in place by the previous Labor government. But of considerable concern and a matter which I would like the minister to follow up in his response is clause 57A-2(1)(a)(ii), which says:if the approval—for the aged care assessment team—is not accompanied by any statement . . . That is, a statement that a person be suitable for hostel or nursing home care, a person could still enter a nursing home or hostel if:. . . the care recipient and the approved provider have agreed that an accommodation charge is to be payable.I would appreciate it if the minister could assure the House that this does not mean that you do not need an assessment from an aged care assessment team; all you need, if you want a bed, is to agree to pay. If the minister could clarify the meaning of this subsection and why on earth it is even in there, I think it would be extremely helpful to all Australians in their concern to make sure that access to nursing home and hostel care will remain entirely on the basis of health need alone. It would be a sorry day, indeed, if we were to see a change occur in this country that enabled people to buy their way into nursing home care.The second area I would appreciate further information about is in section 57A-6(1)(b) on page 16 of the bill. This sets out the maximum amount of accommodation charges. As I read the clause I have referred to, it does seem to be the case that the government wants to increase the accommodation charge way beyond the $4,380. Once again, I would ask the minister whether this is correct because it seems to enable the government, at some time in the future after the next election, by merely changing the user rights principles—which, of course, do not have to come into the parliament—to increase the accommodation charge.I repeat the point because we have already seen, in a letter from the minister to the Prime Minister, that the government has already agreed on a cap of $5,500 but hoped to keep it a secret, as the letter said, to avoid raising community concerns. Community concerns will certainly be raised by this legislation if there is no limit in the act on what can be charged. The way the bill seems to be drafted at the moment is exactly that way. As I said at the outset, Labor will be opposing the introduction of this accommodation charge. I will be moving a number of amendments, when we get to the detailed stage of debate, to remove all reference to the charge from this bill.There are a number of other specific areas I would like to raise and ask the minister to respond to. The first is the definition of hostel and nursing home care. The bill defines hostel care as meaning residential care for care recipients who do not have a continuing need for nursing care or who do have a need for nursing care in the case of nursing home residents. What I would like to know is: where is nursing care defined?The second issue is in relation to what I understand is described by the minister as a drafting error in the original legislation. I find it inconceivable that the government managed to draft the original legislation last year in such a way that it was impossible to take sanctions for breach or revoke approval against a provider for breaches prior to 1 October 1997. This flaw is yet another example of the continuous bungling by this government of this aged care issue. Fancy taking away the capacity for the government to revoke the approval of or put sanctions on a provider that had done the wrong thing before October last year. It is a shameful state of affairs that we find ourselves in. I very much hope, in the interests of elderly people and their families and the certainty that they need about the future of their accommodation needs when they become very frail and sick, that we will get some answers to the problems that have been put to the government tonight.As a result of this government's charges, many people are no longer seeking the nursing home care that they need. The responsibility for this care is falling back onto families and falling onto public hospitals, and it is these people who are feeling the blowtorch of the cuts this government made to aged care and the enormous amount of incompetence and bungling that has taken place after that change. It is a shameful way to treat one of the most vulnerable groups of people in this country and should be condemned. (Time expired)Sitting suspended from 6.34 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:001433Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—It gives me great pleasure to speak to the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998. In doing so, particularly as I am following the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), I would like to return to the most important part of this bill: why is the government, in the first place, trying to change the way in which we finance residential aged care?Late in 1995, about six months after my preselection, which I found to be a character building experience, the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Richard Court, gave me a piece of advice which I have used to good effect and which I will never forget. He said to me, `Brendan, just remember that you are only there once, and the saddest thing that you will ever see in politics is someone who leaves it regretting that they did not say or do what they knew to be right when they had the opportunity to do it.' What this government, of which I am privileged and proud to be a member, is doing is something that is not necessarily popular, but it is right and it is in the interests of Australia much more than it is in the interests of any individual member of this government, or indeed the party political fortunes of the Liberal Party.The Hawke-Keating government failed Australia in two principal ways, and both of those failures are addressed in no small way by this bill. It failed us, firstly, by allowing us to become a country in which we finance essential social infrastructure, of which aged care is one of the most important aspects, on debt and asset sales instead of on income. Secondly, it failed us by allowing us to become a country in which we expect that there will be an unsustainable capacity of government to deliver all of the things that we want and all of the things that we need. It allowed us in some ways to become a selfish country: a people far more concerned about our rights than our responsibilities and about the here and now—what is going to happen today—rather than having any kind of meaningful respect for the past and certainly any meaningful planning for the future.What the government is seeking to do in aged care addresses those two principal failures. This amendment bill will give effect to the intention of the government, because what the government is trying to do is to see that 20 or 30 years from now there is a place available in residential aged care and, more importantly, that it is a place in which we would be happy to have either of our parents or, indeed, ourselves live; in other words, it is a place of quality. The government is also seeking to see that this is financed on income, that it is not financed on a legacy of debt that we leave the next generation and that we have the courage, as the Australian Labor Party did in 1988 in introducing entry contributions to the hostel sector, and the foresight now in 1998 to introduce and implement measures that will see Australia and residential aged care well into the next century.The context in which these reforms are being effected is this: about five per cent of us eventually will need some form of residential aged care; about 130,000 Australians currently live in residential aged care institutions; currently about 13 per cent of us are over the age of 65; and halfway through the next century a third of the people in this country will be over the age of 65. In fact, there are 2.2 million people currently over the age of 65 and, on present changing demographics, that will double over the next 30 years. About eight per cent of us over the age of 75 will suffer, in the absence of a cure, from dementia. Of the most rapidly growing age group in the community—the over-85s—24 per cent currently suffer from dementia, and the next 40 years will see a 300 per cent increase in this age group alone. Last year Australia had 1,660 centenarians; by 2060 there will be 54,000.If you go back to Professor Bob Officer's report to the National Commission of Audit, which he released in July 1996, and you turn to the chapter on health and then to the chapter on aged care, you will find a number of things. In 1993 the number of Australians between the ages of 15 and 64 was 5.3 to 1; in 40 years time it will be 2.6 to 1—it is called an aged dependency ratio. Over the next 40 years we are going to have to spend 10 per cent more of our gross domestic product, our nation's entire productivity, on the health and welfare costs of ageing, above and beyond real growth from where we are currently at, just to sustain the level of services that we are currently providing and which Australians have come to expect. If you further consider that last year there were around seven million Australians who worked and paid tax to support 6.2 million—most, through no fault of their own, relying on some form of social security benefit—you realise that something has to change.What the member for Jagajaga and others who perhaps are well intentioned on the other side of the House fail to appreciate is that you can cannot live in an economy which is growing at around three per cent and, on the one hand, deny transport, energy, taxation and regulatory reform and, on the other, turn around and say, `But, yes, we will have free education and higher education for everybody, we will have free aged care provided for everybody irrespective of their means, and we will have free health services provided to everybody irrespective of their background.' No matter how noble the intention, it is simply not a sustainable concept. At some stage the government, as the previous government did in 1988 in relation to hostels, has to take some difficult but responsible decisions.We need also to consider that the debate of this bill occurs in the context of three major reviews initiated by the previous government—again to its credit—which examined the state of Australia's nursing home sector, the most comprehensive of which was under taken by Professor Bob Gregory, who was then a member of the Reserve Bank board and professor of economics at the Australian National University. The second stage of that report was delivered in 1994.Gregory found that in 1994 we had to spend $1,000 million to bring up the standard of Australian nursing homes to meet fire, design, health and outcomes standards. The Valuations Office, which was a significant part of that inquiry, found that, of 150 nursing homes, 75 per cent of them needed to be significantly repaired or completely rebuilt to meet design standards, 70 per cent failed to meet outcomes standards and 13 per cent did not meet fire standards, and that 39 per cent of residents in nursing homes lived in a room with at least three other people, 13 per cent lived in a room with at least five other people and 12 per cent lived in rooms that contained at least six beds. Gregory went on to say:The lack of incentive to maintain good quality nursing home stock is a result of the funding system under which nursing homes receive a set amount for each resident based on frailty, which is the same regardless of the age or condition of the building.To complete the scenario: whilst all of this was occurring, Labor was reducing the capital funding provided to nursing homes from $45 million in 1992-93 to $10.7 million in 1995-96. Keep in mind that when the member for Jagajaga was making her contribution to this debate she berated us for the fact that this government committed itself recently to an additional $20 million for capital funding. She criticised the government for that. That is twice what her government intended to spend for the entire sector in 1995-96.At the same time, our government, the Howard government, is committing $40 million for nursing home capital in regional and disadvantaged areas, not to mention the money that will be raised after four years from the income stream of $130 million a year through accommodation contributions—in other words, coming into the sector from those people who are its primary beneficiaries: those who are going into it. Australia needs to ensure that we live in a society in which everybody feels that they will be cared for and knows they will be cared for irrespec tive of their means or their background, but in return we are all expected to make some contribution to the society from which we derive some benefit.Amongst the things said by the member for Jagajaga on the occasion of this bill being debated and indeed others is that the generation most immediately affected by this are people who have sacrificed for most of their lives, who have saved for most of their lives, and now they may be required to make some contribution to their residential aged care. This is a generation who grew up during the Depression. The first generation affected by this measure are people who went to war or sent their family members or those whom they loved to war. They are people whose sacrifices made this country what it is. They are people who did not buy something until they had saved for it.What I say to that generation is thank you for leading us for the last century and what we are trying to do here is to not only ensure that we raise money that can be spent only on your care and only on your accommodation, if you are in the situation where you might be able to afford to pay it, but also change cultural expectations. We are trying to build the kind of future in which young people especially understand that they cannot spend all their money on a Bali holiday or a nice car, that they actually have to give some thought to who will be financing their higher education and their aged care and paying for their pension and all of the things that I think over the last 13 or 14 years many Australians have come to take for granted.A couple of points that ought to be made about the accommodation charge are, firstly, it is a maximum of $4,380 a year, or $12 a day, for those who have assets in excess of $45,000 a year and for those with assets between $22,500 and $40,000 there is a sliding scale of between $6 and $12 a day. The legislation requires that that can be spent in only one of three ways: on building capital in which you will live or retiring debt that has been used to build that capital; on upgrading the capital, the accommodation, within which you live; or, in the absence of those two things, on the provision of care and services to you.In terms of income tested daily fees, people seem to forget that amongst the things we are doing is trying to amalgamate the hostel and the nursing home sector. Forty per cent of people living in hostels today actually should be in a nursing home because they have levels of dependency which meet those requirements. Couples can face a dreadful situation, as I found when I was looking after people who were sick, where they, after being married for 50 years, go into a hostel but, when one of them subsequently has a stroke or is faced with some other disaster and is required to move to a nursing home, they are forcibly separated. Under the reforms the government is undertaking in amalgamating the two sectors, that will no longer be required.In the hostel sector up until now hostel proprietors have been required to leave residents with around $57 a week. After the first $49 a week, which is the pension free area, they could take dollar for dollar whatever the resources and income hostel residents had. We are saying that people will be required to pay after the first $49 a week, which cannot be touched, 25c in the dollar to a maximum of $63.30 a day. In order to be paying $63.30 a day for your care, you would have to be earning $56,000 a year or, a married couple, $112,000 a year.One of the other points that was raised by the member for Jagajaga, and which is raised repeatedly, is that this government has allegedly ripped $500 million out of aged care. What it actually has done is reduce the rate of growth in the forward estimates from expenditure in aged care. We increased by 6.7 per cent in the 1996-97 budget the amount of money we spent on residential aged care. In last year's budget we increased it by 4.2 per cent—2,200 new nursing home places this year and 2,800 new community aged care packages.But what we have done is to ask Australians who could afford to do so to make a contribution to their care at a time when they most need it. In doing so, we will ensure that we have nursing home stock that is of quality, that it is sustainably financed and that there is a place available 20 or 30 years from now. In also doing so, it will ensure that the older generation of Australians will help lead Australia into the next century and change some of the cultural values and unrealistic and, dare I suggest, selfish expectations of younger generations, including my own.20:17:001436Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—The Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 , I have to say, is a testament to the very ad hoc approach to social policy which has characterised this government since its election. The government so far has presided over a series of complicated changes, none of which have been clearly explained or justified before the next ones are announced. All of them, as far as I can see, have been driven by a very narrow ideological focus—and we have heard some of that from the previous speaker, the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson)—which imposes increasing burdens on service users and their families while removing taxpayer funded support—over $500 million worth. I think it is worth saying to the previous speaker that they are cuts, because the forward estimates are based on a careful assessment of the numbers who are likely to need it in the future times a cost escalation. So when you cut funds out of that it is a real cut, believe me.It is not surprising that the community, as a result of all this, is confused, very anxious and angry, not only about what is happening right now but also about what the government might do next. The Council of the Ageing's December newsletter was headlined `Aged care on shifting ground'. Ministers have often accused the opposition of scaremongering. The reality is that we did not need to do any more than draw attention to the policy's all too evident deficiencies. Anyone confronted with these policies is scared by its mean-mindedness, by its lack of respect for the aged, by its indifference to decent universal provision of affordable aged care and by what, I must say, is breathtaking double speak which has accompanied the government's defence of its cuts in public provision and its imposts on the frail, elderly and their families—the people the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) called `the millionaires squatting in nursing home accommodation'. That attitude speaks volumes.The executive director of the Council of the Ageing in Western Australia put in the December newsletter, `Are you confused over the recent debacle on aged care?' A rhetorical question to which they answer, `If so, you are not alone'. Indeed. There have been at least 14 separate changes to the operation of the Howard government's very destructive aged care residential policy. Even their own members clearly do not understand it and those who do often deliberately misrepresent it. For more than a year, for example, they denied over and over again that the policy would require many people to sell their family homes. We heard the former minister say it many times in this place. Yet, when announcing the changes to the entry charges, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said that the family home is now safe—a tacit admission that it had been under threat, as we said.Despite all the changes we have seen in the last two years, sadly the government still does not have it right. Changing the minister and making a few cosmetic changes to the charging arrangement do not remedy the basic flaws in the coalition's approach. Indeed, in some respects, it makes it a good deal worse.I must say that I have had some cause for amusement in this respect. I remember well the former shadow minister, as he was then, the now Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge), making certain statements in the lead-up to the 1995 budget. There was a big budget leak, and there were a lot of supposed health care cuts, including aged care. It was the usual department of finance wish list. They fell for it in opposition and they fell for it in government. What was on that list? What was the shadow minister, now minister, saying at the time? He said in an interview he gave on 2GB to Les Thompson on 9 February:I suspect they'll look for entry contributions or look for people who are in nursing homes to pay greater than they're paying at the moment.He was accusing the former government of that. Yes, that was on the finance wish list, and I rejected it. The current minister said at the time that I would be rolled. He was the one who was rolled, comprehensively, in the last two budgets. He also said that there would be a means test for nursing homes, that there would be increases in pharmaceutical benefits costs for pensioners and cuts to the home and community care program. Sound familiar? These are all the things that happened under this government. He said on the same day in a different interview on Channel 10 TV news:I really don't know how anyone could be stupid enough to propose some of these things.Not only did the current government propose them but they enacted them. That is what this bill is all about. He went on to say on 6PR on the same day in 1995—having a field day that day:If you are going to do it—when he was challenged about cutting spending—don't do it in a way that slugs elderly and vulnerable people such as nursing home users or slugs pensioners in their access to pharmaceuticals.Let us have no crocodile tears from members opposite. They warned us about it and then proceeded to do it. Let us look first at the accommodation charge—something they said we were threatening to do but in fact had no intention of doing. It was, I might say, something that Professor Gregory explicitly rejected as a suitable option.The Prime Minister has made much of his government's abandonment of the so-called accommodation bond, which would have required a massive up-front payment to enter a nursing home—$13,000—which, plus interest, could be retained by the nursing home over a five-year period. It would certainly have necessitated selling the family home, as the Prime Minister subsequently admitted.Following the outcry from older Australians and their worried families, the government in this legislation is replacing the bond with a charge—semantics do not confuse anybody—of $4,380 per year for up to five years, or, as we have heard, $12 a day for those with assets, including the family home, over $44,400, and a sliding scale for figures between $22,500 and $44,399. I think it is worth pointing out here that over 70 per cent of aged pensioners have only one asset—the family home—and it is bound to be worth more than $44,400. In other words, the total cost is higher than with the accommodation bond, especially since the rent or proceeds of the sale will affect tax paid.The arrangements still necessitate selling the family home or, at best, renting it or taking out a mortgage, something these people certainly have not looked to in their later years. It is perfectly possible, as we have heard from our shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), that this charge may increase. It has been toyed with by the current government. The original level was set higher. Some of the nursing home proprietors who are close to the government—the actual millionaires rather than the millionaire squatters talked about by the Deputy Prime Minister—are still demanding more. They say that the new arrangements and the cuts to capital funding will mean that they do not have enough money for upgrades and rebuilding.Let us look at the extra daily charge. From 1 March all new residents of aged care facilities also have their income tested to assess their liability for extra daily fees, something the current minister said we would do, and we did not. He fell for the three-card trick from the finance department. This is a very old set of proposals and a very bad one. They will have to pay an extra 25c in the dollar for each dollar of private income over $50 a week. I am sure I heard the minister responsible and the Prime Minister say that these people are well off. You have got to be kidding! They have to pay an extra fee of up to $258.30 per week. But the important thing here is that this does not buy any extra services. The government claws back the same amount in reduced payments to the facilities, not one extra service.The major churches made a combined call to the government on 27 February for urgent aged care changes. It shows that the major not-for-profit providers are far from happy. They understand what is happening. They are unhappy about both the capital funding and the extra daily charges. They point out, quite accurately, something that the minister has repeatedly denied in this House. I quote from their press release:In actual fact, the extra daily fees do not contribute any extra money to the upkeep of the homes, the care of the residents or the future development of the services.That needs to be underlined—not one extra dollar. They also describe the capital arrangements as totally unsatisfactory, leaving, as they put it, the residential sector `stranded'. In this press release they called on the government, which is clearly ignoring them, since this bill will go through unamended apparently, to `ease the burden on our most vulnerable citizens'.I want to take a moment to have a look at who these people are. Who are these residents of our nursing homes and hostels, looking specifically at nursing homes? The government seems to have forgotten just who these people are. They are not millionaire squatters. As the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's report on nursing homes dated June 1996 shows, 71 per cent of these residents are women, 65 per cent are over 80 and 55 per cent were on a pension of some kind. Millionaires? At least 46 per cent were admitted straight from hospital. They are supposed to put their finances in order in that condition?The report showed that a significant proportion of these residents are widowed, they have no-one immediately to look to and over 50 per cent were assessed as requiring more than 23.5 hours of care a week, the highest level. They need a lot of health care—this is not about accommodation—with a further 37 per cent needing between 19.5 and 23.5 hours of care. That is very intensive medical care. Over 30 per cent of the residents are there for less than a year and the majority of `separations'—85 per cent—are the result of death. These are amongst the poorest and frailest members of our community, yet they are the ones that the Deputy Prime Minister calls millionaire squatters. Most of them clearly are at the end of their lives and they require a caring and peaceful environment, not anxiety and not change.We have heard that these residents have contributed through war service, through paying taxes, raising children and through community service to our country's wellbeing. And this is the thanks they get from this government, a government who promised them much. They already make a contribution through their daily fees. They are not getting something for nothing. Why make them pay more at a time when the last thing they need is to consider complicated financial arrangements which could leave them with an extra tax burden as well? There have been adverse effects of these changes already. I have seen the effects of the changes in my own electorate and throughout my state of Western Australia. But I have not heard anything from the Western Australian members either here or in the Senate about those effects, yet they are very visible.One of the things that is happening right now is that occupancy rates in nursing homes are already falling, an extraordinary thing when you look at the pent-up demand. Even the newest and most comfortable facilities, including new ones in my electorate, are reporting unprecedented vacancies. Families are clearly using ad hoc arrangements and, as a result, there is even greater pressure on the already stretched home and community care programs and of course on the families themselves. There is the extra cost and the uncertainty. They are not even going into the nursing homes where they need the care. In many cases they have been assessed as needing the care. In the nursing homes themselves, to save costs, the facilities are already employing fewer and less qualified staff. Talk to anyone in the industry—they are having to do it.In my own state the local branch of the Department of Health and Family Services are clearly stretched to the limit. I know some of the people there. I have a great deal of respect for them. They are trying to respond to queries from worried proprietors, operators and families. They are at the limit. I have been told from very reliable sources within the industry that the department have asked the nursing homes to stop ringing them and to put all their requests for information and clarification of the government's muddle in writing—no more phone calls from the sector.The new resident classification scale has already had a disastrous effect on hostels, particularly those catering for people from a non-English speaking background in my electorate. In that scale, cultural and language needs have been downgraded.In my electorate the Italian village is encountering grave financial problems and this has prompted the families and supporters of the facility, not usually given to political action, to petition the minister to provide additional funds. I read from their letter which, after describing the facility, says amongst other things:You are no doubt aware of the impact to which the new classification scale has had on the rating given to communication. This is of grave concern to our Hostel.Most of these people's first language is not English. The letter goes on:The financial impact is very serious, with the potential shortfall in cashflow having to be recovered from the residents, who are all on age pensions, and or their immediate families.It goes on to say:We implore you to reconsider the proposed changes, consider the mental and emotional anguish imposed on the aged (all of whom have paid their dues) and consider the rights of an individual and the collective role they play in electing the next Government.In response, I did get the department to go out and have a look at what was going on there, and they are right. They are going to lose funding—although the minister reassures them in a bland letter:. . . the facility will have a net increase in funding under the new RCS compared with the previous classification instrument.He must think they are idiots! They have done their sums and they are losing money. We have also received many calls from worried older men and women and their families who cannot understand why the government has been attacking them. `Why us?' they say, `What have we done?' They cannot understand why the government has been attacking them on so many fronts: nursing home and hostel charges; increases in the prices of their medicines; cuts to public hospital funding and increased waiting lists; abolition of the Commonwealth's contribution to dental care; and, of course, the threat of a GST. Is it any wonder that the older members of our community—my community, every community in Australia—feel betrayed and angry with this shambles of a government? It is alarming that in his second reading speech the minister says proudly of these measures that they `promote our vision of a secure future for older Australians'. It looks to me like a glimpse into Dante's Inferno. This vision is why these same older Australians keep asking in fear, `What will they do next?' What, indeed?20:32:001440McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—I was pleased to see the rearrangement of the speakers list here tonight because it gave the previous health minister an opportunity to speak before I did. Listening to her has been very interesting indeed because I find some of her remarks very fascinating. In referring to the government and this side of the House, she refers to `they': `they' cut taxpayer capital funded support. The government that cut the taxpayer funded capital support to the aged care sector was the previous government, of which the previous speaker, the member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence), was the minister for health. She was definitely and inexplicably party to the cutting of that capital funding. If she and her predecessors in that role had not been party to it, why was the nursing home sector of this nation in such a deplorable state when we came to government? The evidence is there for us all to see.She talks about $500 million in forward estimates. The speaker before me was not only the health minister but also previously Premier of Western Australia, therefore a person who understands forward estimates more than anybody else in this place. Forward estimates are exactly that—forward estimates. They are not a budget. The budget comes after the estimates.She referred to confusion. I know that we all know where the confusion has come from. The confusion has come from the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) who, in the last 18 months of this parliament, has confused the elderly people of Australia so much that they are terrified, and my sympathy goes out to them. I spend much of my time speaking to them and assuring them and I find that, once I have given them the information on what the government is doing, I get understanding. But when you get what is supposed to be compassion from the other side being nothing more than confusion and scare tactics, how do you expect an elderly person to react? It is a typical political ploy.I now address some of the points I would like to raise in this debate which I believe are important for the people of Australia to understand. Over the last few months as I have met with nursing home proprietors, managers, staff and also, might I say, with the Queensland nursing union, I have been amazed at the conditions under which they have had to work for the past 13 years. On the surface, many nursing homes and hostels appear to be running smoothly, but the reality is that they have been fighting a losing battle to maintain even moderately acceptable standards. These do not generate overnight; they are a symptom of a long, sore problem that has been going on for years.That this government tackled the problems facing our nursing homes is not surprising; reform has always been carried out by the Liberal and National parties. But what is more surprising is that the men and women of the previous government are still tenaciously fighting to retain a flawed, and what was a failing, system. If you adopt the logic that those who can make a contribution towards their aged care do so, our policy, I believe, makes a great deal of sense. Until the Howard government came under attack from the Labor Party for this policy, I do not believe too many people, including the department of family services, realised just how deep and widespread were the problems in the nursing home and aged care sector.We literally exposed what the Labor Party had kept hidden: the state of our aged care facilities—a situation that I consider a national disgrace. The crux of the entire issue—our rapidly increasing aged population—had been ignored. For the first time in our history we have a declining birth rate and a rapidly increasing life expectancy. Yet we are a nation of people with a high expectation of government sponsored retirement income. This problem has been niggling away at governments for decades.The member for Parramatta (Mr Ross Cameron) recently did some serious research and revealed that there were attempts to start up a retirement income scheme—an aged pension scheme—that involved compulsory participation as far back as 1930. But Australians could not be persuaded to think long term. As a result it was not until the early 1970s, when government initiated an inquiry into retirement income, that compulsory superannuation was introduced—a measure that I wholeheartedly support. But this first foray into encouraging the population to put aside retirement funds from the day they start earning an income came too late to help all those aging and unwell people who need nursing home care now and in the immediate future.The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) let this country down by reducing the government's contribution to aged care to such an extent that it takes an annual contribution of $3 billion dollars to maintain what I call a basic adequate standard of care. Today there are only 137,000 Australians in nursing homes or hostels. Of these, 65 per cent are on full government support. They are full pensioners. They do not and will not have to contribute to their care over and above their existing pension contribution. That has operated in this sector for years. This government acknowledges there will always be members of the community who cannot, through no fault of their own, provide for their retirement care. There are others who, due to severe ill health, are simply not capable of managing their lives.This is acknowledged in this bill, and one of the many amendments addressing this situation extends the time period to reach a payment agreement for those who have a mental impairment and who, obviously, have the ability to make a contribution. It is recognised that these and some other people need the support and advice of a financial administrator. The amendments in this bill also clarify provisions which limit the kinds of fees which can be charged to residents. This amendment makes it clear that waiting lists and administration fees cannot be charged—part of the scare tactics campaign of the opposition. It also introduces provisions that will enable the Commonwealth to take action against any provider who has been convicted of serious crimes such as abuse of residents or fraud.I believe it is totally irresponsible for the opposition to continue to rant and rave about the so-called injustice of asking those who can afford to make a contribution towards their care to do so.This government, unlike the previous government, is educating all Australians in the need to consider preparing themselves for their retirement—something that this country should have faced a long time ago. I do not believe that it is fair to expect young Australians to put aside funds for their own retirement while at the same time paying to support those who did not.The Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) and his staff have worked diligently to improve the process of aged care reform that has been introduced by this government. If the opposition was serious in its claims that it cares for the aged, constructive criticism would have been a help to everyone in this nation, particularly the aged. But we all know that this was not the case. The opposition has persisted with a scare campaign of such magnitude that elderly people have been quite terrified when they hear Labor's great untruth that they are going to be left homeless.This government has listened to the people and has implemented changes to this bill to ensure their fears are allayed. The bill reduces from five to two years the period that a co-resident carer must have lived in the family home for it to be excluded from consideration for concessional resident status. This government is aggressive and innovative when it comes to reform; it has had to be with an aged care industry in crisis and a government debt that we inherited of $10.5 billion—bequeathed to the nation by the former Fi nance Minister, now Leader of the Opposition.It would have been easy but crass to have taken television cameras through substandard nursing homes, showing the nation the appalling conditions in which some of our aged lived, which was a legacy of 13 years of the previous government. While it would have made a dramatic and fast television moment, it would have also reflected badly on all those hardworking nurses, providers and staff who have provided excellent care for their patients. That this government responded quickly to the need of our aged community to improve the standard of nursing homes has in many cases been lost in the scare campaign by the Labor Party. The sad truth is that many nursing homes are below standard. Many are borderline, which means that in another few years they will be substandard.The industry has been crying out for reform, and this government was swift to respond by introducing accommodation charges for those who can afford to pay them. The Labor Party was equally swift in decrying the reforms and, thanks to their scare campaign, the initial goal—to improve the lives of our nursing home residents—was set back and delayed. These reforms must happen for the future of all our citizens, and the Aged Care Amendment Bill before us today goes towards ensuring this government's ultimate goal—that is, good quality nursing home care for the aged members of our community who require nursing home care.The amendments in this bill make it clear that every avenue possible has been introduced to ensure no person is unfairly disadvantaged. I point to the amendment which deals with the fees that providers are able to charge residents. Provisions have been added that will prohibit the charging of any extra fees that could result in significant extra costs for residents beyond those already allowed by the act. It should be realised that those people who will be asked to pay the maximum daily fee must have assets which produce an income of $56,000 a year.It is also realised by this government that there will be some people whose only asset is their home. I could not do better than to cite my own family. While my father chose to sell our family home to contribute to his care, not everyone wishes to do so; and they do not have to. One major element of this bill is to exclude rental income and the value of the home from the pension income and assets test where a person is renting out their house to pay the accommodation charge. In this way they keep their asset and still contribute towards their nursing home care.The nursing home debate, or, should I say, the nursing home reform, tackles an issue which is not palatable to a small section of the Australian community: those who believe that the state—that is, the taxpayer—should support them from cradle to grave. As far as the Labor Party is concerned, it has been purely political chicanery. I notice that the member for Jagajaga, in attacking this reform, never mentions just how the opposition propose to resolve the matter of supporting our aged and infirm, except, of course, by increasing taxation: Labor's answer to every problem. I believe it is timely to ask this question: when the member for Jagajaga was the minister's chief adviser, why did she allow the standard of nursing homes to deteriorate to such an alarming degree? The previous government allowed our 3,000 aged care facilities to run down to the point where more than 250 simply do not meet state and federal basic health standards. Others are only just skirting the safety line and without massive capital funding will continue to deteriorate.I was amazed to hear a talkback radio listener say that this situation did not matter. This nameless person told the radio audience that for many people even a substandard nursing home was an improvement on where they had been living before. He said that at least they received three meals a day and, even if they shared a room, they had a bed. I do not believe substandard aged care should be the goal of the nation. The bottom line is: just what has the opposition offered? Absolutely nothing—except, of course, disinformation to frighten our aged community and their families. And all for nothing more than political gain. I support this bill and this government's aged care reform.20:51:001443Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—At the very start let us get it very clear. I came into this parliament in March 1983, and we were advised within weeks that the previous Treasurer had been advised prior to the election of a deficit in prospect of, in today's equivalent, $25 billion. He did not deny that. In other words, the current Prime Minister (Mr Howard) had been told by Mr Stone from Treasury before the election in 1983 of the deficit in prospect on his budget of August 1982. Quite frankly, I get fed up with the kind of hypocrisy and cant coming from the government about the supposed deficit, which was not authenticated, which was not documented. Originally it was $6 billion, then $7 billion and $8 billion. Every month the number kept changing. Quite frankly, I find it just a little bit tiresome.Despite that deficit, despite the double digit unemployment, despite the double digit inflation, despite the fact that in 1982, with John Howard as Treasurer, the manufacturing work force declined by eight per cent in one year alone—despite all that—we managed to lift pensions, we managed to extend benefits, and we managed to introduce hostels, which were barely in existence at the time. We managed to extend support for people who needed it. We could have done what those opposite have done, and are still doing, which is rip into the system, blame the victims—whether they be Asians, blacks, pensioners or people in nursing homes—blame somebody else, and become the pawns of Treasury and Finance.So-called fiscal responsibility has been social irresponsibility. The debt that you are building up in this government is not about money; it is about social capital. It is a social debt. If you keep up this kind of line, you will pass on to generations ahead a burden they will not cope with. I suggest to anybody who is observing this debate on the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 that they go back and read the speeches of the same people on this original legislation—hear them justify and defend the ripping away of half a billion dollars from the aged care sector, because they did not mention that.Tonight we have had the previous speaker, the member for Griffith (Mr McDougall), talking about the condition of nursing homes. You would think that this was about benefiting nursing homes. The fact is that this legislation is financial. It has nothing to do with nursing homes; it is about money. It is about finding a way to make up for the half a billion dollars the government has cut out of the budget for residential aged care. That is what it was about the first time around. That is what it is about right now. It did not work then, and it does not work now.But, in the meantime, what are you doing? You are blaming the victim. You are shooting the messenger. On the one hand, the government says, `You ran a scare campaign.' Then we hear tonight, from speaker after speaker, how the government listens to the people. If it was only a scare campaign, why would you have listened? Let me tell you why you listened: it is because you have been deceitful all the way through. You have tried to pretend that what you are trying to do is improve nursing homes, when we know that is not the case.Two of these amendments go to matters where I had constituent submissions which I wrote to ministers about. The first was the five-year cohabitation issue. A constituent of mine had been living with her father for two years. She had left her job and left Sydney to come back home to care for her father. She was a woman in her 50s, so the prospects of finding work again were remote. When he had moved to a nursing home, as he was required to do because she could no longer care for him, not only did she have the burden of the guilt from not being able to care for her father any longer but also, as the sole beneficiary, she was required by your legislation, which we are now amending, to sell the family house to pay the up-front fees. You brought it back to two years because of that particular case. Week after week, the minister in this place insisted we were making that up, yet the correspondence was in her office all the time.The second case involved the retrospective application of the $10,000 per year gifting provisions, which went back five years. I had a case of that as well. The family was bereft. The mother was going to be devastated by those provisions. Week after week, the government denied, procrastinated, stonewalled, accused us of scaremongering, said it did not exist, did not answer the correspondence for ages, and eventually capitulated. If I had not done that, could I have been said to have been representing my constituents? Of course I couldn't. Yet week after week I have heard—and I am hearing it again tonight—that we were scaremongering. The hypocrisy in this debate is breathtaking.Let us get the figures right again. The 1996 budget took out of the residential aged care system half a billion dollars over four years—$130 million a year. The legislation for up-front fees was brought into this place and went through the parliament to recover that money—not to give extra money to aged care; simply to recover that which had been taken out. Your so-called deficit policy was off the backs of the families of people who needed residential aged care, nursing home care. That is where it came from—half a billion dollars of it.In the same way that you attacked the students, in the same way that you attacked the unemployed, in the same way you attacked a whole range of other people—people who wanted to sponsor a spouse, a brother, a sister, a niece, a nephew—you attacked this sector. At first, the nursing home sector thought you meant what you said. They said, `This is terrific. Up-front fees will be great. It will be very helpful.' They did not understand what you were really doing. When they did and they made that clear, the government then started to change its tune.There are a couple of things that need to be understood as well. There is one other aspect of what the government has done which is not in the legislation; it is about breach of contract. I want to quote yet again an example I have quoted in this place more than once to date because it is important that those opposite and the community at large understand the depths to which this government has sunk—and I say `depths' with some thoughtfulness. Maroba nursing home in Edith Street, Waratah, is a nursing home and hostel. A couple of years ago, they received a grant for $400,000 to upgrade and to extend. The grant was to be paid over 10 years at $40,000 per year. Altogether, they spent $1 million on their facility. That money was spent before this government came to power.From recollection, when the announcement came out in the 1996 budget, they had received only two payments of that $40,000 a year. In other words, they were still owed $320,000. They were advised by letter, from recollection, in late 1996 that they had a choice: they could take up-front fees, or they could take their grants—but they could not have both. This was from a government that is telling us it is about getting extra spending for nursing homes to repair damage, to upgrade facilities.This group had spent $1 million already; it had counted on the $400,000 from the Commonwealth to help pay for that. Of course, up-front fees were about the future, about expansion and improvement—not about paying last year's bills, which is what we are talking about. The contract they entered into was with the Australian government, as far as they were concerned. It was not with the Labor Party or some other party, but with the government. The composition of the government may change but, as far as I am concerned, its contracts do not change. That decision by the minister to revoke that contract, to my mind, is one of the most blatant and disgraceful breaches of faith one can imagine.That organisation—which is run by a church group, incidentally—now has to go out and try to raise the money. This is $320,000 that organisation has been dudded on. This is not some concoction; this is a sheer breach of contract. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may have noticed that some organisations are looking at taking legal action. I hope they do. I hope that we, in this chamber and in the other place, will move amendments to say to the government, `You've got to keep your contracts. You can't break a contract that was entered into in good faith; you've got to keep it.'Let the government vote in favour of breaching its own contracts as a government. That is what it has done. It is what it is doing right now. And, at the same time, we get this cant from those opposite about how this is about lifting standards. It is about ripping $½ billion out of somebody else's pockets—and what for? To create a social debt.Money is always payable. Social debts, once incurred, cannot be recovered. They live on in people's psyche and in people's spirit, in their bodies and collective memories, for years and even decades to come—the hurt we do each other now, with this kind of social engineering. And that is what it is: it is social engineering of the worst kind because it is deceitful, dishonest and hypocritical. Social debts that we incur cannot be repaid.We will pass on to our children and our children's children an enormous number of assets. They will inherit roads, railway lines, ports, buildings—a whole range of things. But they will also inherit an amount of debt. Let me tell you: in my period in government, asset building vastly exceeded debt building—vastly exceeded it. We built a lot more assets in our society. For starters, just look at the national highway. Look at its current replacement cost compared with what it was when Labor was in government; look at what it would cost to put it in now.The debts that we are passing on to our children, our grandchildren and future generations are accompanied by assets. As I have said, I have no embarrassment or shame—simply pride—that we improved the asset value much more than the debt value of what we are passing on. But what I cannot explain, what I cannot justify, is the pain we are passing on.If we had not brought to the attention of the House and the government the kinds of problems that the legislation imposed, the woman of whom I spoke earlier would have been devastated and destroyed. I can tell you: the impact on that woman of what the government was doing was just unbelievable; she could not believe that any government would do that to her. Then there was the effect on the family of that mother's gifting—her giving her cash reserves to her grandchildren to help put deposits on houses; the govern ment was going to act as though she still had those cash reserves.This woman does not get a pension. She is a full fee payer. She has no benefit at all. She was not performing any clever family trust trick—and that is what I find so appalling. Here we have good honest citizens, with, in so many cases, a house being all they have. I wonder who owns the houses of all those members in the government with family trusts; does the family trust own the house and, therefore, it is not affected? I am sure it probably does.The way in which we see the government functioning, its members defending the use of artificial devices to protect assets for their children, and boasting about it—and then for us to see that government ripping into the assets of people who did not create that kind of artificiality is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. I suggest that people who speak in this debate go back and look at the speeches on the previous legislation to see how much has changed. Who and what are government members defending? They are defending the decision of Finance and Treasury to cut $½ billion. So no amount of talk about standards and all the rest will make up for that. It is about time that a few of them got a bit honest about it and actually came up-front and explained what they are doing.The second fundamentally important thing that is going on in this debate is to do with the introduction by the government of the accreditation and assessment process that has taken place. I am sure that this has been mentioned in this place before: there has been correspondence from the nurses association, particularly up in the Hunter, regarding the way in which a single assessment instrument is being developed for nursing homes and hostels.This is a complex issue, but it is fiendishly clever what the government is doing: the government is completely rewriting the actual schedules of assessment in a very clever way. The effect of it is to give a greater amount of money to people who are much more frail, particularly people suffering from Alzheimer's. That is understandable; we are aware that we have a problem there. But, rather than doing it by increasing expenditure, the government is shifting funds from the other recipients.The compression and shifting of scales that is being undertaken in the resident classification scale or in the changes to it is going to mean two things—and, quite frankly, one cannot be sure what it will mean eventually because it is still such an experimental exercise. There are no pilots going on. This has not been tested in a pilot and proven through. This has been brought in with a bang. With this government, once again, we have the big bang theory. We are seeing it in the employment market. We used to be accused of being social engineers. These people are social engineers par excellence everywhere—not only with our aged, but with our frail and with our families.I referred to a letter from the Hunter region aged care facility directors of nursing associations. Firstly, these people are all professional nurses and, secondly, are involved in directing aged care facilities. They have written a letter of some length and detail expressing an absolute abhorrence at what is happening. They are concerned about a significant reduction in direct care subsidies associated with the instrument. The compression of scales means that the payments per person of the different scales will be shifted. In regard to that one nursing home I mentioned earlier, if that scale were applied now to the current residents, they would be $100,000 a year worse off—bang, instantly. There goes $100,000 on their bottom line. This is a church group. They have already lost $320,000 in grant money. They are having trouble with the up-front fees question. They share the pain of the half a billion dollar cuts anyhow. With this instrument coming in, there is a $100,000 effect on current residents. If they were to have those residents come in now on this current scale, that is what the effect would be.Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, you were not in the chair when the previous speaker, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr McDougall), made a point which I think is worth pointing out. He made the point that in the aged care facilities around Australia 65 per cent of people are on the full pension. I think when he made that point he thought he was saying something fairly important. Sixty-five per cent of people in nursing homes and hostels are on full benefits. In other words, their income falls below the asset and income test levels. What he did not say was that the government legislation provides for nursing homes to keep only 27 per cent of the beds for people who cannot afford these fees—27 per cent, less than half. On the one hand, he tells us 65 per cent are currently in there. What the government is saying is that in the future it will be 27 per cent.What is clear in all of this is that the government do not understand how nursing homes and hostels work. They do not understand the cash flow and the capital outlays. They never have and they still do not. What the nursing homes will have to do is maximise their income by seeking and accepting people who can pay the highest possible fees. It is the only answer they have. They are forced to take 27 per cent of people who have no money. Therefore, they are forced to maximise the others. What will happen will be a very simple selection process. Those who can pay the most will get in the fastest. Those who cannot will not. It will be as simple as that. Between 27 per cent and 65 per cent, that 38 per cent gap, what do they do? They squat. We heard about them squatting—squatting in hospitals, squatting anywhere. There will be nowhere to go. Yet we hear that this is about improving standards. It is a disgrace. (Time expired)21:11:001446Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—I am sorry that I have such a limited time to talk because I would like to spend most of the time showing the member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) exactly where he is wrong in the things that he said. The last thing he was speaking about was the 27 per cent concessional patients and the gap of 38 per cent. I would like to point out to him that 27 per cent is the minimum, not a maximum. Anyone can take as many concessional patients as they like. The government has provided for a higher government subsidy for concessional patients in lieu of income that has been derived from the accommodation charge. Let us get that bit right first.I turn to the second bit. Let us get the bit about cohabitation right. You were saying that because a lady in Newcastle had not lived with her father for five years she had problems because she had to sell her home. I would like to point out that under Labor there was no protection whatsoever for the family home. It was counted in the assets test under the hostel entry contribution, and there was no protection and there was no exemption. You have no right to stand up and accuse us of taking the family home. There was no protection there whatsoever for it.I have good news for the elderly in Australia. This government has introduced a plan that will allow nursing home residents the option of renting their home and having that rental income exempt from the pension income test and from the calculation of daily fees. This policy has direct benefits to pensioners. It allows the pensioner to keep the family home, it gives the pensioner peace of mind knowing that some day they may be able to return to their home, it provides them with cash flow that does not affect their pension, and no-one will have to sell their family home to enter a nursing home. Even a staunch critic of the government, Francis Sullivan, from the Australian Catholic Health Care Association, agrees that no-one will have to sell their home to enter a nursing home. On 4 February 1998 he said on the World Today radio program:The change in government policy means that people are not going to have to be selling their homes to go into a nursing home.What about the tax on rental, I hear the critics ask. Yes, pensioners will pay tax on their rental income. However, as taxpayers they become eligible for a tax rebate of 20c in the dollar on their health care costs that exceed $1,250 a year. I also hear critics say, `But you will never reach $1,250 a year.' Yes, they will because as a result of a lot of hard work the tax man has been convinced that daily care fees for nursing homes should be considered as legitimate health care costs and are therefore tax deductible. This is great news for the elderly in my electorate of Lilley and for the rest of Australia.Over the course of a year a resident's daily fees are approximately $7,700. Factor in the 20 per cent tax medical rebate, and a $1,290 deduction will be returned to the nursing home resident at the end of the financial year. It must be remembered that this $1,290 is just a base figure and does not take into account any other related health costs such as medicines or visits to the doctor.I think everyone in the House would agree that a minimum tax rebate of $1,290, as well as a steady rental income, will go a long way to contributing towards a pensioner's accommodation charge of $4,380. This deduction under the medical expenses rebate is a significant relief for pensioners and their families. Allowing people to rent their homes without it affecting their pension entitlement is a good move on behalf of the government. It adds flexibility to the system and gives residents and their families a choice.The good news does not stop there. I am in the process of lobbying the tax department to make a ruling on whether the annual accommodation charge of $4,380 can also be considered tax deductible. I am hopeful of a positive outcome and will keep the House informed. Part pensioners and self-funded retirees will also be able to claim this rebate, which effectively means that, if they rent their homes to contribute to their nursing home care, they will be paying minimal or no tax.National Seniors Association Chief Executive, David Deans, in his press release on 11 March 1998, said that this rebate would soften the impact of nursing home charges and provide significant relief for self-funded retirees. Mr Deans used an example of self-funded retirees paying top-rate daily fees. The rebate would be $4,300 a year, which would almost cover the yearly accommodation charge in full. I urge honourable members to make sure this information is circulated to the seniors within their electorate.This legislation puts in place the government's vision for our aged care system. It is a vision that includes a practical response to address Labor's legacy of inefficient and poorly maintained buildings, inadequate funding for dementia care, over-regulation, inflexibility, and the focus on paper work over the quality of care. The government's policy of creating a balance between public and private contribution will see over $850 million invested in the capital stock of nursing homes over the next four years—that is, $850 million without having to ask the taxpayers to pay more than the $30,000 per resident they are already paying.The result from the national certification audit of nursing homes and hostels has shown that a disturbing number of nursing homes do not meet basic standards. This is a legacy of the 13 years of Labor neglect. This is the problem that Professor Gregory told the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) about in 1994. This is the problem that Labor not only ignored but exacerbated by cutting nursing home capital funding.Labor chose to ignore the findings of the 1994 Gregory report, which they commissioned, and, although these findings have been mentioned many times in this place, it bears repeating. The findings graphically sum up the crisis in nursing home care: 11 per cent of nursing homes did not meet fire standards; 15 per cent did not meet health regulations; 40 per cent of residents shared rooms with four or more beds; and 65 per cent of nursing homes did not meet required building codes.Unfortunately, the system under Labor failed to stamp out poor conditions. The coalition will be working in partnership with industry and consumers to ensure that older people get the care and conditions they deserve. We are not blaming victims, as the member for Newcastle said; we are blaming Labor.This bill also introduces strong protection for consumers and creates incentives for providers to invest in maintenance and improve building stock. It also ensures that older Australians have equitable access to aged care services that provide high quality standards of care and accommodation. No longer will they have to put up with substandard accommodation. Only good quality facilities will be able to charge an accommodation charge. If residents are required to pay an accommodation charge, every cent will be spent on improving the quality of nursing homes. None of it goes to the government.There are also provisions in the act which require nursing home operators to meet stringent suitability requirements which enable the Commonwealth to take action against providers who, for example, have been convicted of serious crimes, such as abuse of residents or fraud. This sets a clear benchmark and allows for progressive improvement over time in response to future demands and expectations of an increasing proportion of older Australians. Elderly Australians and their families now have confidence that their chosen nursing home will offer long-term quality care.Access to aged care will be based on need, not on ability to pay. Aged care assessment teams will continue to assess people on this basis. The coalition has safeguards in place that will protect people on low incomes, and every nursing home will be required to set aside a minimum of 27 per cent of beds for concessional patients. Another positive aspect of this bill is the reduction in the qualifying period for co-residents from five to two years. This protects spouses and dependent children who live in the family home.The government has a strategy to combat the aged care problem inherited from Labor. The coalition strategy is built around people's needs. Dementia is a prime example. We have taken dementia funding seriously. We have made an election commitment of support for dementia care, including funding dementia-specific facilities, and we have delivered.The new capital funding arrangements will provide an incentive income stream—$130 million over four years—to enable nursing homes to invest in improving building quality to better cater for the needs of residents with dementia. Building designs are an integral part of dementia care in providing a secure environment for those people who wander, assisting with orientation for those people who get disorientated, and enhancing accessibility to facilities.I have personal experience with dementia patients. My mother was in care, as she was frail aged, and she was twice attacked by wandering dementia patients. Even though she was well cared for, the staff were unable to prevent this from happening. Therefore, I approve of this money that we are putting into dementia care to protect people like my mother.We have a strategy which fixes today's problems and ensures quality care for the future. The coalition has acted where Labor failed. This bill will give people choice, improved facilities and access to quality care. They will not be inheriting a $10 billion debt. We will not accept a policy that has thousands of elderly frail Australians living in substandard buildings. We will not stand by and let the frail elderly Australians who need nursing care suffer in substandard accommodation. We will not slug the ordinary taxpayer of Australia to fund the guilt of the Labor Party. I commend this bill to the House.21:22:001449Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, you will not be surprised to learn that we in the opposition remain very concerned about the changes which this government has made to the provision of aged care for Australians. That is a position that we have been expressing consistently since the night the 1996 budget was handed down.It is interesting to note that the previous speaker, the member for Lilley (Mrs Elizabeth Grace), and other members of the government such as the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) and the member for Robertson (Mr Lloyd) were some of the strongest defenders of the government's original proposal for the introduction of the accommodation bond system. That was the proposal that was announced by the government on budget night 1996. It is a system that would have resulted in many ordinary Australians being forced to sell their homes so that they could raise the funding that the government said they would need to put up front to get into a nursing home.Despite the changes which the government has now made to its nursing home policy, it will still leave many ordinary Australians having to pay very large sums of money to gain access to nursing homes and it will still mean large numbers of Australians will be forced to look at selling their homes because of the changes this government has made.I would just like to begin by reaffirming that the Labor Party believes that access to quality aged care should be a basic entitlement of all elderly Australians. We do not support the introduction of a two-tier system for the provision of aged care in Australia. We think that it is wrong that people who are better off should be entitled to a better standard of nursing home care than the battlers who are living in electorates such as that of the member for Makin (Mrs Draper), my own electorate or the electorate of Jagajaga.We believe that if someone's health has become so fragile, if their ability to look after themselves has deteriorated to the extent that they need nursing home care, then that should be something like an entitlement to hospital care. If someone is sick enough to need treatment in a public hospital, that is a right of every Australian. If your health is so frail and you need access to a nursing home, that is something that should be a basic entitlement of ordinary Australians as well.We certainly reject the proposition that the government has put forward that access to a nursing home is in some way a lifestyle choice or some decision that people make to move from their home to a nursing home. It is often a very difficult decision for individuals, it is often a very difficult decision for families and it is one that we think should not be used by this government as an excuse to plunder the assets that families have built up over many years through a great deal of hard work.0L6DRAPERMrs Draper—You had 13 years to fund it.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The honourable member for Makin interjects. What I can assure you is that over those 13 years we never introduced the massive fee levels that your government is introducing to nursing homes today.0L6DRAPERMrs Draper—Let's put on record you had 13 years to do something about it.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—During those 13 years we never took away $500 million from the provision of aged care to ordinary Australians, unlike the government of which you are a member.0L6DRAPERMrs Draper—You never funded dementia.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—It is a great pity that the member for Makin has not had the courage to stand up and speak out against these aged care reforms in the same way that the member for Kingston (Ms Jeanes) has claimed that she has spoken out within her party room on some of the proposed changes to cut tariff protection for motor vehicles.SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—She's pointing out your defects, and doing a good job.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—She certainly has not bothered to point out the defects in your government's changes to aged care, has she? The member for Makin has not been anywhere near the front line in trying to make sure that her constituents do not have to pay these outrageously high fees for access to nursing homes.0L6DRAPERMrs Draper—And if they're pensioners, they don't have to pay anything more.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member for Makin interjects and says that if they are pensioners they do not have to pay the higher fees. It is a sad reflection on the member for Makin that she does not even understand her own government's legislation and her own government's changes to nursing homes. I challenge the I am sure well-informed officials in the advisers boxes who, I am sure, are taking detailed notes to brief the minister or whoever is parliamentary secretary at the table for the summing up. I challenge them to make sure that the minister at the table reaffirms the claim by the member for Makin that no pensioner will have to pay more under these changes. If the member for Makin really understood the legislation, the member for Makin would know that there are large numbers of pensioners in her electorate and in electorates right across Australia who will be asked to pay more because of the changes that this government has made to nursing home policy.Before the last election, a pensioner who entered a nursing home paid 87½ per cent of their pension—and nothing more. Because of the changes you are making, they will pay 85 per cent of their pension, an annual fee of $4,380 if their assets exceed $44,500 and they will also, if they enter a nursing home after 1 March, be paying up to $36.90 a day, depending on what their non-pension income is.0L6DRAPERMrs Draper—About $50,000.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—So the basic claim of the member for Makin was that pensioners would not pay more but they will be up for the annual fee and the daily fee. If the member for Makin has any understanding whatsoever of the changes that her government has made she will know that she has just misled the House—I am sure it was not deliberate—in inaccurately claiming that pensioners would not pay more.0L6DRAPERMrs Draper—You have nothing to talk about, so all you are doing is attacking the member for Makin.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—If the member for Makin is silly enough to keep interjecting when she does not know what she is interjecting about, she should learn pretty quickly to keep quiet. The point to be made is that the claim from the member for Makin, or any other government member, that pensioners will not pay more under this policy, is plain wrong. Pensioners are going to be hit by that new annual fee of $4,380 and will be paying an extra 25 per cent on their non-pension income as a result of the new daily fee.All these changes are as a result of, first, the government's crazy policy announced on budget night 1996 and the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), feeling the pressure from the outcry from elderly Australians right across the country, was forced to go on A Current Affair on 5 November last year and change the policy. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you, as a Tasmanian, would feel sorry for the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge). We understand that the first he knew of the changes that the Prime Minister made on 5 November was when he sat down, with the volume turned up, to listen to what the Prime Minister had to say on A Current Affair.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Probably with the volume turned down.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Probably. But I am sure it is pretty distressing for a minister to learn of the latest changes that are to be made in his policy area from A Current Affair . Nevertheless, we have to welcome some of the changes that the government made last year. We certainly strongly oppose the up-front accommodation bond but a number of my constituents have contacted me, concerned that they will end up paying more as a result of the changes that the Prime Minister announced on 5 November on A Current Affair .Let me give you a simple example. Under the old system there was a cap of $13,000 on the annual fees that were payable as a result of the changes that the government announced on budget night 1996. Under the new system—let us put aside for one moment the additional daily fee that applies to residents of nursing homes who enter after 1 March—that annual fee of $4,380 is payable each year and after five years, under the new scheme, they will be paying almost $22,000 in the new annual fees, whereas under the old scheme that applied before 5 November—before the Prime Minister went on A Current Affair—there was that maximum ceiling of $13,000. So many people out there are concerned that even the latest changes will leave them paying a larger amount of money than was the case before the latest batch of changes were made.The previous speaker, the member for Lilley, claimed that this puts in place the government's vision for aged care. It is a pretty scary vision for any of the older Australians out there that requires them to come up with $4,380 every year for their access to a nursing home and, from 1 March, to meet a new 25c in the dollar means test based on their income.Some members of the government claimed that these extra fees were required to put extra funds into upgrading our nursing homes. If the government was guaranteeing that every extra dollar raised went into upgrading nursing homes, they might have a stronger case. In fact, the Minister for Health and Family Services seems to think that most of the money does go into upgrading nursing homes because on 9 March, in answer to a question from the member for Jagajaga about where the daily fee would be going, he told the House:The money raised by daily fees goes to nursing homes; it does not go to the government. It goes to upgrading nursing homes . . . He went on to say:The accommodation charges go to the capital upgrading . . . and the daily fees go directly to nursing homes . . . We all know that the minister misled the House when he said that. Again, we hope it was not deliberate but it was a clear example of the minister not even knowing or understanding what his own government's policy was doing.SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member in his address was accusing the minister of having misled the House. We know what the standing orders have to say about that. I would ask him to rephrase it.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the member should understand that it is within the standing orders to say that a minister has misled the House but it is against the standing orders to say a minister has deliberately misled the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—There is no point of order.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The Minister for Health and Family Services misled the House when he claimed that the additional daily fees were going into upgrading the nursing homes. The Minister for Health and Family Services should have understood that that higher daily fee bites in when a pensioner's non-pension income exceeds only $50 a week. This is not only hitting high income earners—0L6DRAPERMrs Draper—A scare campaign.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—It is not only hitting pensioners who are getting substantial sums of money in superannuation—Mrs Draper interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Makin. The honourable member for Makin will cease interjecting or I will invoke standing order 304A.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is certainly good to see that we have some members of the government who have still a lot to learn about these changes.The point I was trying to make is that that higher daily fee hits people when they earn only $50 a week in non-pension income; it does not hit only the high income earners out there who might be on a part-pension. So as every extra dollar is taken away from pensioners in that higher daily fee, yes, it gets paid to the nursing home and it gets collected by the nursing home, but every extra dollar gets paid back to the government. The government claws it back by reducing the nursing home subsidy. Dollar for dollar the higher daily fee imposed on the pensioner is clawed back into consolidated revenue. It certainly is not paid back to the nursing homes to help them upgrade, and it was quite misleading for the minister to have claimed in the House:The money raised by daily fees goes to nursing homes; it does not go to the government. It goes to upgrading nursing homes . . .That is what the minister wrongly claimed. I think that certainly in summing up this debate the minister has an obligation to admit that he did mislead the House on 9 March. Those higher daily fees that have applied since 1 March do not upgrade the nursing homes. Those higher daily fees that they are imposing on pensioners and other retired Australians go straight into the Treasurer's, Peter Costello's, consolidated revenue fund. They do not go into upgrading nursing homes. They do not go towards providing a better standard of care for older Australians.Another issue that I want to raise tonight is this government's attempts to also place a new imposition on older Australians through some changes that they are trying to make to the rules that apply to private health insurance in this country. We have had the government decide that they are going to take away the right of a person with private health insurance to have at least 35 days coverage for a stay in a private hospital.At the moment if, for example, someone living in a country town has difficulty perhaps getting into a nursing home, they can have up to 35 days in a private hospital while their family and the local aged care assessment teams try to find a nursing home in their local area where they can seek to establish a home or residence. The government has sought to introduce legislation to bring in a change that would mean that that automatic right of coverage for that first 35 days in a private hospital would be lost, and we know that this is a result of pressure from the private health funds, which are very keen to see this practice, which has existed for some years, cease. Of course, the big losers will be those elderly Australians who need nursing home care, cannot get into nursing homes and are forced to reside for an amount of time in private hospitals.We have said to the government over the last few weeks that we are willing to seek to negotiate some compromise with the government on this issue because of our concern about the impact that this change to the rules on private health insurance would have on older Australians who cannot get into nursing homes, and we have made some progress in those negotiations. We were quite pleased that the government, on second thoughts, agreed to withdraw its attempts to change the private health insurance rules, because the Labor Party spoke up for the rights of older Australians to have that coverage.Tonight the minister for health spat the dummy because the Labor Party has said that, while we welcome this change, we are not prepared to allow the other legislation that deals with health insurance to pass the Senate without some debate on private health insurance. In some way the minister for health, knowing that he has made such a shemozzle of private health insurance, knowing that the private health insurance tax rebate has been such a flop, is determined that the government will do all that they can to avoid any debate on private health insurance and any changes to do with private health insurance.I am very pleased that the government has agreed to put up the white flag at this time on the automatic coverage for the first 35 days of admission to a private hospital, but the government, as I say, has spat the dummy tonight because it has been unable to get legislation through the Senate without debate.Mrs Bishop interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—You can imagine what the member for Mackellar would have said when she was a senator if the former Labor government said that you can get legislation through only if you agree to pass it without any debate—Mrs Draper interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Not that there would be no divisions.Mrs Draper interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—This government has so much confidence in its policy on private health insurance that it will allow legislation to proceed only if there is no debate.0L6DRAPERMrs Draper—You've no idea.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I invoke standing order 304A. The honourable member for Makin can take one hour's departure from this chamber. Do so immediately, please.The honourable member for Makin thereupon withdrew from the chamber.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Dobell in continuation.SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—Mr Deputy Speaker, I think I would like to make a point on the question—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am sorry, Minister, I have called the honourable member for Dobell to resume his speech. He still has two minutes and 13 seconds.SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—I was on my feet before he was.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—If she is taking a point of order—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No. The honourable member for Dobell in continuation.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.LK6MAREKMr Marek—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I was under the impression that members are allowed to interject from their chair. The member for Makin is obviously in her place. There is no reason why she cannot interject.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. I had already warned the member several times and told her what would happen if she did not stop interjecting. The honourable member is entitled to be heard in silence.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—We certainly are pleased that the government has put up the white flag on this change in the 35-day rule. Our disappointment is that the government is not prepared to allow a full debate in the Senate on this legislation, on this government's failed private health insurance tax rebate and on its inability to attract people back to private health insurance. That is an issue for another day, because that legislation will have to come back on a future occasion.Tonight this House is seeking to pass judgment on this government's latest changes to Australia's aged care legislation. It is a policy that was conceived with the deliberate intention of forcing older Australians to sell their homes. That was the original intention behind this government's policy back on budget night 1996: they wanted to force older Australians to sell their homes to put up that up-front accommodation bond.Even the latest version of these changes will force many people in electorates right across Australia to have to work out how they can try to raise that annual fee—that extra $4,380 a year—and the extra daily fees they will be hit with from 1 March. Large numbers of Australians right across the country will be forced to sell their home or pay exorbitant amounts of money from their estates, if that is what they choose. Either way, it has caused an enormous amount of concern and confusion amongst older Australians and it is a series of changes that we believe are wrong. The Labor Party is firmly committed to making sure that those new and additional charges are abolished. We are determined to make sure that older Australians receive the quality of aged care to which they are entitled.21:42:001453Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—Like many of my colleagues in the parliament, I consider I would have had considerable problems trying to sell the original Aged Care Bill, which imposed an open-ended accommodation fee on elderly residents. To make this section of the community pay an untold amount of money to secure a nursing home place I consider was bad policy.MG4LEEMr Lee—Why didn't you say that before?LK6Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREK—Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you—he interjected!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—The honourable member for Dobell will keep quiet.LK6Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREK—I have the right to be heard in silence.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Capricornia.LK6Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREK—Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.RW5NELSONDr Nelson—I will interject in a minute.LK6Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREK—Thank you. But, fortunately enough, the government listened to the outcry from elderly people and communities around the country and they decided to scrap the plans and introduce a more acceptable policy. This bill is the result of that policy change and, on the whole, I welcome the changes as a vast improvement on the previous bond charges. The amendments to the 1997 Aged Care Act are necessary if we are to address the deterioration of nursing homes. I have a number of nursing homes in my electorate of Capricornia that do not meet new health and safety standards. They require a massive input of finances to bring them up to standard.These nursing homes are the ones referred to by Professor Bob Gregory in his 1994 review of the industry. Professor Gregory's report documented major deficiencies in capital works and criticised the nursing home funding system as providing neither the funding nor the incentives for providers to maintain their buildings. He estimated that $125 million would be needed to address existing problems and to maintain future building stock.But what did the Labor Party do in response to this report? Mr Deputy Speaker, you will have to excuse me if I sound like I have been taking angry pills, but the Labor Party burnt any credibility they had on this issue when they were in government! Let us have a look at what they actually did, especially in relation to the report. They ignored it. That is right: while the Labor Party were in government for 13 years, their track record was that 13 per cent of nursing homes did not meet fire standards, 11 per cent of nursing homes did not meet the necessary health guidelines, the design building codes were not met in 75 per cent of homes and 51 per cent of nursing home residents lived in wards with three or more beds.This is a disgraceful record. The Labor Party just sat on its hands and did absolutely nothing while these nursing homes collapsed around it. Instead of finding some extra money to help the nursing homes meet the required standards, the Labor Party slashed the funding by millions of dollars. In 1992-93, Labor was paying $45 million; in 1993-94, it dropped it to $26.5 million; in 1994-95, it went even lower to $15.7 million; and, to cap it all off, in 1995-96, it slashed it to $10.7 million. That just goes to show that the Labor Party was not and still is not interested in the elderly. It was not interested in providing suitable nursing home accommodation at all. In fact, it was prepared to cut the funding right to the bone.This shows the Labor Party to be a bunch of hypocrites. No interjections. Fine. It just goes to show my point is absolutely correct. Now they are saying that they will spend $150 million more on nursing homes if they get back into government. What a lot of rot. More unfunded promises. Let us just speculate. Could we consider that a lot of where the money would come from—if we are led to believe that Labor would give these unfunded promises if they came back into government—would be through death duties?I would be interested to hear if the shadow Treasurer (Mr Gareth Evans) is prepared to make a statement before question time tomorrow on whether death duties, under Labor, would be introduced if they were returned to government. I am sure Queenslanders particularly would love to hear what he has to say about that. I throw the challenge out. It would be interesting to hear exactly what the shadow Treasurer has to say about that before close of trading, question time, tomorrow.I am pleased to see the annual accommodation charge of $4,380 per annum will be capped and be required to be paid for a maximum of five years while concessional residents will pay no charge at all. I am also pleased to see the proviso that these accommodation charges must be used to meet capital work costs relating to the residential care, to retire debt or to improve the range and quality of aged care services in nursing homes.While the previous policy recommended the home to be excluded from an assets test if a carer or a relative has lived there for five years, I am pleased to see this government has reduced the provision and the family home will not be included in a person's assets when considering them for entry to a nursing home, particularly if it is occupied by a carer for two years or a close relation for five years and they are in receipt of a pension. Likewise, assets gifted before 20 August 1996 are to be disregarded and rental from the family home will be exempted from the assessment of a person's income for pension purposes and for the purposes of calculating the income tested resident's fees.Providers of residential nursing home care are prohibited to charge fees for placing a person on a waiting list for entry to the service or for the operator's costs of complying with its obligations under the Aged Care Act 1997. So the only charge that can be made is a set fee towards their daily living costs in a capped accommodation charge.The minister has provided nursing home residents with four options for the payment of the accommodation charge. These are: making a monthly payment out of existing assets, renting the family home and using the income stream to pay the charge, making a charge against the person's estate or having a reverse mortgage against the family home. Although the first two are clear, it is worth stating that the charge against a person's estate is entirely a matter between the resident and the home. Unfortunately, there is no reason or legislation for the nursing home to accept this method. The reverse mortgage is not yet available to users as banks prefer that the mortgagee reside on the premises, but discussions are taking place between the government and the banks on methods to overcome that obstacle.While this government attempts to right past wrongs and give the nursing home industry a boost to repair its stocks, the Labor Party would repeal this legislation if given half a chance. The Labor Party has presided over a tragic decline in nursing homes. It does not believe the wealthy should pay any more than the rest. It would prefer taxpayers to subsidise the wealthy in nursing homes rather than fix the problem to everyone's benefit. This demonstrates the Labor Party has lost touch with its base and is not interested in welfare or the elderly people within this country.But this government's policy is very clear. We will not stand by and let old Australians live in substandard accommodation. We will not slug ordinary tax paying Australians to fund the guilt of the Labor Party. These fees will ensure that our aged care system is sustainable for a long time.An interesting point at this stage is that before the March 1996 election, back in December 1995, the Goss-Schwarten Labor government in Queensland and the Keating-Lawrence government—all Labor, nothing in coalition about that mob—basically looked at negotiating to cut funding. I particularly talk about places close to home like the Eventide Nursing Home in Rockhampton. Then in January 1996 they signed off on it. That is right, they took the dollars out of the system.The member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence) came in here last year after debate in the House and basically said that she made no apology for the fact that Labor took so much money out of this sector—the aged care nursing home sector—when they were in government. We have obviously seen where they were going. They were cutting, cutting, cutting. We are adding, adding, adding.You really have to ask the question of exactly where the member for Dobell and the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) are coming from. Under Labor, we can obviously see who would be misleading the House. While I am at it, I might do a Simon Crean and hold up a picture. This is it here—Labor sent nursing homes down, down, down.21:52:001455McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The previous speaker, the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Marek), was interesting indeed. He said that the Labor Party was contemplating introducing death duties. This government has effectively introduced death duties but the death duties are only duties that affect the frail, the aged and the incapacitated.LK6MAREKMr Marek—Will you introduce death duties?JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The Labor Party will not introduce death duties. The fact is that the Liberal Party has introduced death duties. Those death duties fall upon the frail, the aged, the incapacitated and the demented. That is what we are effectively talking about in the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 .The previous speaker said some amazing things. He went through the options available to senior citizens to cope with these new charges. He said that those options included making monthly payments, renting out their homes—I will say something about that in a moment—and charging against their estate.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Otherwise known as a death duty.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—Yes, otherwise known as a death duty.LK6MAREKMr Marek—Are you going to introduce death duties?JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The Labor Party will not be introducing death duties. The Liberal Party has introduced death duties. That is what we are debating. The previous speaker is proposing that the money—the deferred payment—come out of a person's assets. But he said, in any event, that there is no compulsion on the nursing homes to accept that arrangement. So if a senior citizen is compelled to go into a nursing home and put that proposition, the nursing home owner can say, `Look, I'm sorry. That's not part of the deal as far as I am concerned. I am not prepared to wait a year, two years, five years or whatever it is until you pass away. I want my dough now.' So he has admitted that it is entirely discretionary—a one-sided discretion on the part of the nursing home.The previous speaker said that the reverse mortgage is another possibility—that is, when the banks lend money to the aged care recipient and wait until the person dies, again the loan is taken out of their estate. It seems to have a familiar ring to it. Does it sound a bit like death duties? Death duties that hit the frail, the aged and the incapacitated. He said, again in a candid admission, that no bank has yet come up with such a package for a reverse mortgage. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) announced these arrangements on 5 November. The Prime Minister and the government have not got their act together since 5 November. It is now 24 March, nearly 25 March, and they still cannot get a package together, yet they have the legislation before the House. It makes a mockery of the whole process.If the continual bungling of this government was not so tragic and if it did not have such serious repercussions for senior citizens, it would be described as a black joke, a black comedy. But you have not got your act together. You are to be condemned. Indeed, you are being condemned by the senior citizens of this country. Our senior citizens are not doddery old things. They are intelligent, articulate people and they know when someone is having a lend of them. This government is most certainly having a lend of them.Other speakers have spoken about the accommodation charge. Contrary to the comments of the member for Makin (Mrs Draper), who was in here earlier, that annual accommodation charge of $4,380, if someone has assets over $44,000, will hit everyone, whether they are on a pension or whether they are a part pensioner or totally self-funded. That will hit everyone. Seventy per cent of people only have one major asset, and that is their home. So, again, people have to pay that amount and if they have no other source of raising that $4,320, then the home, which is included as part of the assets test, is clearly at risk. The senior citizens know that their home is at risk. There is absolutely no doubt about it.The previous speaker noted that there were exclusions of the family home if a carer had occupied the premises jointly for two years. But, again, that carer has to be on the pension. If you are talking about what is an increasing situation now, with superannuation plans starting to kick in, one-third of our senior citizens are not pensioners and in those circumstances the home is still going to be included as part of the assets test. Equally, a close relative has to be a cohabitant for five years but, again, that close relative has to be a pensioner.RW5NELSONDr Nelson—No.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—I stand to be corrected on that. That is my understanding. Certainly my reading of the bill suggests that in both cases the cohabiter has to be a pensioner. We will check that and come back to that in the consideration in detail stage.In any event, in many cases older Australians will end up paying more than the discredited bond arrangement. At most, under the bond arrangement, the home could deduct $2,600 over five years, totalling $13,000. Now, with the $4,320 deducted over five years, we are looking at a sum of about $21,900. That is going to hit many Australians who have no choice. The previous speakers on the Labor Party side of the House have pointed out that, when people go into these nursing homes, they have absolutely no choice.Those people who are going into nursing homes will face intrusive income testing. I understand that the Department of Social Security has an 18-page intrusive form, where they go back through all aspects of someone's private life until August 1996. Any gifts that have been made within that period are deemed to be still earning income for the purposes of the assets test. I have had people come into my office who have been hit by that circumstance because they have given money—$10,000-odd in some situations—to their children. This is happening at a time when today we are looking at a situation where Minister Parer is trying to sidestep $2 million because he says that has been distributed to his family. When we look at how the elite, the born to rulers, regard their entitlements and privileges against what they are doing to ordinary Australians who confront misfortune, it really is chalk and cheese and nothing short of a complete and utter outrage.I have gone through the options that the member for Capricornia discussed, and they are not options at all. They all involve either this deferred death duty—and there is no other word; it is a death duty in all but name—or selling the home.The quality of care is most certainly under challenge. Prior to October last year, a number of nursing homes had entered into joint funding arrangements with the Commonwealth for capital improvement programs—I inspected one earlier last year in my electorate—and they were making a number of excellent improvements under the previous joint funding arrangement with the Labor government.With the bond situation coming in, those joint funding arrangements were disbanded—gone, kaput—because the nursing homes thought they were going to have this flow of capital under the bond structures. They have not. The bond structure has been pulled from under them and they have been left lingering, sitting between two stools—sitting nowhere—and contemplating litigation. I do not want to prejudge a case but, quite frankly, I think they have a lay-down misere because of the way they are being treated. The consequence is that nursing homes are in no-man's-land: they are not getting repaired and contracts are not being made with builders to upgrade them. The government speaks of a desire to upgrade nursing homes. That is complete and utter rubbish. It simply is not happening. How can it happen when $500 million has been taken out of the nursing home sector? At the same time, the government is hitting our senior citizens to put in more money.The extra daily fee, which is the next issue, hits pensioners, part-pensioners and superannuants at the rate of 25c for every dollar that they earn over the threshold of $50—and that can be as high as $238 per week. What is the government doing with that? The minister said that it is going to nursing homes, and he was accused of misrepresenting the House without deliberate intention. It is a complete misstatement of fact. The nursing homes will tell you, as will Anglicare Australia, Baptist Community Services, Community Services Australia and the Australian Catholic Health Care Australia—all church providers, and one assumes that there is some integrity among that grouping of organisations—that the extra daily fees do not contribute any extra money to the upkeep of the homes, the care of the residents or the future development of the services.The church providers are saying, `We're providing the service. Where is the money? We want to see it.' They are not seeing it. They are saying that it is not going to them, but the minister is up here saying that it is. That is rubbish! It is going into the government's coffers. It is a tax that is hitting the most vulnerable in the community—the frail, the aged and the demented. People who have no choice are getting slugged with this tax, and it is not even going towards improving the services for the sector of the community that needs it. Again, that is nothing short of a complete and utter travesty of justice, but it typifies this government's treatment of senior citizens.The government came in here espousing this theory of the black hole—the black hole which, it said, was going to lead to a budget catastrophe. Miraculously, the black hole quickly evaporated and the fiscal crisis never appeared. The government is now boasting about the fact that we are approaching a surplus, which the budget figures showed would be occurring through the national economic growth if it had not been stifled. So what is your excuse for bashing the elderly? You are picking up a bit of 4x2 and whacking them around the room.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The chair is not whacking anybody. You should address your remarks through the chair.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The government is picking up a bit of 4x2 and whacking them about the head, hitting them with these nursing home bonds, higher pharmaceuticals and trying to press gang them into private health funds by increasing the waiting list in private hospitals. What is your excuse? Your fiscal reasoning or rationale of the so-called manufactured budget deficit is not there. You are boasting that you have fixed it up.This sector of society has got us through the Second World War, through the Depression, through the post-World War construction; they have literally slogged themselves out. They have paid their taxes and they have come to a point when they need some assist ance, some community support, and, as a result of this government, that community support is not there. The community is well and truly letting them down. This government is letting them down.The member for Capricornia said that nursing homes were in a state of shambles. If that is right, why has so much money been taken out of this sector, which needs about a 98 per cent admission rate to keep afloat? This government's policies on nursing homes have terrified people, and they simply are not patronising them. They are either staying in hospitals or staying at home to be cared for by loving and well-meaning relatives and friends, but they are not equipped to properly care for them. Because of the genuine terror that has been caused by this government's policies, they are staying away from nursing homes.Interestingly, in the debates during the Labor Party's attack on the government's nursing home bond legislation we were accused of manufacturing a scare campaign. The shadow minister was personally attacked for manufacturing a scare campaign. Tonight we have the member for Capricornia saying, `I admit that the bond proposal was bad policy.' The government is admitting that it was bad policy and is, again, trying to put the blame on the opposition. We are doing our job. We are representing those who are disadvantaged in the community—we have every right to do so—and they see right through what this government is doing. They are being slogged hard by this government without any justification.22:08:001458Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—I rise today to speak in support of the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 . The past 18 months have seen sweeping changes to the aged care system which will help us to provide for the elderly in the way that we should into the new century when older Australians will make up a substantially greater proportion of the population. We have many aged care facilities that are built to standards that are no longer acceptable in the broader community. As the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) said in October last year:This Government believes that older Australians deserve better than they're getting now . . . we have a rapidly ageing population which deserves to live in comfort, privacy and with dignity.One of the most contentious and difficult aspects of the structural reforms to aged care policy is the identification of an appropriate balance between the tax payer—or public funding of aged care services—and the financial contribution that some older people can make themselves. The changes proposed in the Aged Care Amendment Bill, especially the introduction of an accommodation charge for people requiring nursing home level care, strikes, we believe, an acceptable balance and positions the sector so that improvements can be made where necessary to both the standards of accommodation and the quality of care that our elderly people receive in residential aged care services.This amendment bill introduces an accommodation charge for residents who require nursing home care. After a long period of consultation with those families which have elderly parents, the industry itself and representatives of the industry we saw the parties come together. It was clear that there were very special circumstances which needed to be taken into account in relation to nursing home level residents. This accommodation charge will mean that aged care facilities receive a substantial capital injection and it should alleviate the fears of older people—fears that were shamelessly promulgated by the opposition; fears that we saw right out in our remote regional areas. Older people were told day after day in the media that they were going to be forced to sell their homes. Older people who had already decided to sell their homes—who did not need their homes; their sons and daughters had shifted away—suddenly felt guilty when they read day after day that it was something of a crime or a personal family disappointment to continue to contemplate selling their family home, even though they had no need of that property themselves. It was a very sad period when we saw, as a result of party politics, those most vulnerable in our community being attacked.An accommodation charge is simply a contribution calculated on a daily basis towards the cost of a person's accommoda tion. The accommodation charge is then used by aged care providers to upgrade and maintain their facilities where that is necessary. Sadly, after decades of inappropriate and inadequate policy in relation to aged care facilities, in particular in relation to nursing homes, we find that many of those nursing homes do need an extra injection of capital funding. The accommodation charge is capped at $12 per day or $6 for assisted residents, that is, those residents with assets between $22,500 and $36,000. Concessional residents, those with assets of less than $22,500, or residents who meet the other hardship criteria will not pay an accommodation charge. About 27 per cent of residents needing nursing home level care will not have to pay an accommodation charge and will be considered concessional residents. So our policies will make sure that in Australia in the future elderly people can expect to enjoy equality of service—not differences according to the rich or the poor.Aged care providers will receive a subsidy of up to $12 per day for concessional residents and $6 per day for assisted residents in their facilities. The maximum daily subsidy is payable when a facility has more than 40 per cent of assisted or concessional residents. Providers are therefore receiving an incentive to accommodate residents who do not have the income or assets to pay an accommodation charge, and all age care facilities will need to maintain a certain percentage of concessional residents. I cannot imagine anything fairer than that. The charge is payable for a maximum of five years.Residents will also have a choice as to how they pay the charge. They may choose to defer the payment and to pay it from their estate, or they may choose a home equity loan. And that is nothing to do with death duties, as the previous speaker, the honourable member for Barton (Mr McClelland), suggested. That is another aspect of their scare campaign and a shameless way to try to invoke fear in the minds of the most vulnerable.No-one who requires nursing home level care will have to sell their home to access this care. No-one who has been dependent on social security or other pension benefits should have any fear in Australia in the future about accessing care that will be of the highest order possible.Other major provisions in this bill include that, where a carer has been living in the prospective resident's home for two years, the house will not be included as part of the assets test when assessing whether a nursing home level resident will have to pay an accommodation charge. Under the current act, the carer has to be living in the home for five years. These changes clearly reflect this government's commitment to carers and the vital role that they do fulfil. A prospective resident's home is also excluded if a partner or dependent child is living there. I suggest that the previous speaker go and do his homework before he makes other suggestions in this place.The aged care amendments affirm and strengthen the consumer protection provisions in the Aged Care Act. In particular, the amendments introduce mechanisms to ensure that only providers who meet strict requirements and adhere to stringent guidelines are permitted to operate aged care facilities. We understand very well the duty of care that we have as an Australian society. The health and wellbeing of our parents, grandparents and other loved ones are too important for us to settle for anything less.The reforms of aged care introduced by this government are balanced and fair, as I say. They ask people to make a contribution to their care to the extent that they are able. The reforms do not require an unreasonable contribution and they ensure the same high level of care for all people, regardless of whether or not they can pay the accommodation charge. The aged care reforms certainly do not represent a shirking of government responsibility for aged care. This government currently spends more than $3 billion per year on aged care. The average cost to the government of keeping one person in a nursing home for one year is some $30,000. This includes the cost of their care, meals, accommodation, medication, entertainment, laundry and other ancillary expenses. With the introduction of an accommodation charge, it has been estimated that, even for the wealthiest person who pays the maximum accommodation charge and income tested daily fees, the government contribution to their care would still be approximately $15,000 per year.Census data indicates that there are approximately 2.2 million people in Australia aged over 65. This represents 12 per cent of our population. This is an increase of more than one million over the past 20 years, and the number is expected to double in the next 30 years to the year 2027. Most of Australia's baby boomers will reach retirement age between 2006 and 2016. Life expectancies are increasing, as is the average age of people in residential aged care. Currently, 7.5 per cent of Australians aged over 70 are in residential aged care. There will be proportionally fewer taxpayers able to contribute to government welfare, including aged care, through their taxation system payments in the future. Our amendments and our policies are making sure that we can sustain the sort of care that Australians expect into the next century in older people's lives.As well as the changes in the nation's demographics, the past 20 years have also seen a marked shift in the traditional roles in our society. The predominance of the nuclear family is no longer the case. In the past there was an expectation that the mother or wife would take an active role in looking after her parents or parents-in-law. In fact, however, these days a lot of older women are still in the work force in paid employment, so ageing parents are not necessarily able to call upon the support and care of that daughter or daughter-in-law. We have to look, therefore, to more institutional care arrangements.It is, of course, true that families continue to provide a huge amount of support and care for ageing relatives. However, the realities are that society has to look to other means of providing care in the future. There are fewer older people now moving in with their children. The 1991 census indicated that 27 per cent of 65- to 79-year-olds and 45 per cent of people aged 80 and over were in fact living alone, not as in the past when you could expect that they would perhaps shift in with their sons and daughters.It is also true that most elderly women survive without their male partners, so more older women are living alone and they are living for much longer. The realities are that in our Australian society we have to take a long-term look and a compassionate look, but also a financially responsible look, at how we are going to manage our older people into the future. This government is doing that, unlike the previous government, which put the hard questions to one side. As we seek to do the hard yards, they now seek to scare our older people by cheap political point scoring.Let me say too that our government is looking at innovative ways to help our older population. It is the case that older indigenous people tend not to seek accommodation in nursing homes or hostels, but in the electorate of Murray, which has a big indigenous Aboriginal population, we have Maloga, an older Aboriginal persons hostel, a superb facility run by Aboriginal people in the small town of Nathalia. Maloga is a model of what can be provided with government funding in other parts of Australia, and it is just one example of how this government looks at the varying needs of older people.Also in Murray, to help to cater for our older ethnic minority population, this government has just very proudly opened a multicultural aged persons hostel. It contributed some $2 million towards that hostel. So, where we have had some of our older Italian, Greek, Albanian and Turkish community people worried about what to do in their old age, they can now go to the multicultural hostel and continue to enjoy meals of the sort that they have been used to all their lives, speak to staff who share their languages and have their family and friends come to visit them in an environment that they feel completely at home in.So this government understands that there are a range of older Australians now: indigenous people, ethnic minorities and mainstream Australians. It understands that there are a lot of older women who will end up alone at the end of their days in nursing homes and hostels. But we also know that there will be some older men. We understand that older men may be a substantial minority in, say, the nursing home environment. So, again, this government has shown its innovation and its genuine caring by, for example, at the Tongala Memorial Aged Care Complex, funding what has been called the Men's Shed. This men's shed is for the older men, who are only a handful in the bigger population of older women in this community facility. The shed is exactly what these men have enjoyed all through their lives. It has tools, wood-turning equipment and metalworking equipment. It is a big tin shed with a concrete floor. It has a toilet facility and wide roller doors for wheelchair access. The equipment has been donated by a machinery manufacturer and Veterans' Affairs just the other day donated a substantial amount of money to make this Men's Shed a reality at the Tongala Aged Care Complex. This is another example of how this government is looking well beyond a generic policy at the individual needs of all our aged people.This Aged Care Amendment Bill is very serious for older people in Australia. It is making sure that we have the funds to have sustained and adequately built facilities for all older people who need them in their declining days. I commend this bill to the House, and I know that older Australians are very grateful that this government is taking the hard decisions.22:22:001461Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—We have witnessed a very interesting contribution from the member for Murray (Mrs Stone) about aged care in this debate on the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 . I just thought I should read into the Hansard record the Australian Catholic Health Care Association's principles that they suggest should be foremost in our minds when we are looking at reform:The proper care for the aged is a community responsibility in the first instance. Given the effects of frailty and the increasing vulnerability, the aged cannot be treated on par with other more able and independent citizens. Rather, the community has a responsibility to ensure our frailest and sickest elderly are cared for in a dignified and respectful manner.That is something that I entirely agree with. Short of a premature death, one of the things we are guaranteed to go through is the ageing process. When you suffer illness, at no stage in your life do we actually start saying, `This is a nought to five-year-old baby; we're going to put a means test on the baby and the family,' or, `This is a child who is suffering an illness and therefore we're going to put a means test on the child or the family,' or, `This is a teenager and we're going to put a means test on the teenager and the family,' or that we are going to put a means test on an adult. But when it comes to the aged, when it comes to the point where there is an assessment by the aged care assessment team that people can no longer independently, even with the care of their family or loved ones, maintain themselves in their present living environment and require the more intense level of attention in a nursing home, because of age, we suddenly say we have got to slap on these tests, that we have somehow got to have cost recovery. I think that is a preposterous proposition. We do not do it with any medical condition other than for the aged.I have said before that I am quite happy to acknowledge that there could have been improvements in our system prior to the new government coming in. I am very proud of lots of the things that we did. We certainly opened a lot of hostels and nursing home extensions in my electorate when we were in government, but I am always open to the proposition that we can improve the system and we should reform.One of the biggest lies perpetuated by government members is to say about their nursing home scheme, `It's only your hostel policy,' as though there should be nothing wrong with it. They never go on to explain to the people of Australia—because it sounds so credible—that all they are doing is extending a Labor reform. They never go on to explain that in fact hostel accommodation is about choosing a different form of accommodation—that is, that it is an issue of choice by the individual but with the exception of dementia—and I think dementia is a special case—they can continue on in their present living arrangements or they can choose to go into hostel accommodation. But a nursing home is different. No Australian can choose to go into a nursing home. You, Mr Speaker, cannot put your hand up and say, `I want to go into a nursing home,' and get into a nursing home. You have to be assessed as requiring that level of care. I just wanted to nail that particular lie.It is true that there have been heaps of changes on aged care policy by the government. Government backbenchers have always supported the government's policy until the next change and then they support that policy, then there is another backflip. We have even had the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) come in and say that he has solved it all. He has not solved it all. There is still the threat that people—XK6WESTMrs West—You did nothing.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—You say that we did nothing. Let me tell you one thing: under our system the religious and the community sectors were allowed to grow. I know of people who want to set up nursing homes. The Augustinian sisters in my electorate want to set up a nursing home tomorrow. They cannot because you have cut out capital grants. There is an identified need for it and they cannot get into the system because you have cut out capital grants to the residential and community sector. Indeed, by your reforms, it is without question that operating for profit will—RW5NELSONDr Nelson—Mr Speaker, a point of order on three issues: firstly, I feel the comments should be directed through the chair; secondly, I believe the description of government members as liars is unparliamentary, upon which you were going to making a ruling; and, thirdly, I believe the member for Chifley is reading from written notes about which he himself has expressed concern.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the honourable member for Chifley should take note of those remarks. In talking about any generic group of people, we have accepted words that we should not, but I ask the honourable member not to refer to anybody in this place as a liar.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—If government members take exception to my remark, I withdraw it without reservation, but they are guilty of not telling the full story; they are guilty of mendacity. I think they are guilty of misleading the Australian public. I apologise, Mr Speaker. I am happy to table the notes, but if you compare what I have had to say with the notes in front of me I have not used them at all.8I4MARTINMr Martin—And the member for Murray read a speech.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—And the member for Murray (Mrs Stone) did not deviate from her speech. I think the government members were actually taking umbrage because I was making the important point that you are killing off the religious sector and the community sector. They are static and they will decline as a percentage of providers of nursing home accommodation. It is an inevitable consequence of your policy, and I was making the point that I know of a number of people who want to set up nursing homes. I mentioned the Augustinian sisters who, in particular, want to set up a nursing home to service the Filipino community. If the capital grants system were available—as it was under our policy—then indeed we would be seeing that sector more than adequately catered for. I just happen to believe that in aged care we do have those who operate for profit, but I believe the community and religious sector will always do an important job. One more point before I seek to continue my remarks is that—and I must declare an interest because my wife, as a nurse, works in the aged care sector—I do believe—8I4MARTINMr Martin—At least you had the decency to declare it.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—Indeed. I do believe that in nursing homes there is a tendency to reduce the number of qualified staff catering for these residents, and I for one regret it.Debate interrupted.Adjournment146310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.146322:30:001463Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to make a few remarks this evening about the Howard government's second birthday—and, in doing so, to pose a question about whether or not the unemployed are celebrating this second birthday. I think it is fair to say in passing that what we are now witnessing is sluggish jobs growth and, if anything, low participation—many of the unemployed at the moment giving up the desire to look for a job.The government has made a few promises on the issue of unemployment, but I think we should deal in particular with the collapse of jobs in manufacturing industry. I refer to the fact that, in the recent ABS labour force selected summaries tables, we show a fall of 28,200 manufacturing jobs in the quarter to February 1998. I might also say that this follows a 7,900 fall in the previous quarter, effectively meaning a net loss of manufacturing industry jobs since the Howard government was elected.It is also interesting to note that in regional Australia the unemployed are suffering very badly. The most recent figures show that unfortunately unemployment in regional Australia has risen in every mainland state except Victoria—and I am sure that the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) is weeping crocodile tears over that. I would also go to the issue of unemployment in a few of the regions, such as Wide Bay-Burnett with a rate of 19.1 per cent, and the Richmond-Tweed region with a rate of 17.3 per cent.One of the real issues I would raise tonight is not only do we have problems with respect to a lack of jobs but also we have major difficulties with the unemployed having services withdrawn—that helping hand to assist them in getting back to work. I know that the minister likes to hide behind such statements as he is satisfied that the tender process has been conducted in accordance with probity requirements. I also note that in recent days we have had major consideration about the performance of some of these successful contractors.This evening, for the sake of example, I want to refer to Workskil Inc. of South Australia, a company that has been discussed in the House in the last couple of days. In doing so, I would specifically refer to the minutes of the board meeting of Workskil Inc. held at 1069 South Road, Melrose Park, at 5.30 p.m. on Thursday, 9 September 1997. This meeting of the board of management was held at exactly the same time that the tender process was coming to a head. That is the position—held at or about the same time the whole tender process was under way.I want to go to the financial standing and performance of one of the most successful companies in South Australia! I will refer to those minutes which I have identified for the sake of the House—and I understand the concern and the anxiety of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs about the facts of the situation. I quote from page 2, item 4, of those minutes; this is about the financial standing of this company, one of the most successful companies in the tender process conducted by the minister—one that he is so proud of. This is what the minutes say:After reading the independent report from Sims Lockwood Ms Herraman stated that our financial situation looked `a bit scary'.The minutes then go on to say at page 3—and this is from one of the leading lights of the tender process of the minister for employment:Mr Zimmerman—who, I understand, is a local councillor and also a policeman—referred to dishonoured cheques in Sims Lockwood report. Mr Cox replied that there were no funds in the bank at that time.The minutes then go on—and quoting from page 3 again:Ms Herraman agreed that finances are critical however, even if Murray Bridge Industrial facility is sold, how long will this take to help finances.The minutes then went on to state:Mr Zimmerman—the police officer—explained that the Sims Lockwood report has shown that Workskil will survive but that the facility must be sold in the short/long term to help finances.Mr Speaker, what have we got: dud cheques and a company that has to sell property to try to keep its head above water. Yet that process was under way at the same time as this minister for employment was giving the big tick—`Yes, we've got probity; we've got financial understanding and requirements as to quality.' One of the major companies, located in South Australia, selected by this minister, I suggest to this House, was not able to meet real quality of standards and financial standing. (Time expired)146422:35:001464Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—It is a bit of a shame that my contribution follows that of the shadow minister for innuendo. But I rise this evening to talk about a very concerning issue that I think perhaps does not get enough attention—and that is the plight of the mature age unemployed. I had the great pleasure and privilege of launching the document Profiting from Maturity , a research project undertaken by JobsEast, one of the area consultative committees in Victoria. Louise Di Guisto is the chairman of that organisation. She leads a very committed result-oriented bunch of people who are looking at the employment situation in the eastern suburbs. They identified that the mature age unemployed—and I am pleased that the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) is at the table—was one of the key areas where they saw opportunities for increased jobs growth into the future.That recognition was partly supported by the state government, who also identified JobsEast as being an excellent organisation to carry out research on behalf of the aged care branch of the state Department of Human Services, who provided funding for this research. It must be a great encouragement to you, Minister, that the area consultative committee, refined and improved under your leadership, is being recognised and valued by the state government in such a way.One of the things that was identified was that there are a number of mature age unemployed people who run into some barriers in the labour market. The transformation in the economy has squeezed out many of these people in middle management, technical positions, organisational support and process jobs; they find themselves, either from the public or private sector, faced with some difficult choices at a more mature age in their lives. Some of the more enlightened employers understand that they have a role in easing that transition from one workplace which has gone through some sort of reform and change, and taking that employee with them and aiding them in setting them on a new career path. But some are not so lucky. They simply find themselves left to their own devices. So they go back out into the labour force and they are faced with this barrier, which is often about ill-informed perceptions about people over the age of 45: that they are somehow inflexible; that they are somehow harder to train; that they are more prone to greater numbers of work injury; that they have a greater number of sickies; and that they are somehow less attractive. That is a sad perception, as the facts as proven within this research do not back up some of those barriers.Eighty-six per cent of employers believe that someone under the age of 35 is the ideal age for an employee. As someone who falls within that bracket with a few years to go, I am not saying that we should change that perception overnight, but that is something that we could work at over time. It seems to be accepted that people have a number of careers in their lives; that they make a number of multiple career choices over time—three or four perhaps. But when these people are entering the workplace after being displaced through change in their former place of work they seem to hit a barrier. That barrier seems to be that someone else has decided that they need to have a change of career, not themselves.That is no good reason to turn your back on these very able individuals, the mature age unemployed, who can make an enormous contribution to our economy and to workplaces. The influence of a mature age person in the work place to provide a balanced work force is something that I think most of us here could understand would be quite beneficial. It has a calming effect on younger employees, there is wisdom, there is experience, there is an association with a whole range of different employers and workplaces in their earlier careers, and that is something I am sure most workplaces would benefit from.This report spotlights a number of the prejudices that are against the mature age unemployed. It illuminates that these prejudices are basically myths in many respects. It highlights the profound personal impact mature age unemployment has on people. It enlightens employers as to what this group of people has to offer and how they can benefit not only the workplace but also the broader community. It flags the fact that communities benefit with balanced work forces where the mature age people are getting an opportunity to contribute.Beyond the things the government is doing in areas improving the matching of unemployed people to job vacancies, in terms of recognising mature age as a contributing factor to a risk of unemployment and also the personalised intensive care that is available to the high risk group in the mature age long-term unemployed, this report identifies a number of new and innovative strategies. It turns some of those prejudices to the advantage of the mature age person and says to them, `Look at the contracting opportunities. Look at the changing economy and turn those opportunities to your advantage.'I recognise a quote that I saw from the 18th century which said, `In age I bud again.' Our job is to ensure that not only do people bud again in the mature age sector but that they blossom, that they profit and that they have a harvest of many new job opportunities into the future because there are many good things that are available that the mature age unemployed can provide to workplaces right around this country. We miss out on not making use of that experience. (Time expired)146522:40:001465Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—The scale of the contribution of migration to this country was illustrated by an article in Melbourne's Herald-Sun on Monday that quoted data that suggested that 29 per cent of the population of Melbourne were overseas born. Statistics that have been produced by the Parliamentary Library with respect to my own electorate show that over 43 per cent of the residents are overseas born. Many of those people are new settlers. As new settlers they have a range of issues that is very much not only in their interests but also in the interests of the broader Australian community that we address and assist in that settlement process so that they become fully productive, contributing members of our society.In that process the role of migrant resource centres is particularly important. In my own electorate migrant resource centres provide a variety of office space and resources to bodies such as Spanish speaking South American migrants. They provide programs directed at isolated elderly or disabled people from the various parts of the former Yugoslavia. These services are vital in terms of the settlement process and enriching this country both socially and economically. The difficulty is that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) is falling down very badly in the task of ensuring that migrant resource centres across this country are adequately resourced for their tasks.I wrote to the minister on 25 June last year and drew his attention to what he undoubtedly knew any way, which was that financial advances to migrant resource centres for the vital functions that they carry out are now only being made on a quarterly basis instead of the four-year funding basis that had previously existed. That obviously provides immense problems for any organisation simply having to live on the basis of the next three months with no certainty beyond that in terms of fundamental things such as tenancy agreements, staffing contracts and the like.The minister wrote back to me on 28 August last year indicating that he intended to have the matter of the ongoing basis for the funding of settlement services through migrant resource centres settled by 31 December. The reality is that this dithering minister simply still has not resolved the funding issues and provided the sort of certainty that migrant resource centres need. This delay in providing some sort of financial future, some sort of certainty, affects their capacity to carry out a range of things. For example, we have heard some debate which the opposition is deeply concerned about regarding the way in which employment services are being provided. There would have been some opportunity within the government's quite unsatisfactory framework for MRCs to have tendered for those sorts of opportunities, but the absence of a long-term financial base has prevented that happening. Similarly, the capacity to tender for English language classes has been significantly reduced. Long-term leases on cheaper rates have been unable to be signed because these organisations do not know whether they can survive beyond the next three months. Essential repairs, hiring of staff, et cetera are impossible.In my own electorate the North-West Migrant Resource Centre simply needs basic maintenance to its building. It has a leaking roof. The women's toilet needs to be put in order. There are rising damp, flaking plaster and lighting problems. The government is not being asked for money for these repairs. On the contrary, the management committee of the migrant resource centre has saved something like $40,000 over the last two years to enable them to pay for this. How can they go ahead if they are unable to plan more than three months ahead?Even worse, the landlord of their premises in St Albans has advised them that he will fund renovations valued at $100,000 if they are prepared to sign a four-year lease, but, because of the current uncertainty, they are unable to accept that offer. It is simply unacceptable for this minister for immigration to dither. Very important and fundamental settlement services in this country that really are vital for the future social wellbeing of our nation and the satisfactory settlement of so many new settlers are simply not able to plan into the future because he is dithering and unable to make a decision.146622:45:001466Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise tonight to offer other members a glimpse of the rare beauty which exists in my electorate of Gilmore, arguably the most physically beautiful electorate in Australia. Our beaches, highlands, rivers, forests and lakes attract thousands of visitors each year, with local community groups playing a major role in protecting and conserving the local environment. Imagine, if you will, a historic village area where members of the local community gather to meet, enjoy picnics in the sunny afternoon, and watch their children play together. It is an area of village green which provides a dividing boundary between the communities of Mossvale and Bowral. With the site of the first Southern Highlands town of Bong Bong directly opposite, the green is heavy with the ghosts of the past but brimming with the potential to provide an answer to problems with cost effective, viable revegetation programs for the future.I rise to speak tonight not to give a history lesson on Bong Bong Common, now a disused airfield, but to give support to an important initiative which I have followed since it started and which I believe emphasises our need as a community to persevere with projects which benefit the local area and Australia. This particular issue also raises the importance of cooperation between all levels of government and that of working with the community to protect and improve, as in this instance, the environment.The conservation and preservation of local habitats and environmental areas of significance has been a key objective of the coalition government nationally. Successful programs such as bushcare, part of the Natural Heritage Trust, and Green Corps have ensured that the community groups, land users, government and industry work together to protect native bushland to increase and improve tree planting and promote the use of native vegetation into farming systems.While national objectives are important, in applauding these successes we should not overlook what is achieved locally by community organisations and local councils. In Bong Bong, the community based organisation Greening Australia carried out direct seeding trials to revegetate the area. Direct seeding is a technique whereby tree seed is sown into the earth in a similar way that farmers sow wheat. It is an emerging technique, quick and cost effective. However, the results are not always predictable or successful.Four years ago, when I was a councillor with the Wingecarribee Shire Council, the local shire and Greening Australia carried out a seeding program at the common. Whilst being historically important, management plans for the site include the development of the area as a garden showpiece for the highlands and construction of a major network of bush walking trails, including paths specifically designed for the blind. Already it attracts families and friends throughout the districts for picnics and meetings and provides a natural playground for children of all ages.As part of the direct seeding program, the wider community was consulted and it took several years to decide how best to prepare the location for the trial. The results were not a resounding success to say the least, with only a handful of seeds taking root and surviving the ensuing months. However, the reason for the less than expected result was not necessarily the seeding technique. In order to professionally assess the use of direct seeding, Greening Australia has offered to do the project again. With my encouragement and total support, Wingecarribee Shire Council and Greening Australia will be working together again over the next few months to reseed the site and, with the advancement in knowledge and trials during the past four years, we are all very confident of its success.Greening Australia will be a major contributor to bringing the airfield once again to life for the people of Bong Bong. In the same way, the coalition government's commitment to improving the environment is being promoted through the auspices of the Natural Heritage Trust and the Green Corps program, amongst others. Through programs such as coast care, dune care, bushcare, coasts and clean seas, more than 15 Gilmore volunteer groups will receive financial support for the first time to continue the work that they do for the environment. The key message is that the government's strategic investment in vegetation repair and maintenance receives added value through partnership with the community, supported by organisations such as Greening Australia.The work that Greening Australia does would not be possible without community and business support. For example, in the first six months of its bushcare support contract, which underpins the Natural Heritage Trust bushcare program, Greening Australia has exceeded many of its national targets. For example, in six months Greening Australia has more than doubled the planned number of hectares of demonstration works and fencing to protect remnant vegetation.Staff, volunteer members and community volunteers collected nearly 400 kilograms of native seed to be used to re-establish trees and shrubs on degraded land. In six months, nearly 54,000 seedlings have been distributed to groups and land holders. That will see areas such as the Bong Bong Common regenerated and revegetated to improve not only the land and soil but the very air we breathe. I applaud Greening Australia for continuing this program.146822:50:001468Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HANSONBK6OxleyIND00—While most of this House occupy their time attacking the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) and his ilk in the hope of scoring points of relatively little value to the Australian people, I will continue to address the issues at the heart of our nation's problems. It was no surprise to read recently in the Australian the disastrous report that the real unemployment figure is around 19 per cent. While I say it was no surprise, it does not diminish the horror of what those figures mean to ordinary Australians and their simple hopes for a secure future for themselves and their children.The Australian Bureau of Statistics has found that two million Australians want to work but are not actively looking, not ready to start or just unable to find a job. These figures do not include the hundreds of thousands of underemployed Australians forced into part-time or casual work who eke out a financially precarious existence.The devastation wrought by previous governments and the lack of ability of the current government to correct the failed policies under which the Australian people have suffered for so long stand as a testament to either the ineptness or treachery of our so-called leaders. Those leaders are self-styled, self-centred and filled with nothing but self- interest as the continued ruination of this once great nation and its once proud people surely shows.If the Australian people ever doubted their government's failures, then surely the 19 per cent unemployment figure would guide the way to understanding what their government has done. Successive coalition and Labor governments have allowed this crisis to occur. At the very least, they have acted irresponsibly and deserted the very Australians who elected them. Some would go further and cite what may seem to be mismanagement as actually being acts of betrayal. Either way, the consequences Australians are currently forced to endure are beyond forgiveness and will not be forgotten.Liberal, Labor and National are all guilty of the continual pursuit of economic rationalism and it is ordinary Australians who pay the price of these failed experiments that take no account of social impact. The government's level playing field has produced this cancer of unemployment that is eating away at the fabric of our once comfortable community. For the last 25 years or so government actions have been those of the criminally negligent as they have peddled their failures and then done their level best to hide the results of their fumbling in the hope that some economic miracle would emerge. Their promises of the benefits of economic rationalism, free trade and the level playing field were lies. This 19 per cent unemployment figure from the government's own Australian Bureau of Statistics is but one of the pieces of evidence that points to their guilt.I absolutely have to make this clear: the market wants profit only; all other considerations are secondary. Economic rationalism is a weapon wielded by governments on behalf of big business and, in particular, multinationals. To Australia, economic rationalism is a weapon of mass social destruction and it is our own government which press the button and, as yet, have not taken their finger off the trigger. Exposing us to unlimited competition from foreign countries where workers earn a dollar or two a day is destroying our industries and exporting our jobs. The proof of this is everywhere. The continuation of Labor or coalition policies can result only in further drops in our standard of living and an increasingly insecure future for Australians.It is only with policies of reindustrialisation and the pursuit of a largely self-sufficient social and financial structure that we can arrest our government imposed decline and look towards a positive future for our own people. It is only One Nation that stands ready to implement such policies and soon the Australian people will have their chance to vote for change.146922:55:001469Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I wish to draw to the attention of the House an act on the part of the Australian Labor Party today which I consider to be nothing more than an act of political vandalism. I refer to the decision by the Australian Labor Party in the Senate to force a debate on or at least to make controversial the Health Legislation Amendment Bill No. 2 (1997). This bill, for the benefit of honourable members who may not immediately be aware of it, seeks to introduce and give effect to the removal of gap payments for medical expenses where doctors have reached an agreement with private hospitals which themselves have contracts with funds. That deals with an issue that all of us as members have to deal with on a day-to-day basis and a major irritation which is causing people to leave private health insurance.The bill also sought to require doctors to provide up-front quotes for the fees that they will charge patients who go into the private hospital system. The bill is to give effect to a series of trials across Australia that would, for the first time in the history of this country, require doctors to, as far as is practical, explain the charges that patients will face as they go into the system. It would also introduce the concept of informed financial consent wherever there was going to be a gap payment. In other words, prospective patients would have some idea, firstly, that a gap would exist and, secondly, what level that gap would in fact be.The other important concept which the bill seeks to give effect to is aggregated billing— the notion that instead of the myriad accounts that patients receive, having gone into the private hospital system, one account would be received through a billing agency; in most cases, the private hospital. So the irritation that constituents face—in particular, older people—in receiving 10, 20, 30 or even in one case, as one of my constituents had, almost 70 accounts would no longer occur.You would have thought that these were things that were not controversial. They are things that the Australian Labor Party itself supported. I find in this life, as a member of parliament, I deal with all kinds of people from frankly the incompetent right through to those whose ethics are questionable through to those who are extremely good and well motivated, but the one thing I have great difficulty with is hypocrisy. On 5 March this year the member for Dobell (Mr Lee), speaking to this bill when it went through the House of Representatives in its second reading stage, made the following comments:The opposition is generally supportive of the content of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill No. 2 (1997) . . . the opposition will not be opposing the legislation.He said the opposition had no objection to the major items contained in the legislation and were prepared to be constructive. The one thing about which the opposition had concern was what is described as the 35-day rule—in other words, that after 35 days of admission in acute care and receiving an acute level of benefit the nursing home style of patient would step down to a lower level of benefit. They were concerned that this would occur for some patients from day one of admission. So the government deleted that segment of the legislation to ensure that we were able to get this through as quickly as possible and ensure that privately insured patients were able to get access to the obvious benefits contained in the bill as quickly as possible.Today's announcement by the ALP in the Senate, under the so-called leadership of the member for Brand (Mr Beazley), is nothing short of contributing to the further demise of private health care in Australia, which is something that they did for over 13 years. Mr Keating, when Prime Minister of the country, told people they did not need private health insurance and they could rely entirely on Medicare.The decision today will further contribute to the demise of the public hospital system because some Australians will give up private health insurance in exasperation that it appears that the politicians of this country are not able to get their act together and deal with some of the real issues that people deal with in day-to-day life.The Morgan poll that was commissioned and released on 23 February this year by MBF found that eight out of 10 Australians believe that the decline in private health insurance is detrimental to public hospitals. That ought to be remembered when the opposition in the federal parliament are arguing about the negotiation of the Australian hospital financing agreements. It is appalling and it is political vandalism.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:001470House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices1470The following notices were given:Dr Kemp to present a bill for an act to amend the Student and Youth Assistance Act 1973, and for related purposes.Ms Worth to present a bill for an act to repeal the Australian Hearing Services Act 1991, and for related purposes.Mr Andrew to move:That:(1) the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration; and(2) the following order of the day, committee and delegation reports, be referred to the Main Committee for debate: Financial Institutions and Public Administration—Standing Committee—Report on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's annual report for 1996-97—Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate.Mr McClelland to move:That the House:(1) notes that one reason for the extent of apathy and cynicism toward members of parliament is the fact that the public feel remote from and have little knowledge of the political process;(2) further notes that the scope for Australian citizens to directly participate in the democratic process is extremely limited;(3) reaffirms that the committee system is a vital element of Australia's parliamentary system in that it provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly participate in the democratic process;(4) therefore take appropriate action to strengthen the committee system particularly with respect to the development and scrutiny of legislation which would enable committees to (a) examine evidence from representatives of the Executive and (b) assess that evidence against submissions from organised community groups and the general public; and(5) believes that such an effectively operating committee system would enhance the democratic process by (a) balancing the current distortion of input into the legislative process which currently favours organised interest groups and large corporations which have the resources to engage professional lobbyists, (b) adjusting the balance towards individual citizens who may not otherwise have the same access to a minister or other members of the Executive and (c) forcing ministers to properly account for their reasoning in proposing legislation and compelling them to justify the course they have adopted.Documents1470The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 24 March 1998:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Exemptions 1998 Nos. CASA 9, CASA 10.Social Security Act—Determination—Parenting Payment Rate Calculator—Higher Amount 1998.Answers to Questions in Writing1471The following answers to questions were circulated:1471(Question No. 2379)23791471Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 October 1997:(1) Is he able to say whether a special session of the Joint International Labour Organisation/UNESCO Committee of experts was held in Paris from 15 to 19 September 1997 to evaluate progress made in applying the recommendations concerning the status of teachers, looking in particular to training opportunities, working conditions and the extent to which teachers are integrated into the educational decision-making process.(2) Was Australia represented at the session; if so, by whom.1471Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The fourth special session of the joint International Labour Organisation (ILO)/UNESCO Committee of Experts on the Application of the Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers (CEART) was held in Paris from 15-19 September 1997.The Committee is composed of 12 members: six appointed by the Director-General of ILO and six appointed by UNESCO.The Honourable Justice Trevor Olsson of the Supreme Court of South Australia was appointed a member of this committee by the Director-General of ILO. However all the representatives of the Committee are appointed in their own personal capacity and therefore do not represent their respective countries as such.The meeting was held in closed session and therefore it was not possible for observers to attend.The Committee considers allegations by teachers' organisations against governments not implementing the Recommendation or other issues relating to the status of teachers that are not covered by any of the ILO or UNESCO normative instruments. The Australian Permanent Delegation to UNESCO has been advised that there are no allegations against Australia.The Joint ILO/UNESCO Experts Committee' s report will be presented to the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations (CR) of the UNESCO Executive Board at its next session (21-23 April 1998). The CR Committee considers questions relating to the implementation of UNESCO's standard-setting instruments and examines communications relating to cases about the exercise of human rights in UNESCO's fields of competence. The report of the Committee of Experts will be noted by the CR which will decide on further action to be taken, if any. The CR sits in private (closed) session. Australia which is not currently a member of the Executive Board will not have access to any documentation.1471(Question No. 2548)25481471Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 24 November 1997:(1) What were the key criteria for allocating 1997-98 grants to Queensland organisations under the Community Settlement Services (CSS) Scheme.(2) Has funding been provided previously to the Brisbane Migrant Resource Centre (BMRC) for CSS related projects to assist newly arrived migrants entering on humanitarian or refugee grounds; if so, what (a) funding was provided and (b) activities were undertaken by the BMRC.(3)What CSS funding was granted to BMRC for 1997-98.(4) Has funding been provided previously to the Queensland Red Cross (QRC) for CSS related projects to assist newly arrived migrants entering on humanitarian or refugee grounds; if so, what (a) funding was provided and (b) activities were undertaken by the QRC.(5) What CSS funding was granted to the QRC for 1997-98.(6) Have 1997-98 CSS grants been awarded to the QRC for projects or activities which the BMRC had undertaken previously and for which it had particular expertise.(7) Is it a fact that the QRC was awarded funding for 1997-98 CSS projects for which it did not submit an application and started to receive CSS funds for particular projects from 1 October 1997 although the infrastructure and expertise required had not been established then.(8) Has funding been provided previously for CSS related projects to assist newly arrived migrants entering on humanitarian or refugee grounds in the (a) Gympie, (b) Hervey Bay, (c) Kingaroy and (d) Mackay regions of Queensland; if so, what (i) funding was provided and (ii) activities were undertaken.(9) What CSS funding was granted to organisations in the (a) Gympie, (b) Hervey Bay, (c) Kingaroy and (d) Mackay regions for 1997-98.(10) How many newly arrived migrants entering on humanitarian or refugee grounds reside in the (a) Gympie, (b) Hervey Bay, (c) Kingaroy and (d) Mackay regions.1472Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The national funding priorities for the Community Settlement Services (CSS) Scheme (formerly known as the Grant-In-Aid (GIA) scheme and the Migrant Access Projects Scheme (MAPS)) in 1997-98 were to assist recently-arrived migrants and humanitarian entrants who have demonstrated settlement needs arising from their pre-arrival experiences, and/or the cultural and language difficulties which they face on arrival in Australia.Within this broad target group, priority groups (those identified as having the greatest need) included humanitarian entrants, isolated migrants such as the aged and refugee women in difficult situations, and new arrivals who belong to emerging communities.Consistent with these national priorities, the specific Queensland funding priorities were refugee and humanitarian entrants (including entrants under the Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) and Special Assistance Category (SAC), those receiving On-Arrival Accommodation (OAA) and support from the Community Refugee Settlement Scheme (CRSS)); small and emerging communities; rural and remote non-English speaking communities; migrant women, youth and unemployed. In general the needs of these target groups included settlement information, settlement assistance and referral, community support and development, training and skills development, and highly skilled, culturally sensitive counselling and community work.Funds from the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS) were drawn upon to support innovative proposals addressing the needs of refugee and humanitarian entrants particularly those related to case coordination.All organisations applying for funding must be capable of satisfying the criteria set out in Section 6 of my Department's Guidelines for Applicants for the Grant-In-Aid and Migrant Access Projects Schemes, February 1997.The national funding priorities were advertised in major metropolitan and ethnic newspapers. A copy of the Guidelines, together with the State funding priorities, were provided to all organisations considering applying for funding.(2) (a) The BMRC first received funding that would have benefited this target group in 1987-88. The funding was awarded for one full-time GIA for three years, which terminated on 31 March 1991, totalling $99,825.In the 1988-89 funding round, BMRC received a part-time GIA for three years, which terminated on 31 March 1992, totalling $52,773. In the same year an additional part-time GIA was awarded for three years, totalling $52,733.In the 1990-91 funding round, BMRC received one full-time GIA for three years, which continued to September 1994, totalling $135,345.In the 1995-96 funding round, BMRC was awarded one full-time GIA for two years, which terminated on 30 September 1997, totalling $117,670.(b) In 1987-88, activities undertaken were to assist migrants that have language and cultural interaction difficulties, particularly targeting Indo-Chinese, Turkish, Afghans and Iranians, which included refugee and humanitarian entrants.In 1988-89, activities undertaken were to assist migrants that have language and cultural interaction difficulties, particularly targeting Turkish, Iranian and Vietnamese communities, which included refugee and humanitarian entrants. The additional grant was to target specifically the Vietnamese community.In 1990-91, activities undertaken were to assist the Iranian community with settlement needs, which included refugee and humanitarian entrants.In 1995-96, activities undertaken were the provision of settlement assistance to newly arrived from small and emerging communities, in particular the Kurdish and African communities which include a significant number of humanitarian entrants.(3) BMRC was awarded $9,445 project-based funding for 1997-98 under the CSS Scheme to purchase office equipment to expand the service delivery capacity of the Centre.(4) (a) In 1994-95 QRC received funding for one full-time GIA for three years, which terminated on 30 September 1997, totalling $122,624 to assist newly arrived migrants entering on humanitarian or refugee grounds.(b) Activities undertaken were the provision of settlement assistance to refugees from the `Former Yugoslavia', through information, advice and referral services.(5) QRC was awarded the following funding for 1997-98 under the CSS Scheme, supplemented by IHSS: . $410,500 for the management of a case coordination/case management model for refugees receiving the support of my Department's OAA Program and the CRSS, and to provide a `safety net' for other humanitarian entrants in certain circumstances. Needs assessments of all eligible arrivals will be undertaken, and persons assisted to access relevant services;. $100,000 for training and support for CRSS groups; and. $10,000 to meet basic furniture needs of families in OAA and to assist emergency OAA cases.(6) Since March 1996 a number of MRCs, including the BMRC, have been funded for a community worker focusing on the needs of refugee and humanitarian entrants. Through this and other DIMA funded positions, BMRC undertook case coordination in respect of refugees in the OAA program. The QRC was awarded funding in 1997-98 for an expanded case coordination/case management service for refugees in the OAA program, for CRSS entrants, and to provide a `safety net' for other humanitarian entrants in certain circumstances. In making my decisions on these grant applications, I took into consideration QRC's management of funding for the Former Yugoslav Settlement Project awarded in the 1994-95 round, and the fact that it is a very strong organisation which enjoys a good reputation.(7) In the 1997-98 funding round BMRC, QRC and the Queensland Program for the Assistance of Survivors of Torture and Trauma (QPASTT), among other organisations, submitted applications for the provision of services for refugee and humanitarian entrants.QRC submitted five applications for funding which were designed to facilitate the successful settlement of refugee and humanitarian entrants through material assistance, provision of information, training and support for CRSS groups, youth programs and, in relation to people from the Former Yugoslavia, continuation of the settlement support service established in 1994. These applications were consistent with elements of a proposed expanded case coordination model under the IHSS for eligible refugee and humanitarian entrants. After consideration of the mix of organisations that applied for funding, QRC was identified by my Department as the most appropriate service provider to deliver the expanded case coordination model. In making my decision I also took into consideration the continuing instability in the BMRC's Management Committee.In their applications, organisations submit work plans for the proposed project for which funding is sought. After funding is awarded, these work plans are subject to negotiation between the organisation and the Department, prior to the commencement of funding. In this context, necessary amendments were made to enable QRC to deliver the expanded case co-ordination service.Work plans, which provided for the employment of the equivalent of 8.75 full-time staff, were finalised in December 1997. I am advised that QRC had two full-time locum workers in place from early October 1997 to undertake service delivery, pending the outcome of formal recruitment processes. In view of this, and in accordance with the provisions of project-based funding, payment of grant monies dated from October 1997.(8) (a) (i) (ii) Since the commencement of the GIA Scheme in 1978, no funding has been provided to organisations in the Gympie region for projects primarily focusing on assistance to newly arrived migrants entering on humanitarian or refugee grounds. In the 1994-95 round, Gympie and District Community Centreplace Inc received a three-year grant, totalling $70,322, for a part-time worker to provide an information, referral and consultancy service for migrants, especially isolated migrants, in the Gympie District. In 1991-92, Gympie and District Community Centreplace Inc, Migrant Issues Network, received a three-year grant, totalling $132,350, for a full-time worker to assist migrants access community resources and services and raise the community's awareness of migrant needs in the region. Newly arrived migrants entering on humanitarian or refugee grounds may have been assisted by these projects.(b) (i) (ii) Since the commencement of the GIA Scheme, no funding has been provided to organisations in the Hervey Bay region for projects primarily focusing on assistance to newly arrived migrants entering on humanitarian or refugee grounds. In 1994-95, Hervey Bay Neighbourhood Centre Inc received a three-year grant, totalling $140,643, for a full-time worker to promote community development for migrants in the Wide Bay-Burnett Region. Newly arrived migrants entering on humanitarian or refugee grounds may have been assisted by this project.(c) (i) (ii) Since the commencement of the GIA Scheme, no funding has been provided to organisations in the Kingaroy region for projects focusing on assistance to newly arrived migrants entering on humanitarian or refugee grounds.(d) (i) (ii) Since the commencement of the GIA Scheme, no funding has been provided to organisations in the Mackay region for projects primarily focusing on assistance to newly arrived migrants entering on humanitarian or refugee grounds. In 1994-95 the Mackay Family Care and Community Support Association Inc received a three-year grant, later transferred to the Mackay Regional Council for Social Development Ltd, totalling $70,322, for a part-time worker to provide cross-cultural sensitisation of mainstream agencies and promote multiculturalism in the curriculum of the schools of the region. In 1991-92, Community Support Centre, Mackay received a three-year grant, totalling $157,200, for a full-time worker to assist migrants access community services, develop self-help support groups and to raise community awareness of migrant needs in the Mackay region. Newly arrived migrants entering on humanitarian or refugee grounds may have been assisted by these projects.(9) (a) The Multicultural Information Network Services (which had its beginnings within the Gympie and District Community Centreplace) was awarded CSS funding of $24,179 for 1997-98 to employ a part-time worker to provide individual and group support, information and referral services. It was the view of my Department that this rural and remote region be funded to support the aging ethnic population and the settlement requirements of recent migrant arrivals isolated from their own community and services in general.(b) The Hervey Bay Neighbourhood Centre was awarded CSS funding of $48,358 for 1997-98 to employ a full-time worker for the Wide Bay Multicultural Program to assist recently-arrived and established migrants from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds settle in the rural and remote area of the Wide Bay/Burnett region of Queensland.(c) The St Mary's Kingaroy Catholic Social Response was awarded CSS funding of $10,000 for 1997-98 to assist recently-arrived Asian women, particularly Filipino women, to settle in the Kingaroy area.(d) The Mackay Regional Council for Social Development on behalf of the Mackay Multicultural Network was awarded CSS funding of $48,358 for 1997-98 to address settlement needs of migrants, including humanitarian entrants; and to provide information and assist established and emerging ethnic groups. This award links into the DIMA state priorities by targeting rural and remote regions covering the six Local Government Areas of Belyando, Broadsound, Mackay, Mirani, Nebo, Pioneer, Sarina and Whitsunday as well as humanitarian entrants and small communities.According to the 1996 Census data, which does not provide data by entry category, the number of overseas born residing in (a) the Cooloola Shire, which covers Gympie and surrounding districts, is 2,891 or 9.28% of the Shire's population, (b) Hervey Bay City is 5,456 or 14.48% of the City's population, (c) Kingaroy Shire is 795 or 7.16% of the Shire's population, and (d) Mackay City is 6,479 or 9.35% of the City's population. Over 40% of Queensland's non-English speaking population live outside the Brisbane Statistical Division. The 1991 Census indicated that there were quite high proportions of non-English speaking migrants in the Far North and Moreton Statistical Divisions (8.5% and 7% respectively). This trend has continued for the period since the 1991 Census, with settlers indicating a preference, after the Brisbane Statistical Division, for Moreton and the Far North. Applications from Cairns, Townsville, Mount Isa, Mackay, Rockhampton, Hervey Bay, Gympie, Maroochy and the Gold Coast were therefore given priority consideration.1474(Question No. 2586)25861474Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 3 December 1997:(1) How many Comcar drivers had successfully completed anti-terrorist driver training at (a) 1 January 1997 and (b) 1 December 1997.(2) How many Comcar drivers with anti-terrorist qualifications will remain in service after staff reductions have concluded.(3) What criteria were used to determine which Comcar drivers would be retained or retrenched.(4) How does each criterion evaluate or predict the driver's capability.(5) Were the views of Comcar's clients sought and considered; if so, which clients; if not, why not.(6) How many drivers with anti-terrorist skills will be required for the Sydney 2000 Olympics.(7) What role will Comcar have in the secure transport of persons associated with the Sydney Olympics.1474Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) 26 (b) 19.(2) 19.(3) The standard selection criteria and duty statements for GSO5 drivers.(4) Comcar drivers were asked a series of questions that directly related to each of the selection criteria.(5) No. It was considered that there would be no fair and equitable way to compare client views on individual drivers. (6) The number of drivers with anti-terrorist driving skills required for the Sydney 2000 Games is unknown at this stage.(7) It is anticipated that COMCAR will provide transport services for entitlees and official guests of Government.1475(Question No. 2638)26381475Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has the Minister or the Minister's Department provided grants to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) or bodies related to the ACCI since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purposes was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Mark Patterson, the chief executive of ACCI, or (b) other officers or staff of ACCI been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in sitting fees, board fees, travel costs and related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).1475Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) None.(3) None.1475(Question No. 2650)26501475Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has the Minister or the Minister's Department provided grants to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) or bodies related to the ACCI since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purpose was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Mark Paterson, the chief executive of ACCI, or (b) other officers or staff of ACCI been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in sitting fees, board fees, travel costs and related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).1475Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) (a) Mr Mark Paterson is a member of the Business Advisory Panel. The Panel first met on 30 May 1997. The Panel is an independent body comprising high level business people from various industry sectors and representative bodies established to provide advice to Government on matters relating to the entry of business people to Australia.(b) Since 2 March 1996, no other officers of the ACCI have been appointed to any boards, committees or other bodies for which I have portfolio responsibility.(3) No sitting fees, board fees, travel costs or related expenses have been paid by my portfolio in relation to Mr Paterson's involvement on the Business Advisory Panel.