1998-03-253816REPS147701998-03-25Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. I. McC. Sinclair) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills1477r4641477Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.147709:31:001477Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill will make a number of amendments to part 4A of the Student and Youth Assistance Act 1973 which provides for the Austudy/Abstudy financial supplement scheme. The scheme was introduced on 1 January 1993 to give tertiary students greater flexibility in meeting their financial needs. The financial supplement is a loan which is available mainly to tertiary students studying approved courses and eligible to get Austudy or Abstudy. These students can trade in $1 of Austudy or Abstudy, up to a maximum of $3,500, to get $2 as a financial supplement loan. The loans are funded by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia under an agreement with the Commonwealth government and are paid on a fortnightly basis.Financial supplement loans are repayable through the taxation system from 1 July in the fifth year after the year to which the loan relates. A person who has a financial supplement debt may repay his or her loan to the Commonwealth Bank before that time if he or she wishes to do so. The compulsory repayment arrangements are income contingent. That is, repayments will not commence until a person's taxable income reaches a minimum amount prescribed in the legislation. The amount of the annual repayment is either 2, 3 or 4 per cent of taxable income depending on whether the person's taxable income exceeds the minimum, intermediate or maxi mum prescribed amount respectively. The minimum prescribed amount is set at the annual equivalent of average weekly earnings.Mr Speaker, most notable of the amendments to be made by the bill is the introduction of a 14-day cooling off period for financial supplement applications. This will give students who have applied for a financial supplement loan a period of time to reconsider their circumstances and, if they so decide, withdraw their application without penalty. The proposed amendments will be a significant improvement on the current arrangement under which a student can withdraw his or her application, but only before receiving any financial supplement payments. A student who does not wish to take advantage of the cooling off period will be able to waive his or her right to withdraw the application. This will enable students who are sure about their decision to apply for a financial supplement loan to commence receiving payments sooner.The bill also inserts the prescribed amounts for the year of income ending on 30 June 1998 which will determine the amount of a person's accumulated financial supplement debt that must be repaid in respect of that year. As 1997-98 is the first assessable year in respect of financial supplement debts, this amendment must be in place before the Australian Taxation Office commences collection of these debts on 1 July 1998.The bill will also make a number of minor amendments to bring the legislation into line with the program administrative arrangements.Legislation is currently before the parliament to establish the new social security payment, the youth allowance, in the Social Security Act 1991. The youth allowance will be an integrated income support payment for young people which will be available regardless of whether a person is in education, in training, unemployed or sick. It will replace a number of payments currently available under the Social Security Act 1991 or the Student and Youth Assistance Act 1973, including Austudy. The legislation also makes provision for a new austudy payment for students aged 25 and over.The measures in the Student and Youth Assistance Amendment Bill apply to Austudy and Abstudy beneficiaries who either have a financial supplement loan or who are eligible to obtain one. Subject to the passage of the youth allowance legislation, the government will move appropriate amendments to the Bill to reflect the impending repeal of the Austudy scheme. I commend the Bill to the House and present the Explanatory Memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Bills1478r4631478Bill presented by Ms Worth, and read a first time.147809:35:001478Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill gives effect to the government's decision early last year to restructure the Australian Hearing Services, a statutory authority within my portfolio, as a wholly Commonwealth owned company limited by shares. The new company will be established administratively under the Corporations Law. It will be designated a government business enterprise and will compete with private providers in the provision of services for eligible adult clients under the Commonwealth's Hearing Services Program. This bill completes the reforms to the Hearing Services Program introduced into the parliament last year which were designed to improve client choice of service provider and provide more efficient and effective ways of delivering government hearing services to clients.The bill provides for a number of transitional and consequential amendments to facilitate the restructure, including the abolition of the existing statutory authority through the repeal of the Australian Hearing Services Act 1991. Following last year's reforms to the program, the Australian Hearing Services Authority has competed with private providers for eligible adult clients. The restructure will enable the new company to compete on a more equal footing by providing for a more flexible organisational structure more in line with its competitors.The new company will, as an accredited service provider under the Hearing Services Program, provide a range of free hearing rehabilitation services to eligible adults with hearing loss, including the provision of free hearing aids. In addition, under the restructure the new company will remain the principal provider for the delivery of important community service obligations. The term `community service obligations', or CSOs, covers the provision of hearing services to children, to eligible adults in certain remote areas, notably indigenous Australians, and to clients with particularly complex hearing rehabilitation needs.This government places a significant emphasis on the provision of CSOs and remains committed to their ongoing delivery. To demonstrate our commitment, the government will continue funding CSOs through appropriations. As well, the Office of Hearing Services, which has responsibility for managing CSOs, will draw up robust contractual arrangements with the new company which will specify the standards of service delivery and the outcomes to be achieved.Under the restructure, staff will be transferred to the employ of the new company under the provisions of this bill. Their existing entitlements will be preserved and they will continue to be covered by the current Australian Hearing Services certified agreement.This bill also contains transitional measures designed to facilitate the transfer of the operations of the existing authority to the new company, including the transfer of assets, contracts and liabilities.The authority is currently exempt from the payment of state and territory taxes. This arrangement will be continued under the new Commonwealth owned company. However, to ensure competitive neutrality between the company and its private sector competitors, the company will pay to the Commonwealth amounts equivalent to taxes otherwise payable to states and territories. It will also pay all relevant Commonwealth taxes. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Committees14791479147909:39:001479Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the following reports: 61st report of the committee , and Redevelopment, Stage 1 at HMAS Albatross, Nowra, NSW—1st report for 1998 .Ordered that the reports be printed.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—by leave—Mr Speaker, the first of the two reports which I have tabled is the committee's 61st general report, covering the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997. During the year, the committee tabled 13 reports on public works estimated to cost more than $761 million dollars. Public works examined by the committee ranged from extensions to the international terminal at Sydney Airport to the further development of facilities at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.Two other proposals examined demonstrate the Commonwealth's commitment to the preservation and display of our maritime and film and sound heritage. I am speaking of course about the extensions to the National Film and Sound Archive and the National Maritime Museum. Together these will cost the Commonwealth more than $34 million dollars.Last year saw the finalisation of a protracted examination of the proposed decontamination of land occupied by the former Albion explosives factory in Melbourne. The proposed decontamination was first examined by the previous committee, chaired by the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis). In fact, the activities of the committee there saw substantial savings being attributed to the Commonwealth.When initially referred to the committee in 1994, the Department of Defence estimated that the decontamination would cost more than $57 million dollars. The final decontami nation project examined by the committee last year involved considerably less expense to the Commonwealth. I am told that the parliament and all Australian taxpayers have the committee, especially the former chairman, to thank for saving the Commonwealth more than $30 million dollars. It was largely due to the persistence of the honourable member for Throsby that the Department of Defence felt compelled to come back to the committee with a proposal which resulted in substantially less cost to the Commonwealth.The general report canvasses a number of other matters raised in the committee's reports during the year. It details medium works proposals submitted by departments, Commonwealth fire safety policy and proposed amendments to the Public Works Committee Act. Of particular and longstanding concern is the restriction on the ability of the committee to undertake inspections and to hold discussions on public works proposals overseas. This has been raised in previous general reports and I raise it again now because of the imminent referral of the Berlin chancery.As part of its responsibilities, the committee is required to examine public works constructed outside Australia and the external territories as referred. Such works include embassies and accommodation for Australian embassy staff. The act, however, stipulates that the committee has no power to conduct formal investigations outside Australia and must rely on plans, models and evidence taken at public hearings in Australia, although statements may be received from persons who are in or outside Australia.The committee considers the restriction on its activities to be a serious impediment to its ability to undertake effective scrutiny of overseas works as part of its investigatory functions. I might add, that the simple reality is that with all of those projects the committee members are basically treated like mushrooms; other people have the choice of the evidence they hear. We are unable, for instance, to advertise in foreign countries and have the advice of experts who have an interest or concern, whether it be in the heritage of a particular project or other matters.Since 1991 the committee has expressed concern about its inability to inspect locations and sites of proposed overseas facilities and to have informal discussions with local staff and authorities. In many cases, local embassy staff and design and construction personnel have been required to travel to Canberra to appear at the committee's public hearings. The committee has consistently suggested that it may be more cost effective for a sectional committee—that is, two or three persons—to be permitted to travel to countries where new projects are proposed. This concern has been expressed in letters from successive committee chairmen to the appropriate minister. It is not infrequent for eight or 10 people to be brought from a foreign country to give evidence in Australia, when two or three people could go there and have a cross-section of evidence available to them that is not necessarily available under the current system.The year under review saw the resignation from the committee of the former chairman, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) upon his elevation to the position of Chief Government Whip. I have to say that the honourable member served the parliament through the committee with dedication and distinction and upheld the long tradition of bipartisanship which has been the hallmark of committee's operations.I would like to place on the record the committee's appreciation for this and to acknowledge the strong support which I have received from the former chairman, the honourable member for Throsby, who has served on the committee for more than 15 years. I would also like to record my appreciation of the hard work of other members of the committee during my tenure as chairman and thank the very capable secretariat.The second report which I have tabled concerns the proposed HMAS Albatross stage 1 redevelopment at Nowra, New South Wales. Let me begin by noting that the Public Works Committee has been involved in the development of HMAS Albatross over three decades and, since the Second World War, has approved works costing $112.4 million, at 1997 prices. The proposal for stage 1 of the redevelopment of HMAS Albatross was aimed to provide modern, functional facilities which will improve the operational reliability and organisational functionality of the site. The proposal involves the provision of:. maintenance and storage hangars for Seasprite and Seahawk helicopters;. shelters for fixed-wing fleet and support aircraft;. air traffic control facilities;. explosive ordnance storage facilities;. replacement of airfield lighting;. a new photographic centre;. a training complex; and. engineering services and civil works.When referred to the committee, the estimated outturn cost of the proposed work was $69.3 million. The committee concluded that Seahawk and Seasprite helicopters represent substantial capital investments for the Defence Force and are planned to remain in service for the next decade or longer. The proposed new facilities will therefore provide substantially improved maintenance and storage facilities for these valuable assets and will make substantial contributions towards ensuring that the life of type of both helicopter models is maximised.The committee agreed that the proposed new air traffic control facility and its location will overcome problems affecting the existing tower and provide improved visibility of aircraft operating areas and approaches to the airfield. The existing airfield lighting system, which is costly to operate and inefficient, will be replaced with a modern system as proposed, and improved flight line shelters for six Skyhawk aircraft will provide environmental protection.The committee considers the buildings currently used for the storage and handling of explosives to be substandard, restricting the ability of HMAS Albatross to support operations and training activities. These buildings will be replaced with the proposed explosive ordnance storage and handling facilities, which will provide enhanced capabilities and reflect current NATO storage and handling standards.The committee also concluded that facilities used for the training of aviation aircrew, technical and flight deck personnel are currently dispersed, functionally inadequate and have insufficient space to support modern training techniques.The proposed aviation systems training centre will provide a considerably enhanced capability to support the continuing in-house training requirement of personnel involved in the operation and maintenance of high cost and sophisticated ship-borne helicopters. Similarly, the new photographic centre will provide an enhanced photographic capability and its location is convenient to a major client. I commend the reports to the House.Bills1481r3461481Bill returned from the Senate with requests for amendments.Ordered that the requested amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Committees14811481148110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received advice from the Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Prosser to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in my place.Bills1481r4351481Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Warwick Smith:That the bill be now read a second time.09:49:001481Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—The member for Forrest (Mr Prosser) is replacing a most distinguished member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Thank you very much. We have enjoyed that committee together for a time.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Does he get an extra five minutes for that?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He is bound to. He nearly always manages to get something out of me—always deserved.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—Last night we were talking about the Aged Care Amendment Bill. I was making the point that there appears to be a trend in nursing homes—which has already been established in hostels—to reduce the number of skilled staff caring for residents. That issue is of concern to me. I hope that the government, and particularly the minister, will monitor the situation and report to the parliament about any change in that regard.I will finish with a couple of important points. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has intervened in aged care, allegedly to fix the problem. One of the areas of concern with the accommodation bond system—it was fully supported by government backbenchers at the time but has now been replaced with a fee—was that there was no doubt that the elderly who own homes were going to have to sell their homes, and that naturally caused a great deal of distress to the elderly in our community and in my electorate.If the 70 per cent of pensioners whose only major asset is a home are required to pay this $4,380 fee per year, they will still need to sell their home. I know that government members are going to say that a variety of things will happen to ameliorate that: families can pay the fee or they can take out a mortgage; they do not have to sell the home. I want to recount to the House a proposition put forward when we were in government. It sounds awful, but it gets to the nub of the way the elderly feel about others meeting commitments on their behalf. I suggested to the then Deputy Prime Minister that we should have a fund that allowed the elderly to have burn money—a terrible expression. What does it mean? It means that they could set aside money for their funerals and it would not be counted in either state or Commonwealth tests, but they would have the surety that when they passed on they would not be calling on anyone to pay for their funeral.So it is with nursing homes. Overwhelmingly when you talk to the elderly, what they want to do is not to be a burden on anyone. They do not want family members picking up financial liabilities on their behalf. When you impose on a pensioner whose only asset is a house the burden of a fee of $4,380, which is what the current fee is—the cabinet wanted to impose a higher amount—with no surety that it will not increase, they are not going to have that sort of money set aside to meet that burden when they are assessed as requiring nursing home accommodation.It is for that reason that I can say with so much confidence that, regrettably, this bill still does not fix the problem—if that is the problem—of people having to sell their homes. I think it is terrible that people who have made a lifetime contribution to this country are being forced to give up the very thing that means so much to them. Bricks and mortar are not all that constitute a home. There is all that has happened over a lifetime within that home. They are being forced to sell it.Government backbenchers have stood up in this place and said, `It is a wonderful thing we are doing. The elderly are going to be so much better off. Every action of the government is being directed towards this one objective.' What they do not say is that the very first thing they did in aged care was to rip $500 million out of the budget. `Here's the budget for aged care; we're taking $500 million out of it. This is our first initiative to help you.'It is the $500 million they have taken away that has caused the problem, and there is no proposal by the government that puts that money back in. We will. We cannot do this in every policy area, but we want to go back to a system where we do not discriminate against people who cannot be supported by their families or themselves in their current living conditions and who are medically assessed as requiring this more intensive level of care. I think that is a just and fair approach. As I said when I was reading the principles, communities have special responsibilities to two groups of people. One is the aged, the other is children. We should not abandon them because they may not necessarily be the strongest voices in our community. I think the government has done terrible damage to the aged care population. People in that group are very concerned, very frightened and a little confused about the myriad of changes that have occurred. And they do not understand them. As I am the first to admit, the aged population supported the new government at the last election very strongly. They do not know what they have done to deserve it.Under the change, after five years people will be paying $21,900. With the bond scheme, the maximum that could be taken was $13,000. So they are going to be paying more! The most sickening aspect of it all is that there is no absolute guarantee that this money is going to go into improving the physical condition of the nursing home, and there is every possibility that bottom line profits of nursing homes run for profit are going to increase dramatically.I have spoken on aged care matters quite frequently since the new government has come in. I have done that because of my total opposition to the direction and implementation of these policies and because I know what impact they have on citizens whom I esteem in my own electorate.09:57:001482Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise to speak as a representative of the electorate of Gilmore. We too have a high proportion of elderly residents, some of whom will be facing the need to enter a nursing home. I rise also as a member of the community. As I was so generously reminded recently by one of my constituents, I am now middle-aged and will soon be considered one of the senior citizens of Gilmore, a title I will be happy to wear proudly. Eventually, I too may require nursing home care.Before I follow that line of thought too far, I would like to make one demand on this House and its members. It is time for honesty. It is time to be factual about this issue. We have heard the scaremongering. We have heard the embellishments. We have heard the carping and harping from the opposition, in particular from the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), whose behaviour on this issue absolutely appals me. Yet not once have we heard what they would do. How would they fix the problem of neglect that they allowed to happen?It is always easier to criticise and scare people than to provide the solution. The Australian people are no longer fooled by the rhetoric. As one whose mother until recently resided in the care of the local nursing home, I am heartily sick of it, and so are many of my constituents who acknowledge that changes were needed and who are comfortable with the principle of asking those who can contribute to the cost of their care to do so.Let us take a look at the facts. We must understand as a community—and the opposition obviously does not—why this legislation was introduced in the first place. Results from a national certification audit of nursing homes and hostels reveal that a disturbing number of nursing homes do not meet basic standards. This is the legacy of 13 years of Labor neglect. The Gregory report, Labor's own survey, showed that 13 per cent of nursing homes did not meet fire standards, 11 per cent did not meet the necessary health guidelines, 75 per cent did not meet design or building codes and 51 per cent of nursing home residents lived in wards with three or more beds. Even worse, the ALP is now opposing moves to fix these problems.Let us go and take a look at your average nursing home, as I have done, not just in Gilmore but throughout New South Wales. The standard of nursing homes—and I say this in all honesty—in Gilmore is very good. We are very lucky in that respect. But that is not the case throughout the rest of the state. The image of an overcrowded, dark, smelly fire hazard has been a well-worn stereotype during this debate, but it is also a very accurate one. We are not talking about a place where you would be quite happy to live yourself, where you would want to spend what is supposed to be the most dignified period of your life or where you would want to see your loved ones residing—crammed into small rooms, sharing facilities and divid ed from their neighbours, if they are lucky, by a thin curtain.The opposition, in all their protests and scaremongering about this legislation, calmly and purposely ignored the fact that they did nothing about this when they were in government. If they were concerned about our nursing home residents, they would have taken some measure of responsible action—such as this government is trying to do—and not made this atrocious and dismal attempt to scare older people, many of whom are already concerned about their future.Older residents of the Gilmore electorate, and throughout Australia, do not necessarily have the extended family to rely on as they once did. They are concerned about the state of the nation, about jobs for their children and grandchildren—which was left as a legacy of the former government—and they have concerns about their personal safety, which I will address later. By feeding off the uncertainty they have created in the lives of our older residents, the members of the opposition have, once again, only served to highlight their own lack of action at the expense of the community, leading to the run-down of many nursing home facilities. Those are the facts.Let us look at some more. The opposition has claimed it would spend $500 million of taxpayers money over four years on capital funding for nursing homes. But what about before this? I have a chart here which shows the absolute lack of regard for nursing homes funding right up until the 1996 election. In 1991-92, funding for nursing homes was above $45 million; in 1995-96, it was just over $10 million—which shows the true colours of the opposition's claims about caring for the elderly. The $500 million funding boast was made in the lead-up to the last election when it was obvious the Australian public was sick and tired of the state that Labor had left this country in—including the $10 billion debt. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) announced recently that the ALP will throw $150 million a year for four years at fixing nursing homes, which once again goes to show that they will do anything for a vote. But $150 million a year over four years is actually $600 million. Mr Beazley, what is going to happen to the last $100 million?In contrast, our policy has provided a balance between public and private contributions which will see $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 for more money while the ALP would once again see taxpayers foot the bill, asking average Australians to pay for even those who can afford to contribute to the cost of their care. How would this be funded? With their fiscal responsibility already in tatters, that $10 billion debt would just get bigger and bigger.Let us look at some more facts about the government's policy. No-one will be forced to sell their home to enter a nursing home. We have always made that very clear. I would like to impress upon members of this House that it was of particular concern to the people of Gilmore, who have been reassured by the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that this government actually did listen to the community, and we have made the necessary changes. The funds which nursing homes—not the government—receive in annual fees from those people who can afford to contribute to the cost of their care will be used to upgrade facilities.Residential aged care facilities which offer good building and care standards will be accredited. All service providers will be able to apply for accreditation. This provides further protection for elderly people so they know that the nursing home they are entering is of an appropriate standard. This is something the opposition never bothered to do. Their responsibility, it would seem, when they were in government was to ignore any reference to nursing homes and hope that the problem would go away. It did not. The aged people of Australia deserve something better than they have been left with. This government—made up of many women who, by their very nature, are sensitive to the issues of aged care—is addressing the problem that was left by you. The Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 is a major step in doing something about it.I would like to raise another fact with the House, one which I feel very strongly about. The opposition frequently bleats that nursing home charges are turning people away from entering a nursing home. But, if you look at the facts, this is simply not true. I often wonder if opposition members actually visit their nursing home providers to find out what is really happening or whether they just rely on the inflammatory statements of the media or of their own spokespeople. I quote the response I have had from the providers in the Gilmore electorate to these claims:There has been a drop in demand, but this is most likely due to the increased funding the government has given for Community Aged Care Packages . . . In my electorate of Gilmore, local providers have received 60 community aged care packages in the past year. This is recognition not only of the need for such services in Gilmore but also of the high quality of services in Gilmore. These packages are designed to assist people to retain the independence of remaining in their own homes. They provide a range of services from funding for cooking or the loan of a microwave to assistance with showering or washing so that people who need such care and cannot rely on the family or friends to provide it can have the option of staying at home rather than moving into a nursing home long before they need to. It gives them what they desperately need: independence. The packages were filled very quickly, and more are still needed. The packages not only fulfil the government's commitment to caring for older people but also are one of the main principles supported by aged care providers, managers and carers in the Gilmore electorate.Recently, when the minister's representative attended the Gilmore electorate to speak at a public meeting I hosted to discuss these changes, the main concern for the residents who attended was not the cost of their care should they be forced into a nursing home but what was being done to assist people prior to them entering a nursing home. So this funding, worth more than $100,000, has delivered on what the community wants. If the opposition were listening to the providers in their electorates, they would be told that bed vacancies in nursing homes were also the result of the government increasing funding for dementia-specific hostel units.Just last month, I had the honour of presenting a cheque for $18,500 to the local aged care provider in Gilmore to upgrade one hostel wing to a standard suitable to care specifically for the residents with dementia. This wing will provide beds for local dementia patients who are now receiving the specific care and attention that they need rather than living in a general nursing home. This, together with the increase in subsidised funding for dementia, shows that once again this government has delivered on its commitment to caring for older people, particularly those with special needs.It needs to be remembered that people do not choose to go into nursing homes. There are no tricks or hidden messages in this. It is just a simple fact: people do not choose to go into nursing homes. People are forced to enter a nursing home when their requirements are too much for their family or friends whom, until now, they have depended upon. The only place they can get that care is in a nursing home. Therefore, people who require this level of care are not sitting back and saying, `No, I will not enter a nursing home because I can afford to contribute to the cost of my care and I don't want to,' they are saying, `I have no other option; I need the 24-hour care which can only be provided by a nursing home. I must go into a nursing home regardless of whether I'm asked to pay a fee or not.' There is no aspect of negotiation in this very emotional and often difficult situation. However, what continually gets overlooked is the fact that only those who can afford to contribute to the cost of their care will be asked to do so.So let us have a look at the actual cost of care. The government will still subsidise even the most wealthy residents of nursing homes to the tune of $15,000 per year. Those who cannot afford to contribute to the cost of their care will be fully subsidised and 27 per cent of beds in the Gilmore electorate must be kept aside for these residents. That is more than one in four beds. Nursing homes are currently telling me that they are having problems filling even these beds where residents do not have to pay. So the opposition's claims are quite ludicrous and bear no real substance whatsoever. I ask the question: is the opposition saying that these people are also choosing not to enter a nursing home because of fees they do not have to pay? Come back to reality!We must also take a look at the nature of the nursing home business. We have an industry based on caring for older people who are ill or frail and who, for the most part, will not leave the nursing home to return to their families or homes. Such departures cannot be regulated, they do not go by rules and the beds for these residents cannot necessarily be filled immediately. We are talking about an industry which cannot guarantee when a bed will become vacant. It is not guaranteed that there will be someone to fill that bed when it does become vacant. Once again, it is a pity the opposition did not take these facts into account prior to their launching into a divisive, inaccurate, but effective campaign to scare older people. I can only say that their pathetic record in this circumstance speaks for itself.The last point I would like to raise during this debate is the general comment on our nursing homes and the senior residents of our community. With Seniors Week just past, I would like to conclude by endorsing a very important project which is being proposed in Gilmore by local representatives and residents. Led by Isobel McCallum, a dedicated and committed manager of disability and aged services for the Shoalhaven City Council, the group is seeking support for the development of space for a meeting place for older citizens in Nowra. At such a place, residents could meet to discuss ideas, provide information relating to health and well-being or safety, and promote the talents and skills which our seniors can provide. This program would not only provide a central point for older people to use as a focus for discussion, but would also become an impetus for older people to get out of their homes and become a stronger, more permanent part of the community.Our elderly population is increasing steadily with more than 11 per cent of the population currently over the age of 65. This proportion is expected to grow in the next four decades to over 19 per cent of our population. This will place an enormous demand on services at all levels of government and the community. But it is important that we do not continue to see older people just as a demand. They are also an important resource for our youth especially, and contribute greatly to our greater experience in learning in life.I have previously spoken to the House about the benefits and impact of the Elders program, which was established in the Gilmore electorate by a very dedicated team from Shoalcare, led by Mr Norm Potter, in 1996. The Elders program is a mentoring and skills development program which matched older people with youth who needed one on one assistance in work and life skills. The program was such a success it was forced to close, because most participants found work soon after or prior to completing the course. We are now looking further to develop Elders programs in other areas of the electorate, to fill a niche. I must commend Mr Potter and my state parliamentary colleague Peta Seaton for helping me host such a meeting recently in the Southern Highlands and commend the level of interest from local senior residents participating in the program. I am very pleased to announce that we are now currently organising the start of the first Southern Highlands Elders program.The Elders program is very much in line with the government's recent announcement about providing mentoring for young unemployed people who are seeking work. I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) late last year of funding for several pilot mentoring programs. The pilot program will aim to provide young unemployed people with access to a support person who can provide one on one help of a personal nature which may be assist a person's ability to find and keep work and also provide a role model for effective work participation. The mentoring pilot programs will start on 1 July 1998.This program is the natural progression of the Elders program which provided such mentoring service. I would like to encourage all organisations which succeed in securing funding for pilot programs throughout Australia to give serious consideration to the skills, knowledge and attitude which are inherent in the large, untapped resource of our older residents. The government's aged care amendment legislation provides a means whereby nursing homes can provide better services for residents. It also provides a means whereby those on low incomes are protected and guaranteed a place in a nursing home should they need one. Most importantly, it recognises the important resource that is our older residents and ensures their needs are catered for as they get older, not just in a nursing home but also in their own home. I commend the bill to the House.10:14:001486Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I would like to begin by endorsing many of the sentiments of the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash) in the earlier part of her speech, particularly the need to cut through a lot of the misinformation, fear and insecurity that have built up around this issue over the last couple of years. It is a fear and insecurity that, unfortunately, has been fuelled by both sides, one through a badly drafted and imposed change of policy and the other, from the opposition, largely I believe for political purposes.The very need for an amendment bill for an act passed in 1997 just goes to show the disaster the whole process has been. It has not been a disaster in principle; it has been a disaster in poor drafting, poor planning and poor communication. Let me say from the outset that I have been a strong supporter of the user who can pay philosophy when it comes to aged care accommodation and care. But, from the very start, I have condemned the way this policy was implemented.The figures on our ageing profile speak for themselves. The Gregory report demonstrated the urgent need for an upgrading of our aged care infrastructure. No government had taken the bit between its teeth until this one tackled the difficult issue of requiring older people to take more financial responsibility for their aged care. How this policy was introduced will remain as a monument to appalling government-client communication. The explanation and implementation of this policy has been a public relations and political disaster. The basic logic of the user who can pay principle has been buried beneath both the appalling implementation and backflips and the cynical exploitation of the issue by the opposition, knowing as they do the need to generate funds for aged care infrastructure that are just not available from the public purse or from the taxpayer.In the original plan we had accommodation bonds to guarantee a constant income stream for the aged care industry. We had the media and the opposition highlighting the extreme case of the Doug Moran Eastern Suburbs Nursing Home charging $250,000 or thereabouts for such a bond. If someone was willing and able to pay $250,000 for five-star aged care, so what? My concern has been to ensure that at least we move towards a standard of aged care in this country where everybody at least enjoys a two-star service. That obviously has not been the case in the past.The rush to implement the new aged care policies of this government were driven more by an obsessional need to fill in the fiscal black hole and to deliver a balanced budget than the needs and feelings of the most vulnerable section of our society. Such radical changes should have been introduced over two terms of government or at least in two stages. To introduce accommodation bonds, now changed to annual accommodation charges, and increase daily fees in one hit, or close enough to one hit, was confusing and unfair. Surely the accommodation charges could have been introduced in one reform, with daily fee increases at a later and second stage and government subsidies continuing in the meantime.As the local member, I received a draft copy of the original Aged Care Bill 1997 a week before submissions on its contents were due. The local providers never saw a copy until I made one available in those last few days, yet we had a minister and department officials saying that there had been plenty of industry consultation. Local aged care providers and aged care assessment team members came to me bewildered by the planned changes. The fact was that information just did not filter down to the people who really mattered, and the government stands condemned for this disgraceful episode.The Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) said in his second reading speech that in November 1997 the government announced a number of measures that will promote the government's vision of a secure future for older Australians. It is a pity that the secure future of older Australians was not the prime consideration in drafting and so hastily introducing the original legislation. That unfortunately made many older Australians totally insecure about their future.The introduction of this bill represents a softening of a policy that was always going to cause concern, for it requires people to pay as much as they can for their own care. It was always going to run into flak from, on the one hand, those who believe government should provide all aged care services and, on the other hand, those who want to protect their assets, whether they be the aged occupier of a home or those who stand to inherit it. The modified payment system is a far fairer one. It provides for an accommodation charge of up to $12 a day for a maximum of five years, with a $6 a day charge for assisted residents, with concessional residents or those facing financial hardship not required to pay.The Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 wisely amends the Social Security Act and Veterans' Entitlement Act to exclude rental income and the value of the family home from the pension income and assets test to allow for rental income to be used to pay accommodation charges without being penalised as income. The changes from five to two years that a home has been occupied by a carer in order to qualify for concessional status is also welcome.The toughening of provisions on approved provider status are also necessary, and one wonders why these were not included in the allegedly thorough planning of the original legislation. The government has acted in a timely and sensitive way to the criticisms that followed the hasty introduction of its original legislation but that hardly forgives the badly timed and insensitive manner in which the handling of the drafting, introduction and implementation of the Aged Care Act 1997 was carried out.Let me move on to an issue which I do not think has yet been grasped by this government in the area of aged care changes. I refer to the provision of aged care facilities in smaller rural communities. I believe the user who can pay principle is vital to maintain the viability of nursing home and hostel facilities in small communities. Canowindra, Eugowra, Yeoval, Rylstone-Kandos and Oberon come to mind.In order for an aged care service to become certified under the new legislation, recurrent subsidies will have to be given up. These additional recurrent fundings, as in the case of the Yeoval Aged Care Service, were contracts entered into by the facilities and the former government. I understand that the Australian Private Hospitals Association is planning a legal challenge against this arbitrary requirement that nursing homes relinquish future entitlements to additional recurrent funding in order to be certified to accept accommodation bonds or charges.This is not a case of wanting the cake and eating it too. The recurrent funds are payments against loans which organisations like Yeoval took out in good faith. Now the rules have been changed, they should not be denied the ability to raise additional funds through the accommodation charge stream, especially where there are no more funds for bricks and mortar likely to be coming from federal sources, or at least very limited funds, for some time. Smaller operators like Yeoval tell me they will have to start buying beds to remain viable. This is ridiculous. Surely we can provide sufficient capital funding to meet critical demand in rural areas to top up a district's needs if insufficient non-concessional residents are available in the catchment area.You see, we are an ageing population and this is particularly so in rural areas. We need to keep our aged close to their families in rural areas instead of sending them off to your Oranges and your Bathursts and, perhaps, to city areas. It is called `community' and it is vital to the social fabric of small rural communities. It also keeps vital health jobs and the charity focus an aged care facility provides in country communities, but it needs a flexible policy approach that is not bound by the strict marketplace theories. While the concessional resident attracts a certain level of assistance from the public purse, it is not always enough, in many cases, where there happens to be a preponderance of such clients in a community. That is happening more and more in rural and country communities.The Aged Care Service Association also warns that $45 million is needed to care specifically for poor country based residents. It warns that access to capital funding has not been addressed; $170 million has been taken out and only $10 million a year over four years is patently not enough. The association says that 600 beds a year are needed and the user-pays principle will not be enough.Another area that should be addressed in the aged care considerations of any government, and one which I think should be looked at by the federal government, is the issue of self-care units for the aged. The government says that is a state housing responsibility. We all know the states are pretty strapped for this sort of funding. One letter, like several I have received, says:Manildra has an aging population and our needs grow everyday for this type of accommodation.This is the sort of regional support the bush expects from government to maintain the viability and the social fabric of smaller communities, along with banking and postal services. You cannot electronically accommodate old people in country towns, and the communities cannot afford it alone. Capital funding for some greater support, at least to allow those recurrent funds to be accessed for smaller communities while still enabling access to the income stream of the user who can pay, would be a very sensible and a very welcome commitment to the bush from any government.While discussing flexibility in relation to aged care in country areas, let me mention a suggestion I have sent to the minister from Mr Max Kingston of Bathurst, a well-known local government figure, now retired, who suggests an optional accommodation bond system to offer the aged care industry an extra income stream that could be attractive to government, client and provider. He suggests that the $4,380 a year accommodation charge will not give the industry the capital it requires to upgrade. We have heard other mention of that in this debate and I suspect it is pretty accurate. Mr Kingston has many supporters of this view in the industry. He believes the attempt to introduce unlimited bonds into the nursing home industry was an attempt to provide excessive working capital to some sections of the industry, and he believes this has rebounded on the government. I do not necessarily agree. If one wanted to pay a $250,000 bond for five-star accommodation, that is one's choice; but we need two-star, level playing field accommodation right across the board—that is what this legislation should be about.Mr Kingston suggests the government should give people the option of paying a deposit, a bond or an accommodation charge not exceeding $100,000. Such a bond could be drawn down by $2,600 a year for five years—less than the annual accommodation charge—but the bond would not be counted as an asset for pension purposes. The money would then still be available, with the interest accruing, as an income stream for the nursing home in question, and the client would receive that cheaper accommodation charge and qualify for part-pension at least as compensation for use of their money.I think this is well worth consideration as the kind of flexible arrangement that could be built into future amendments because I fear that, with the history of change that has dogged this government's aged care initiatives, further changes will be necessary down the track if, as I suspect, there is insufficient capital available to allow nursing homes to jump the compliance hurdles the government has set into its aged care legislation so far.I support the amendments, so far as they go, in the interests of fairer and more logical means of achieving a user who can pay nursing home structure. But, as I said earlier, I deplore the poor planning and implementation of the Aged Care Act 1997, which made this amendment bill necessary.10:27:001489Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—John F. Kennedy once said:. . . ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.After spending several decades paying taxes, older Australians are certainly entitled to reverse that proposition. It is perfectly legitimate for our senior citizens to spend their autumn years in comfort and in financial and personal dignity. Sadly, this is not the view of the Australian Labor Party, because when the Australian Labor Party were given a historic hiding at the last federal election their shameful government had been spending a bottom line of $1 million an hour more than they were raising.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—How much?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—A million dollars an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—What does that total up to?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—In Commonwealth debt it went from $30 billion to $90 billion and there was an accumulated deficit of about $10.5 billion. You would expect that they would be spending this fortune on a good cause, but no; it was not for the poor, it was not for the unemployed, it was not for the disadvantaged and it certainly was not for the elderly.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It was on their mates.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—They were frittering it away on minority and special interest groups—their mates, and probably some of their mates in the MUA, which is their traditional power base. Proof of this can be found in the shameful ways they abrogated their duty to older Australians. In the last four years of Labor's misrule, capital funding for nursing homes decreased by over 75 per cent, in spite of the fact that we continue to have an ageing population.They could not even plead ignorance. In 1994, Professor Bob Gregory reviewed the structure of nursing home funding arrangements. The Gregory report highlighted major deficiencies in capital works. I notice the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) even refers to that in an edition of National Healthcare. She says:Simply put, reform of aged care in this country needs to address the nursing home capital problems identified in the Gregory Report and also to ensure provision is made for the increase in the numbers of older Australians who will need care in the next twenty to thirty years—care that will include home based, hostel and nursing home care.So the problem was identified by the previous government but of course nothing happened. Labor ignored it and slashed funding by 75 per cent.The elderly can no longer be considered as a minority group. In 1991 there were under two million Australians over the age of 65, and almost half of them lived in the state I come from—New South Wales. If I make it past the age of 65, like the Speaker of the House—a very good Speaker, I might add—I will be part of a group of five million Australians. Already this century life expectancy has risen from 51 to 75 years for men and from 55 to 81 years for women. One in three girls who are born this year will live to the age of 100. This gives us an idea of the magnitude of the challenge that faces all of us, particularly us as legislators in this parliament.Let us look at the issue nationally. Around the country 75,000 Australians live in hostels and 64,000 Australians are nursing home residents. In fact, only six per cent of people over the age of 65 currently live in nursing homes or hostels. However, because of the ageing population, as I have mentioned, we will be faced with a severe aged care crisis. Certainly if we were not elected this crisis would have got a lot worse. The bottom line is that, under the 13 years of stewardship by the previous government, half of the nursing home residents today live in wards of three or more people, three-quarters of nursing homes do not even meet building or design standards and 10 per cent do not even have proper fire or health regulations.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And what did the Labor Party do?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Absolutely nothing. That is why this government needs to increase funding dramatically and immediately, as the Gregory report said: to repair Labor's neglect, to upgrade existing facilities and to build new ones. That is what the Aged Care Amendment Bill is all about.The Aged Care Act 1997, which began in October last year, initiated the process of reform. It is to ensure that older Australians will live in comfort and dignity. Equally important, it is to ensure that we are able to offer that comfort and dignity to a rapidly expanding aged population.We found that the public supported the government's policy of obtaining a balance between public and private funding for aged care. This balance will see over $850 million invested in the capital stock of nursing homes over the next four years. Significantly, the $850 million is being raised without increasing taxes or using Labor's deficit tactic. Of course, that tactic amounted to nothing less than borrowing from the taxes our children will have to pay in the future.Labor's policy, if we could call it that, would see a smaller increase over four years—they have said that in this House—and all of those funds forgone would come from taxpayers. The exact amount of Labor's commitment is a moot point. They do not even know. The figure is $500 million, according to the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga, who recognised the problem four years ago but has obviously suffered a memory lapse since—perhaps like others members of the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) thought that $600 million sounded better. It should be remembered that that extra $100 million represents less than four days of budget deficit in the previous government's final years of power.However, as with any major policy change, not all parts of the coalition's Aged Care Act were accepted by the public. In my electorate of Richmond, which has one of the highest proportions of older Australians in the nation—only two other seats have a higher aged population—I spend a considerable amount of time seeking the views of my constituents. I held a number of public meetings across the electorate of Richmond with older Australians and concerned citizens as well as with the aged care industry people.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Did many turn up?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Many turned up. We are lucky to have a high standard of nursing homes in my electorate. I will be the first to admit that. In fact, there are over two dozen such facilities in Richmond, and I would like to acknowledge them in the House: Crowley Memorial Retirement Village; Banora Point Retirement Village; Cape Byron Estate Retirement Village; Mountain View Retirement Village; Winders Lodge Hostel; Byron Bay Nursing Home; Eloura Nursing Home; Murwillumbah Nursing Home; St Andrews Nursing Home; the Australian Orthodox Home for the Aged; Coolamon Villa; Feros Village, who recently built a facility in Bangalow; Greenhill's Lodge Retirement Village; Maranoa Retirement Village Hostel; Ex-Services and Community Care; Terranora Valley Retirement Village; Kingshaven Hostel; St Joseph's Hostel and St Martha's Hostel; Terranora Valley Nursing Home; Wommin Bay Hostel; and Amaroo Nursing Home.While the quality of places is much less of a problem than in the cities, it is the quantity that remains a problem. It is a problem because, firstly, many beds in the public hospitals are being filled by people who should properly be in nursing homes. That is why the coalition is determined to spend more on improving the capital stock of nursing homes: to free up beds in the public hospital system. This is particularly the case in the Murwillumbah public hospital, hospitals in the Lismore region and even the reconstructed wing of the Ballina District Hospital, which has over one-quarter of its beds dedicated to a dementia wing. Whilst the dementia ward is a welcome addition and provides excellent facilities, this should be done in nursing homes.In New South Wales alone, there are 950 cases of hospital beds being used as de facto nursing home beds, costing around $100 million a year. Surely, with the hospital queues growing ever longer under Bob Carr's state administration, one would have thought it would have been in Beazley's interests and those of the federal ALP, and even in the interests the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), to support our legislation to build more homes.The second problem about the quantity of places in Richmond is the tyranny of distance we face in rural and regional Australia. Richmond may be the smallest National Party seat in the country; nevertheless, it is simply not good enough to tell older Australians that they may have to move 100 or 200 kilometres from their home town because successive governments have not fostered the construction of local facilities for local people. The residents, staff and management of the facilities in Richmond have told me, yes, they want reform and, yes, they accept the fairness of an element of user pays in any system, but they are concerned about the accommodation bond and residents possibly having to sell their family home.What is a matter of record, however, is that it was the hypocrites opposite—the Australian Labor Party—who first introduced accommodation bonds in the aged care industry, specifically for hostels. These Labor bonds had none of the safeguards that we have built into this legislation. There was no consumer protection, there were no minimum assets and the family home was included in their assets test. This was introduced by the ALP government in the Paul Keating era.So they brought in accommodation bonds and they still ran down our capital stock and they still gave us a huge budget deficit. That does not make much sense, does it? Nevertheless, and with a degree of courage that the Labor Party never showed, this government quickly went about finetuning the legislation. The result of the finetuning is the Aged Care Amendment Bill that we have here before us today.Let us look at the amendments. It is amended in four ways. The first is to replace the proposed accommodation bond with an annual accommodation charge. Much to the chagrin of the vultures opposite, we are scrapping the accommodation bond in favour of an accommodation charge. The government has capped this charge at $12 a day, or $6 a day for assisted nursing home residents. The new charge will apply for a five-year maximum.However, many residents will not pay this charge, including those facing financial hardship and concessional residents. In fact, under our policy, a prospective nursing home resident can have assets of up to $22,000 and still not pay any daily charge at all. This means that, once and for all, older Australians will not have to sell their family home to pay for their care—actually, they never had to in the first place—and these fees will reduce the bill to around $80 million.But taxpayers are still putting in $2.7 billion in direct subsidies to nursing homes and hostels across the country. Indeed, for every pensioner that is in a nursing home now who pays a $21.50 daily fee, the Commonwealth still adds about another $80 to take it up to around $100 per day. So to say that there is a full user-pays element is incorrect because there is an enormous amount of taxpayers' money, of Commonwealth money, going to nursing homes and hostels which is way above the amount they actually pay. As I said, this figure represents over three-quarters of the cost of care—that is, the $2.7 billion.The second effect of this bill is to reduce from five years to two the period of time during which a carer must have occupied a resident's home for the resident to qualify as a concessional or assisted resident. The third effect of the bill is to allow the reassessment of the resident's status when he or she moves from one facility to another. The final effect of the bill is to specify that nursing homes can only charge residents for fees provided for by the Aged Care Act 1997.It is not often that public servants are recognised on the floor of this House. But it would be remiss of me not to speak about the government's aged care reforms and how they affect older Australians in my electorate without mentioning Tweed Centrelink's director of financial services, Ms Penny Pettigrew. Ms Pettigrew accompanied me on numerous public meetings that I held on aged care in Richmond. Her patience and skill at putting complex regulations into simple language have been of invaluable assistance to my constituents. I thank her and all those who supported and explained those reforms, which is their duty, of course, in Centrelink offices. Finally, I turn to the future. Unlike Labor, the government is, as a matter of urgency, developing a national strategy for an ageing Australia which will consider our nation's needs in light of an ageing population. The national strategy will involve a coordinated development of public policy across all sectors and all levels of government. This policy development will be unique to Australian social policy in that it will concentrate attention on the short-, medium- and long-term needs of a specific proportion of the Australian population that we all one day will enter into.The strategy for an ageing Australia is long overdue. Its development will be welcome news to those who for many years have called for ageing to be a specific framework in public policy. It is encouraging to see that it was this government that tackled it. It is a shame that members of the opposition supported the major thrusts of this policy—in fact, they started it with the introduction of accommodation bonds in hostels—and recognised those reforms, as was mentioned before by the member for Jagajaga, but used the most un-Australian way of scare tactics to derail some of the elements of the bill. But I certainly welcome the amendments to the Aged Care Bill in this House and look forward to their support.10:42:001492Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—In speaking on the Aged Care Amendment Bill, I say that my current understanding of the fees being introduced by the government is that anybody with assets, including the family home, worth more than $44,400 must pay the new accommodation charge of $4,380 a year or $12 a day. But, having said that, I must admit that I have not checked my fax this morning, so I just do not know whether there may well be some changes even at this point. I notice the member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) left fairly quickly. I would have liked him to respond to this particular heading from this morning's Sydney Morning Herald , `Anger over nursing home fee increases'. The article states:Nursing homes and hostel residents are to be hit by two fee rises which will lift the maximum charge by up to $460 annually in a new increase the Federal Government has been accused of doing little to publicise.The accommodation charge is the new name for the annual fee which replaces the accommodation bond. Those aged people who own assets worth between $22,500 and $44,399 must pay fees on a sliding scale from $1.37 to $9.50 per day. Over 70 per cent of aged pensioners have only one asset, and that is the family home. So most will be faced with the highest fees.In fact, the size of the accommodation charge could increase. Cabinet initially approved a higher annual fee of $5,500. Also, nursing home providers have repeatedly said that the new scheme will not provide them with enough money to upgrade their facilities. Older Australians could end up paying more under the government's revised scheme. Under the bond scheme, the nursing homes were allowed to retain $2,600 per year for five years—a maximum of $13,000. Under the new scheme, the residents will have paid $21,900 after five years. This is an increase of $8,900 over the previous figure.We all know about the extra daily fees. From 1 March 1998, all new residents of aged care facilities will have their income tested to assess their liability for the new extra fees. These fees will affect part-pensioners and self-funded retirees. The Department of Social Security will probe back over all financial transactions since 20 August 1996. Any gift or disposal over $10,000 per year made since that date can be deemed to be still earning income. The resident fee for persons not in receipt of a pension is $26.40 per day plus 25c for every dollar of private income that they have earned over $50 per week. The maximum fee the facility can charge is $63.30 per day or $443.10 per week. As reported in the article in today's Sydney Morning Herald, from 2 April the maximum combined charge which any operator can charge a resident will rise by $1.26 daily or about $460 annually—from $63.30 to $64.56. One wonders when these charges are going to stop rising. The additional daily fee does not go to the nursing home nor does it buy any extra service for the resident. It goes into government revenue and is a tax in all but name.Many months after the government announced its multiple changes to aged care policy, there remains considerable confusion amongst older Australians as to whether they can afford to go into a nursing home. New entrants to nursing homes will face complex income and assets tests that now apply. The confusion is being expressed right across the aged care community by clients, operators and service providers. Nursing home vacancies have risen to their highest level in 25 years because of growing uncertainty amongst the elderly community about whether they can afford aged care. Nursing home operators, both private and non-profit, representing some 90 per cent of Australia's nursing homes, are threatening to take the government to court. They claim that contracts guaranteeing $90 million in funds for much needed improvements to nursing homes have been scrapped illegally.The New South Wales College of Nursing has claimed that some nursing home residents could be forced back into hospital because homes stand to lose money under the federal government's aged care reforms. A study into the new method of classifying the care needs of elderly residents conducted by research company Latea Pty Ltd found that they were being classified in a way that attracted less funding. These multiple changes to government policy have still not removed the possibility that some people may have to sell their family home to pay accommodation charges for nursing homes.Australia's population is ageing rapidly, and in 1996 some 12 per cent of the Australian population was over the age of 65. By the year 2016 this figure will increase to 16 per cent over the age of 65. Even though on these figures more Australians will be in need of nursing home care, this government continues to reduce its contribution to this very vital area of health care. The present reform debate has been carried out against the backdrop of the federal government's disgraceful $500 million cut for aged care services.While there are many excellent nursing homes—in my own electorate of Greenway, many are outstanding—the standard between these and the general run of nursing homes is deteriorating. A constituent who happens to be an ambulance driver came to see me in the office last week. He did not work in my electorate; he worked in another electorate. He did not come in to see me about nursing homes, but the conversation turned to nursing homes. He has the job of transferring elderly citizens from nursing homes to public hospitals. He made the point that a lot of the nursing homes were not up to standard. He raised the issues of dirty linen, the standard of food being poor and even, unfortunately, bedsores, which he said do not happen overnight. Clearly, this is not the case in all nursing homes—and I would suggest only in a minority—but when a constituent comes in to see me, not to talk about nursing homes but gives me this message, I clearly know that there are a lot of nursing homes out there that are not meeting the required standards and, quite frankly, this government's policy is not going to overcome that particular problem.According to Francis Sullivan, the Executive Director of the Australian Health Care Association:Over 15 per cent of nursing homes fail to meet fire and safety regulations. Many nursing homes have been unable to keep up with building and refurbishment programs because of the lack of support from the government.In this morning's Sydney Morning Herald , the Executive Director with the Uniting Ministry of the Ageing, Mr Les MacDonald, is quoted as saying:Development has virtually stopped dead since the Government cut out the $470 million capital funding programs, with the less affluent south-western and western Sydney suburbs—the area that I represent—and rural and remote areas being hardest hit.Against this background, on top of the $4,380 per year accommodation charge, the government is introducing a means tested daily fee for self-funded retirees and part-pensioners, who represent some 35 per cent of nursing home residents. Ninety per cent of nursing home residents are pensioners, and over 70 per cent of these are women whose average age is 85. Therefore, there is a severe limitation on the financial contribution that these people are able to make towards the provision of their own aged care. These new means tested charges will not add one extra dollar to care for the aged and will not add one extra dollar to the capital needs of nursing homes. They are purely and simply the result of budget cuts. Whether the government likes it or not, in real terms these charges are an appalling tax on the frail and elderly.What the general public is demanding very strongly from the government is a fair and reasonable aged care policy—and they are not getting that—which builds on community spirit and provides dignified care for our elderly. The government should immediately abandon its cuts to aged care services and at least restore and then maintain the level of funding that applied under the previous Labor government until all nursing homes are able to reach acceptable standards. The government should also exempt short-stay nursing home residents from paying the accommodation charge. Nursing home care should be equally available to all Australians based on their clinical needs, irrespective of the financial capacity of any of them to meet the costs demanded. The capital for nursing homes and upgrades should come from consolidated revenue and be distributed only on a needs basis.I am totally opposed to the latest proposal to sell off Telstra; however, if the government is committed to sell everything that moves then any money raised should go towards the protection and security of our elderly citizens. There should be no more cuts and no more aggressive taxes on the frail and elderly.To summarise the points I have been making, I refer to a newspaper article of 2 March which, once again, refers to `Empty beds as rising fees hit nursing homes'. We can see a fairly consistent pattern now—the headlines in the paper are drawing our attention to the inadequacy of this government's policy relating to aged care. The article says:Frail aged people are staying at home or in hospital to avoid a swag of nursing home charges under the Federal Government's user-pays policies—and yesterday's increase is likely to accelerate the trend, according to industry and consumer groups.The biggest provider of nursing home care in the State, the Uniting Church, found in a recent survey of 28 of its 33 NSW homes that vacancy rates had risen by 39 per cent and waiting lists dropped by 57 per cent since November, when an accommodation charge of up to $12 daily was introduced.The article goes on:"People are refusing to be discharged from hospital and people who should be in a nursing home are blocking a bed in an acute care hospital because they do not have the money," the executive director of the Uniting Ministry with the Ageing, Mr Les MacDonald, said.The article goes on to quote the executive director of the Australian Catholic Health Care Association, Mr Francis Sullivan, who said:Catholic-run nursing homes which had never experienced vacancies before now had empty beds, with one major provider alone losing an unprecedented 35 bed-days in January.After some 14 separate changes to the Howard government's aged care policy, what is the reaction of the aged community? They have been very active in my electorate and in western Sydney generally. The National Seniors Association in my electorate has organised two protest meetings. The first was held the day after the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) announced his backflip over the nursing home accommodation bonds. The meeting resulted in the headline in the local press, `Don't trust PM—aged'. This is what the aged people in my community were saying. They were expressing their total disgust at the government's nursing home policies.There was a further meeting more recently, on 27 February, and that also resulted in some fairly serious and worrying headlines. The aged were `Warned to be wary'. We have other headlines: `Federal health changes "will hurt"'. Clearly, the aged care community is speaking out quite forcefully right across Australia, but certainly in my electorate of Greenway. I congratulate them because these are the people who, through their own organisations, are getting up and expressing their views and their total opposition to what the government is doing in aged care.To summarise, Labor's position is this: Labor is committed to abolishing the coalition government's new fees and restoring the $500 million cut from aged care. Nursing home care should be equally available to all Aus tralians on the basis of clinical needs, irrespective of people's capacity to pay for that care. Finally, the capital for nursing homes and upgrades should come from consolidated revenue and be distributed on a needs basis.10:57:001495West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—I would like to express my total disgust, particularly at the opposition's line on this Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 . It is beyond belief that they can use the frail and elderly issue as a political grandstanding event. With the unconscionable conduct of the media they have misinformed the electorate, particularly those in this sensitive sector, with scare tactics and half-truths. They are still scaring people with fear of the unknown. They do not get their facts right, as the previous speaker, the member for Greenway (Mr Mossfield), has admitted. Get the facts before you spread the misinformation.This is where I really have to make a statement. This whole issue deals with a very sensitive and frail aged group in our community. If anything, the opposition should have endorsed a bipartisan approach to dealing with the budget aspects of coping with health needs into the future. Both sides of the House could have contributed positive aspects towards an effective outcome to this critical problem we are going to face in the future of dealing with so many frail aged in our community.I will answer one point about the bed situation: perhaps the people in the community are using alternative methods of aged care. Perhaps they are using home and community packages—a lot of people are choosing to stay in their homes and get services delivered. Palliative care is another area which contributes to making frail and aged patients comfortable in those later years of their lives.There is nothing wrong with expecting those who have the capacity to contribute to their health costs to do so. This is the user-pays principle, and it takes the costs out of the taxpayers' pockets and out of the budget. It is fairer to expect a contribution by this group than to expect the taxpayer to continually contribute to escalating health care needs. I have watched with interest the progress of this debate and yet I have no sense of understanding of Labor's lack of common decency in regard to the care of older Australians. The Labor Party allegedly stands for the rights of individuals to expect and receive a quality of care within the confines of a facility which meets the standards recognised as being acceptable. I was particularly concerned when the member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) attempted to relate this debate to money; in his words, that is what all this is about.I would have thought that this was about the delivery of quality nursing home care to elderly citizens of this nation. The delivery of this care should not be a burden to the taxpayers of our community. To this end the coalition has applied the user-pays principle to nursing home entry requirements. To ensure the effectiveness of this process, the coalition has legislated within this bill to direct the funds to the heart of the problem. In this way we have been able to ensure capital funds are available without placing a burden on the Australian taxpayer.The poor state of our nursing homes is a problem this nation received as a legacy of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), the shadow minister and Labor collectively bungling their duty in relation to caring for older citizens over a long period of time. My electorate has a number of nursing home and aged care facilities within its boundaries. I am eager to see the changes occur, as in my day-to-day contact with people who work in these places I am alerted to the rapidly declining state of the industry's building, health and safety standards and the need for capital funding. This legislation is going to see capital funding restored, an action so necessary because, despite all the advice given, capital funding had been almost fully withdrawn by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister when they were part of the former Labor government. A report by Professor Bob Gregory commissioned by the Labor Party when they were in government investigated the state of our nursing homes. Professor Gregory told Labor our homes were in crisis: they needed capital of about $125 million to allow substantial building of new facilities and upgrading of existing capital stock—and this was in 1994. Additionally, funding of this magnitude would allow maintenance of the building stock at an acceptable level.The Leader of the Opposition was a senior member of the Keating government when he was told of the findings, as I said, in 1994. Along with all his other Labor mates, he knew about this report. He chose to ignore the report. He chose to ignore the plight of our elderly Australians. His contempt for older Australians was demonstrated further when, as the Minister for Finance, he actually cut nursing home capital funding. I repeat: at a time when a crisis had been identified in nursing home capital funding, the Leader of the Opposition actually further cut capital funds. What a record!In the 1996-97 budget the Howard government made a decision to address the problem highlighted by the Gregory report, a legacy of many years of Labor's inactivity. In doing so, this government decided it was fairer for all Australians to adopt the user-pays approach in addressing the problem. This decision was made as a result of the huge deficit accumulated under the former Labor government's mismanagement of the Australian economy. And if it is anything to go by, the previous speaker would have us whip out the Beazley bankcard again and whack it all on the bankcard—yes, he would ask the economy to blow out again to upwards of $600 million to fix this gaping problem.But in their 13 years of office the Labor Party not only allowed the nursing home sector to deteriorate rapidly—they spent their money; they increased the deficit but it was not spent on nursing homes—but also actively pursued a policy of closing nursing homes, leaving debts for our next generation. That did not concern the Leader of the Opposition—no, on they went. Providing quality care for the nation's elderly and ageing citizens was furtherest from the Labor Party's mind.The Labor Party in that 13 years demonstrated their contempt for our older Australians. They are the party of promises and lack of follow-through. They are the party with the main policy agenda of the scare, and for that they stand condemned. They do not have a conscience about whom they scare or why, because they do not care. They are a party with a long history of saying anything to get a vote and subsequently not honouring any of those promises. All the characteristics I have just mentioned apply in particular to the way in which I see the Labor Party's abominable handling of the nursing home industry and the matter of quality aged care.While they thought it appropriate to spend the country's money on their mates, they actually reduced funding for the building of nursing homes. Over the last five years of Labor's time in office, they reduced capital funding from almost $50 million to just below $15 million. At the same time I can clearly remember former Prime Minister Paul Keating telling all Australians to come along with him and his Labor mates; they were not going to allow anyone in need to be left behind. This was the promise at the launch of the 1993 election campaign. It was really only tear-jerking rhetoric. The record shows differently.The former Labor government treated the area of nursing homes and aged care on an ad hoc basis, and the needs of older Australians were left. The changes proposed in this bill will have little impact on the large majority of those in need of care and who enjoy the full benefit of this country's pension and social welfare system. This is contrary to the message being delivered to the older people in our community by the Labor Party spokesperson. Only last month in my own electorate of Bowman we had a visit from the Labor Party's shadow minister for scare, the shadow minister. During this visit she told a large gathering of elderly voters that they would all have to sell their homes to obtain nursing home entry. Let me say that again: the shadow minister told a large gathering of our elderly people at Wynnum that they would all have to sell their family home to obtain nursing care. Even members of the Labor opposition sitting here today have to agree that has to be a factual inaccuracy.The accommodation charge is determined on the basis of a person's assets. Only those people whose assets exceed the minimal level are asked to contribute. It should be pointed out that under the arrangements Labor instituted for hostel residents there was no lower threshold, or safety net, and it would have been possible for older Australians to lose their entire asset base. Now we have Labor in here being absolutely hypocritical about our efforts to fix their legacy for older Australians.Mr Deputy Speaker, Labor had the opportunity to do something for this important group in our community and for the health system. They chose to do nothing. Now the shadow minister is tearing around the country scaring old people when she had a personal opportunity to do something positive about the mess Labor had created. From 1990 to 1993 the shadow minister was the director of the national health strategy and in a position to give advice to the then Deputy Prime Minister and health minister, Brian Howe. Did that advice appear anywhere? It certainly did not.In fact, again we witnessed the continuing absolute contempt for our elderly with the cut by Labor to the funding of nursing homes. This is the woman who would be minister if Labor were to win office. What a risk, Mr Deputy Speaker! I would not like someone such as the shadow minister running nursing homes policy if I happened to be part of the older community. In fact, I would not want her having half the chance to do so now. Labor have by their actions in government shown that it does not care for older Australians. They can say anything they like in opposition, but delivering is another matter. All their words are worthless.The scare tactics adopted by the opposition also carried through to the income tested resident fees. Once again they chose to cast a broad net and have been running around telling older people they will have to pay up to $36 per day additional fees. They choose to do this in the full knowledge that 65 per cent of residents are full pensioners and do not in fact pay any income tested fee. I repeat: those who are full pension recipients do not have to pay an income tested fee.Again let us compare Labor's current stand with their previous position. Under Labor's system it was apparently okay to income test pensioners. Eighty-seven per cent of a pensioner's income was the test Labor used. But when it comes to testing private income, the good old socialist Labor Party says, `Hang on, that's not fair.' Let us make this clear: the Labor Party believes that it is okay to income test a pensioner but not all right to test the income of a millionaire. What rubbish!This explains their opposition to this bill because we have identified the members of our community who can afford to pay and in this bill we are providing legislation to bring this about. I might add that most of the people I have spoken to who are in this category feel that it is fair to contribute towards their health care needs.This government has capped the period over which the accommodation charge can be made at five years and we have set in train a variety of ways in which the charge may be paid. There is flexibility in this system, an approach Labor never adopted because it did not care.It was interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) recently commented on Cairns radio: Basically, this is one place where we are committing dollars. We say a hundred and fifty million a year, back into capital funding for nursing homes from the Commonwealth, as a starting point.This failed finance minister either still cannot add up, or he continues his deception of our older Australians. One hundred and fifty million dollars a year for four years would be an expenditure of $600 million. The shadow minister has promised only $500 million. Who is right?The fact is that Labor has no real policy for nursing homes. They have a line, but they will not catch anyone, because they have form. I would like the opposition leader to tell the older people of Australia why under his party's regime they cut funding, almost destroyed the nursing home industry and treated the quality of life of older Australians with contempt.Labor wants taxpayers to give $150 million a year for the next four years to nursing home operators—$600 million to be shared by some people who make high profits from nursing homes. The ordinary worker and small busi ness people in my electorate want to know why. Why does Labor want to give taxpayers' money to people who make money from nursing homes? It is not right. I may be slightly cynical, but could it be that the socialist Labor Party is out there being hypocritical and saying anything to get a vote?0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—They are always hypocritical.XK6West, Andrea, MPMrs WEST—This is another example of it. The Howard government has a very clear policy. We will not stand by and let older Australians live in substandard accommodation. This government is committed to quality in both the areas of service and facilities. We will not accept a policy prescription that has left thousands of older Australians living in substandard buildings. The accommodation charge will be directly targeted at improving facilities after 13 years of Labor neglect.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—We did not create the problem, but we will fix it.XK6West, Andrea, MPMrs WEST—We certainly will. We will not slug ordinary taxpaying Australians to fund the guilt of the Labor Party. The fee changes will save Australian taxpayers around $80 million over a four-year period. This means that money will come from those who have the income and, at the same time, there is money to be allocated and spent on community priorities, like our schools and paying off the debt that Labor chalked up. This is another of Mr Deficit's—I am sorry, Mr Beazley's—messes that this government has had to fix. For these reasons, I commend the bill to the House.11:13:001498Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—Well, bless their little hearts, Mr Deputy Speaker! Bless their little hearts! The members of the coalition who have spoken in relation to this bill have argued that Labor has been out to scare older Australians and that Labor is the cause of all of the problems and confusion in relation to nursing home matters.Consistently, one after the other, the script that has been written out for all of these members of the coalition when they run in here is that the problems that we have have all been generated by Labor in the past, it has nothing to do with this coalition government whatsoever—nothing at all—and the confu sion could not have arisen from what two ministers in this coalition government have done.I have before me a media release put out by our shadow minister, the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), entitled `A chronology of confusion'. I cannot go through the very long list, in the time that I have, of the announcements made by the former Minister for Family Services, the member for Pearce (Mrs Moylan), and the current Minister for Family Services, the member for Bass (Mr Warwick Smith), in relation to all of the changes that have taken place in short of two years in regard to nursing home fees, accommodation bonds, charges and so on. None of the arguments that have been put by the members of the coalition stand up to scrutiny as to what the core problems are. This has been generated effectively by the coalition government.The previous minister, Mrs Moylan, had absolutely zero idea about this portfolio and zero idea about providing a structured policy for nursing home matters. She got the flick from the member for Bennelong, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), and was demoted effectively to be the minister for tokenism. The new minister, Warwick Smith, has attempted to redress the problems that were created by the previous minister. He has done that because of the impost from the Prime Minister and his advisers that they have to do something about this area where they created massive confusion, massive angst and massive uncertainty—not just in the elderly population at large but in the nursing home and hostel sector, for primarily the not-for-profit providers.We know that the coalition have been deeply concerned about this, and that they have tried every mechanism they could find to fix it up. Andrew Robb has recently written in his opinion column in the Bulletin that this had to be fixed and, if the problems were not adjusted, they would do a backtrack, eat humble pie and have another go at it. For Andrew Robb, the first thing the coalition government need to do in this area is to redress the balance with older Australians; they lost six per cent of the women over 50 in the 1993 election and they have to get them back. To get them back, they brought in a nursing home policy with a series of accommodation bonds. When they found that there was a massive reaction from the aged community and the not-for-profit providers, the member for Bennelong, the Prime Minister—he was, finally, dragged kicking and screaming into it—came up with another approach, which is in this bill: an accommodation charge.People were concerned that the user-pays principle adopted by this government was going to mean a payout of about $13,000 over a period of five years for people who were entering nursing homes. This is a new, improved version from the current minister and from the continuing Prime Minister. With the annual fee that is now in place, residents will have to pay $21,900 after five years. It has been capped for five years, but this has, in fact, increased it by $8,900 in terms of the maximum amount that can go to the people who run nursing homes. There has been a range of arguments about what the impact has been so far. Our shadow minister has indicated that it is possible that people may have to sell their homes in order to get nursing home places; but that would not be the case. There has been at least one case in my electorate of Blaxland. Recently my office was phoned by Ms Marlene Thompson, who indicated that she had difficulties in placing her mother in a nursing home in Bass Hill. Her mother is aged 77 and was ready to go into a Bass Hill nursing home at the end of September last year. At the end of September 1997 accommodation bonds were still operative. At that time, the contribution was $65,000. Her mother had that much cash but the nursing home would not accept her and kept putting her off until after 30 October. When the contribution went up to $90,000, they accepted her. Her mother had assets of $225,000. To pay the $90,000, she had to sell her house. Had she been able to go into the nursing home in September, when she was willing and ready to do so, her fortnightly contribution would have been $284; now she has to pay $295 per fortnight. That is one case in the electorate of Blaxland where someone was stopped from going to a nursing home when they were ready and, because of that, she then had to pay a higher rate of accommodation charge. Because she had only $65,000—not the $90,000 that was required—she had to sell her home in order to get into that facility.There is anger, concern and angst in relation to this issue not just by the aged community generally; there is anger and concern about the lack of definiteness of this policy and the way it has changed over a period in the not-for-profit sector. The driving force behind this policy is to provide for the for-profit sector—user pays to provide for the for-profit sector, which did not reinvest in their nursing home stock over the last decade and a half.The not-for-profit sector recently had a meeting at Orange, where they indicated that they were concerned about the confusion that had been created by this coalition government and the reaction of people generally to the introduction, first, of the accommodation bond and then the accommodation charge, which is a direct artefact of the bill before us today. At the meeting at Orange, the executive director of the Uniting Ministry with the Ageing, Mr Les MacDonald—as reported in a news piece that I have from the Internet—said:. . . representatives of non-profit operators and hostels . . . believed there had been `minimal' publicity about the extra fees.At the meeting, operators of Uniting Church, Catholic, Anglican and Salvation Army homes and hostels said a capital funding crisis had frozen any development of residential facilities for the frail aged.Mr MacDonald went on to say:. . . development had virtually `stopped dead' since the Government cut out the $470 million capital funding program, with the less affluent south-western and western Sydney suburbs and rural and remote areas being hardest hit.In that south-western area is my electorate of Blaxland.The concern in relation to this issue is very deep. The not-for-profit sector, who were able in Labor's period of government to operate nursing home facilities and hostel facilities using the capital funding that was provided by the Labor government, are not in the position of the for-profit providers, who put the money in their pockets instead of reinvesting that money into the nursing home sector.That not-for-profit sector still thinks that a great deal more has to be done with this Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 here before us today. They put out a media release based upon a meeting they had. As a result of that meeting, they agreed on the following points:The Federal Government must have a specific capital funding program. Capital funding is critical to the maintenance of high quality aged care. Capital development in many areas has ceased. The impact is being borne disproportionately by socially disadvantaged people and those in rural and remote areas.The point that there needs to be a capital funding program in place is reinforced in this press release as the key, No. 1 point. The press release goes on to say:Institutional poverty will become a reality for full pensioner residents in hostels because of the loss of $11 a fortnight of disposable income.This is not coming from the Labor Party; this is coming directly from the not-for-profit sector. Point No. 3 deals with the bill we are dealing with here today:The Aged Care Amendment Bill is currently before parliament. The opportunity still exists to redirect its focus. Six months since the introduction of the Government's aged care reforms there is still massive confusion and uncertainty among residents, carers and families.Would there not be when, in working out what the accommodation charge will be, if we go to the background paper prepared by the Parliamentary Library, we see:The rate of the accommodation charge must not exceed the lesser of:1. The amount specified in the accommodation charge agreement (see proposed new section 57A-3 )2. (V-M) 1825 where V is the value of the care recipient's assets and M is 2.5 times the basic age pension amount (about $22,600 at present; $23,000 from 2 April 1998)(1825 is the number of days in 5 years) . . . .Someone who is aged, in poor physical condition and has to go into a nursing home has to work out with their dependants at a time of crisis how to pay that accommodation charge. I am sure most people would be mystified. What aged person in that position could handle the situation of dealing with the formula in No. 2? Anyone in the position of making a decision about that would be completely confused by that formula—not just by what this government has already done.The private providers go on to a fourth point in their press release. They argue:It is impossible to remove hundreds of millions of dollars from the aged care system without a drop in the levels of care to which ageing Australians are entitled.They go on:We strongly support home-based community care, which is for many the preferred option, and is not being adequately funded. We call for extra funding to support this expanding need.This coalition government provided a mechanism for the user-pays principle to be extended even further with home based community care, where the clawback from the individuals receiving that care is now 20 per cent, not 10 per cent.But the private providers indicate that that area is under increasing pressure: not as many people are going into nursing homes, because of this government's policies and because of what it has done and the confusion it has created through the vast number of changes it has made and because of the jigsaw that faces people in that position. Because of that, we have an increasing number of people seeking to be in private hospital care, we have an increasing number of people attempting to stay at home when they actually need nursing home care and we have a greater cost imposed on home and community care services.The sixth point the not-for-profit organisations make is:The introduction of a new instrument to measure resident care needs, without increasing the subsidy provided to meet those needs has meant that residents with certain care needs are missing out.They go on to say:We seek policy solutions which will galvanise action and which are within a National Ageing Strategy.Lastly, they argue:The Government says it cannot afford to spend more on aged care. The Government has no choice but to spend more or the system will decline. That last point goes to the key issue in relation to these matters. This is a government which does not believe in direct provision of services from the Commonwealth government. It believes that it will get itself out of that area totally. This is a government which believes purely and simply in benchmarking and then checking that other people have done the work at a lower cost and have provided services. This is a government that does not believe that it should be involved in providing direct capital funding to fix the problems that exist in the nursing home area. This is a government that wants to extend its user-pays principle to everyone in that aged area, to ensure that people, no matter what their circumstances, will pay more out of their own pockets for the care that they need.This is a problem generated by the for-profit nursing home sector, because they took the profits from their facilities, put them in their pockets and bank accounts and did not re-spend them on rebuilding their nursing home stock. The not-for-profit sector has done that job, has used Commonwealth capital funding provided by Labor and has got good facilities and is now in a position where it has said strongly, as I have indicated through all the points it has put, that the government needs to have a central place in terms of capital funding and that what it is doing with regards to these accommodation charges is unfair and will not fix the problem.11:29:001501Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—If at the Academy Awards last night there had been an award for the best minister in delivery of understatement, I believe the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) would be in the House today with a gold statuette. Let me refer to some of the statements he made in regard to the government's aged care reforms, delivered in his second reading speech on this Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 on 5 March:However, as with any reform of major significance, it has become apparent that there are some issues that require finetuning and others that relate to the administration of the act that need addressing.And how about the other one when he stated in that second reading speech:These changes are the result of the government listening to and responding quickly to address these issues. We have acted in a timely and sensitive way to keep the benefits of the aged care reforms flowing to consumers now and into the future.To say that this Howard government's Aged Care Act needs finetuning is like saying the Titanic needs a bit of drying out. For all the minister's flowery words and sentiment and his astonishing gift for understatement, the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 represents the culmination of almost two years of ham-fisted incompetence on behalf of this government. It stands as a beacon to its abject failure to understand the needs and the concerns of one of the most important sectors in our society—and that is the elderly. It represents ministerial failure of the highest order—failure that has already seen one minister shuffled sideways and out of harm's way for her troubles. It represents arrogance and an unwillingness to listen to the voices of ordinary Australians—voices raised in objection to a series of measures which they view as attacking some of the very principles that underpin our nation and, most certainly, our system of health care in this country.This bill represents self-deception and self-deceit, a point-blank refusal of government members to either admit to or face up to what was palpably obvious to everybody else—that its aged care reforms would force elderly Australians into selling their house in order to get a nursing home bed. Yet with this piece of legislation—the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998—the self-delusion continues. We have a government intent on shying away from the central issue that people will still have to sell their homes in order to pay the accommodation charge that this bill introduces.This bill marks the culmination of 14 separate changes to the way the Howard government has put together its aged care reforms since it first announced them. The nursing home sector, the elderly in Australia and their relatives and their loved ones have waited almost two years for the government to get these reforms right. Where they expected sensitive deliberation and forethought they have now received confusion, uncertainty and anxiety. If the Howard government had truly been listening to the issues `raised by some older Australians', to use the minister's words, we should then expect this bill to actually get it right. That it does not speaks volumes about how the minister defines the word `listening'. The Howard government, for all its public humiliation on this issue, for all the brickbats it has received from the elderly of Australia, from the church and community organisations and from the nursing home sector, has still managed to get it wrong with this bill. It is still intent on introducing a reform that will affect the elderly in the same way as its original reforms—the bottom line being that it will still force people to sell their homes to get a nursing home bed.Let us take a look at the centrepiece of the fall-back position of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), his `warm and cuddly' alternative to the ill-fated accommodation bond—the accommodation charge. With this legislation, nursing home residents now have to pay $4,380 a year—or $12 per day—if they have assets of over $44,000. Those with assets of between $22,500 and $44,399 today pay extra fees on a scale from $1.37 to $9.50 per day. The payment arrangements may have changed from the government's original plans but one thing remains the same: the family home is still part of the assets test for these new accommodation charges. Over 70 per cent of aged pensioners have only one asset—the family home—and the last time I looked most homes, even one-bedroom flats and units, sold for more than $44,000. That being the case, as a result of this legislation most pensioners will face the highest level of fee upon entering a nursing home, and for many the only way they will be able to pay that is to sell their house. The Prime Minister made it clear after appearing on the Ray Martin show in November last year that his government was going back to the drawing board on these reforms. He said the family home was now safe. But, until the family home is taken out of the assets test, it is not safe; it is under threat.This bill is less of a backdown in more ways than one. Elderly Australians entering a nursing home actually end up now paying more under this legislation than they would have previously. Under the bond scheme, a nursing home was allowed to retain only $2,600 per year for five years—a maximum of $13,000. With the annual fee, residents will find that after five years they have paid $21,900. And, if a nursing home resident chooses to rent their house to pay for their care, they will pay much more. For example, if the house earns $200 per week in rental, a resident will end up paying almost $15,000 after taking the daily fee, the new annual fee and the taxes on the rent into account. This is on top of the additional daily fee that came into effect earlier this month—the Howard government's nursing home tax. The extra daily fee is 25c of every dollar of private income over $50 per week. The maximum extra daily fee a nursing home operator can charge is $36.90 a day or over $250 a week. This revenue, despite the minister's attempts to claim otherwise and despite his attempts to mislead the House on this issue, does not go back to the nursing homes to be used for maintenance or to improve services for residents. This revenue goes straight back into the government's own coffers.The minister stood in this House in question time on 9 March and claimed:The money raised by daily fees goes to nursing homes; it does not go to the government. It goes to upgrading nursing homes . . .His words. This is despite the across-the-board understanding of the nursing home industry and of aged care peak bodies that the money was destined for the Treasury. In a joint press release issued by some of the largest providers of nursing home care in Australia—the Australian Catholic Health Care Association, Anglicare Australia, Baptist Care Australia and the Uniting Community Services Australia Peak Body—it was stated in direct contrast to the minister's assertions: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.So, one may ask, where does the money go? Whose word do we trust: the minister or those organisations representing the four major Christian churches in this country? I do not think you have to be an overly religious person to know the answer to that one.It is not hard to see why neither the nursing home industry nor elderly Australians are yet to express their full confidence in the government's new `redesigned' aged care reforms. Despite this government's assertions that this bill will put into place, once and for all, a fair and reasonable set of reforms, even the most cursory of inspections reveals that serious problems remain, problems that threaten the survival of the nursing home industry as we know it and that will affect the standard of care offered to our elderly.Debating this bill, it is worth remembering that the Prime Minister's so-called backdown on accommodation bonds, his retreat to the position we now find the government taking, has not occurred because of a sense of altruism on his part. It has not occurred because the Prime Minister can't stand to see the elderly of Australia suffer the anxiety and concern that his changes have brought to them; it has occurred solely because the Prime Minister was confronted by the political realities of the situation he had brought upon himself and his government. The political reality was that he was being caned in the opinion polls over of this issue, especially by the over-55s—and so he should be—and, as such, was entering dangerous waters in the year long run-up to the next election. We must remember that a year ago the Prime Minister was wholly supportive of the draconian measures his government originally introduced for nursing homes. He said, just 12 months ago, in March 1997:Our approach in this area is fair and balanced.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—He didn't!7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—He did, in March 1997. It was only when confronted by the polls, confronted by the political reality of what sort of damage his reforms were doing to his government, that the Prime Minister agreed to a number of changes. On October 15 last year he said, in regard to the aged care reforms:We are not going to alter the arrangements in the short-term.And yet 12 days later he was talking to journalists about the minor changes he con sidered necessary to save his government's skin. He said:I think they represent the right amount of fine tuning and I wouldn't see any other changes as being necessary.The Prime Minister was adamant that there were to be no more changes to the act, that is, until he realised the minor changes he had put in place had not stemmed the bleeding of support away from the government in the opinion polls on this issue. The Prime Minister saw no option other than to scrap the accommodation bonds in November last year.Aided and abetted by the two ministers who have handled the portfolio responsibilities for these reforms, and supported by his vast back bench, the Prime Minister for more than a year has refused to admit that people will have to sell their homes to get a nursing home bed. Now, he was pronouncing that the family home was, in his words, safe. Safe from what?If, as the Prime Minister has assured Australians, the family home was not under threat in the 12 months prior to this backdown, what was he doing now saying it was safe? Why should anyone believe him when he says it is safe now? The Howard government has had almost two years to sit down with the groups representing the interests of older Australians and the representatives of our nursing home industry and come up with a set of reforms mutually beneficial to all sides of this debate. It has had an opportunity, with the backlash its changes provoked and with the Prime Minister promising a rethink on the issue, to come back to this parliament with a raft of reforms that not only would give the nursing home industry the support it needed but also offer reassurance to older Australians. It has certainly missed that opportunity with this bill.This bill, while marking the culmination of almost two years of stuff-ups and bureaucratic bungling, also stands for more of the same insensitivity from the Howard government. As late as yesterday, a number of groups came together to issue a press release—and I hope it was issued to every government member and I hope, if the Prime Minister hasn't read it, somebody will bring it to his attention—on the welfare sector's call for urgent action on aged care. That sector comprise Uniting Community Services Australia, the Australian Catholic Health Care Association, the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation and the Salvation Army. They stated:The Federal Government must have a specific capital funding program. Capital funding is critical to the maintenance of high quality aged care.They went on to a number of issues. They believe:Institutional poverty will become a reality for full pensioner residents in hostels because of the loss of $11 a fortnight of disposable income.They have also brought up the point that it is impossible to remove hundreds of millions of dollars from the aged care system without a drop in the level of care which ageing Australians are now entitled to. We are saying to the government it has no choice but to spend more—or the system will decline—the aged care system we know in our society will fail.The government displays more of the same readiness to inject concern and anxiety among the elderly in this bill today, more of the same politics that chooses commercial interests over those of the community—one set of interests at the expense of all others—rather than forging an equitable balance between the two. From looking at the contents of this bill, I can see that the Howard government has not learned its lesson. Perhaps it is a lesson that can be learned only at the ballot box, and I know the over-55s will be marching with their feet. I certainly do not commend this bill; I condemn this bill for the way it's going to affect the society that should have care from the legislators at this stage of their life.11:43:001504Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—When I was considering what I would say in this debate on the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 , I found it very difficult and confusing because of the number of backflips this government has made in relation to aged care. If I am confused, imagine how the over-55s must feel. Whichever way one assesses the legislation, the more evident is the pain and confusion the government has invoked upon the elderly community in every corner of this land. The aged care proposal has seen more backflips by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) than in the Moscow Circus, but the circus does backflips with more class and applause.It has been interesting to hear government members trying to defend the indefensible, none more so than the honourable member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash) who this morning called for honesty and integrity in this debate. Let us have a bit of honesty and integrity. I listened to her comments that her constituents are sick of opposition complaints. This is the same line she trots out on every issue. Perhaps she should talk to her constituents more and find out how sick of this government they are on a whole range of issues.The honourable member's description of nursing homes most certainly does not apply to the nursing homes in Throsby. I also find it offensive when she claims that Labor members have no contact with their nursing homes. I do not have to defend myself in this regard. Let her contact those in charge of the nursing homes in Throsby regarding my record of help and support for them.I also witnessed a huge expansion in nursing home facilities during the years Labor was in government. I saw Mount Warrigal grow from a small building on a hill to the vast complex of buildings and services it is today. I have witnessed the expansion of the Illawarra retirement trust and St Luke's village at Dapto, the formation of the multicultural village at Berkeley and the Marco Polo Nursing Home at Unanderra. When I represented Kiama, I witnessed the expansion at Blue Haven and Mayflower. This was all under a Labor government which was supposed to have done nothing for the aged. What rubbish!Yes, we do want honesty and integrity. The member for Gilmore should stop making these silly, unfounded claims that Labor members have no contact with nursing homes, their management or residents. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) said:However, as with any reform of major significance, it has become apparent that there are some issues that require finetuning and others that relate to the administration of the act that need addressing. Never has a truer word been spoken. Far from providing a sense of reassurance, comfort and dignity to elderly Australians, the saga of incompetence continues. There is only one thing that will restore some sanity to aged care—that is, to abolish both the annual fee and the new extra daily fee and put back the $500 million which this government so ruthlessly savaged from aged care funding. Only this will provide elderly Australians with reassurance, comfort and dignity—reassurance that Labor will deliver to the elderly in Australia.This legislation—let us be frank about it—is about trying to save face for the Prime Minister. Government members are stunned, having the blowtorch applied by the churches, nursing home organisations and the media. They are reeling. But the damage has been done. No-one in the community actually has any faith or trust in the Prime Minister or the government he leads. The Australian of Monday 9 March had a very interesting article in it by Glenn Milne. I suspect that the Chief Government Whip has had the article distributed widely with a must read instruction. It says:. . . voters have finally abandoned their embrace of Howard as `Honest John'—the moral sheet anchor that has sustained the Prime Minister's political career for more than a decade.Glenn Milne goes on to say, in devastating form:What ultimately appears to have done it for `Honest John' was the tortuous retreat the Government beat over nursing home policy. People may not be aware of the details but they can sense the backdown . . . They cannot credit how badly the Coalition handled the campaign to sell the changes.The simple fact is that nobody could sell these changes to aged care policy. The changes have a spiteful meanness about them. Having taken to pensioners within two budgets within 12 months, as well as imposing upon them the new nursing home fees, taken away the government dental scheme, cut funding to hearing services, cut access to essential medicines and increased user charges for home and community care, is it any wonder that the elderly and the general community do not have faith in the Howard government? As I said at the outset, there have been a number of confusing backflips by this government. Fourteen changes have been made to this controversial aged care policy. No wonder people are confused. It was all brought about by this government trying to rush through the legislation without providing facts. The electorate would not wear the accommodation bond. The elderly were outraged and rallied together to oppose the sell-off of their homes to pay accommodation bonds, and why shouldn't they? The government had to back down.What do we find now? This new annual fee which replaces the accommodation bond will mean that nursing home residents will be paying more. As most people know, very few older Australians have access to $4,380 cash a year. This will mean that they will still either have to sell their homes, remortgage them or rent them out to meet this fee. For example, if a pensioner chooses to rent his or her property and recovers, say, $200 per week rental, after the daily fee, the new annual fee and taxes on that rent, he will end up paying $14,774 a year for care. This government is stripping the assets of older Australians. This is not just the opinion of the opposition but the opinion of many churches throughout Australia. You crowd over there accuse us of scaremongering. We are telling the elderly Australians the truth and you do not like it.Another disaster by this government was the introduction of extra daily fees from 1 March this year. All new residents of hostels and nursing homes are to be assessed to see if they are liable to pay the new extra daily fees. These fees will mean an additional 25c of every dollar of private income a person may have over $50 a week. Where are these extra fees going? The minister says they are going into capital funding for the aged care facilities. But no, the minister has told a bit of a porky here. They will go directly into government revenue. It is a tax on the aged again. These fees will add not one cent to the quality of care of residents. They just go to help fund the government's $500 million cut to the aged care budget. That is not scaremongering; that is the truth. Residents in aged care facilities will not now be guaran teed proper standards of care under the new system introduced for assessing care needs of residents.From October last year the government replaced the previous resident care funding with a single daily payment called the residential classification scale. This new classification reduces the daily payment for what was previously paid to aged care establishments under the old system. Service providers and nursing associations are very critical, and rightly so, of this change, which will mean a decline in the level of care, resulting in a reduction of nursing staff in many establishments.The new RCS will fail to categorise residents according to their real nursing and personal care needs. Many residents are having their care levels downgraded. In some cases this means as much as $23 per day for a resident whose condition has not changed since assessment prior to October 1997. Hostels and nursing homes will have the same mix of patients but less money to care for them.This new classification will create major problems in nursing homes. It means less nursing staff. Aged care facilities will not have enough money to employ qualified and skilled staff because the largest recurring budget item in nursing homes is nursing wages and salaries. Less staff obviously means a reduced quality of care.I quote an example from my own electorate of an 85-year-old woman waiting for hostel placement. I know this woman; she is no longer able to live alone. She is frightened, feels vulnerable and needs the companionship which can be offered in a hostel. Prior to October 1997, under the former residential classification, she would have attracted a subsidy for the hostel. Since the introduction of the new RCS she no longer attracts a subsidy; therefore, she is not a priority for hostel placement. She has been informed by hostels in the area that she may have to wait 12 months or more for placement. I ask you to try to explain to an 85-year-old woman that because she does not attract a personal care subsidy she cannot get placement. And you accuse us of scaremongering.Elderly people have made a lifelong contribution to this society and we owe it to them to ensure that they can spend their last years in dignity and being cared for by properly skilled staff. The Australian Labor Party has made a commitment to abolish this new annual fee and daily nursing home fees, and will ensure that nursing home care is available to all and not just to those with the financial means. I do not support this legislation, obviously.23:54:001507Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—It is a pleasure for me to come into the House today to speak on the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 , although I wish that the need had never presented itself. This is what I would call nothing more than a sorry story of public policy. This saga has in fact become the most pathetic story of public policy that we have seen in this country for so long and it is one I hope we never see again.Much has been said by previous speakers on this subject and I put on record here my full support for the positions taken by my colleagues on this side of the House during this debate. Any commentator in this country wanting to discuss this issue needs to watch the bouncing ball—the changes on changes on changes. The continually fast, confusing, contradictory moves by this government ever since this aged care process came into play last year have created the need for a big blackboard with a bouncing ball so that people can actually see where we are up to. How on earth our older citizens and their families can possibly keep up with this is questionable and beyond my belief.They talk about scaremongering. We on this side of the House, for some time now, have been copping this accusation continually from those opposite. They say we are scaremongering; that we are the ones putting the fear into the community and that we are the ones scaring our poor elderly citizens in relation to their future health needs. To claim that is to abuse the opinions of all church and community groups in this country who are leading this debate. Scaremongering has nothing to do with it; there is a responsibility on our part to put the facts before the community, the families and the individual older citizens out there. That is our role and, as long as that is our role and as long as this situation remains, we will do that.What we have seen in this sorry saga of public policy—an abuse of public policy—is $500 million being cut out of aged care from the 1996 budget. We have seen a range of new fees imposed: an entry fee and an accommodation charge of up to $4,380 a year or $12 a day for those with assets over $44,400. This particular position was adopted following the policy announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on A Current Affair. I think that day he perhaps forgot that he had the facility of this House in which he could make public policy announcements. Over 70 per cent of aged pensioners have only one asset and that is the family home, so most of these people are going to have to pay that higher fee.I want to digress for a moment on that very issue. The government has defended the latest position—I think it is the latest position—in relation to the payment of those moneys by saying you have some options available to you. You do not have to sell the home; you can make a monthly payment or you can rent the family home and use that income stream, although we have questioned that. Another option being put up is a charge against the person's estate. I would like the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) to come into this House and clarify that particular option. My understanding, and the position being put to me, is that the legislation does not require that a facility operator accept that method of payment if the care recipient actually chooses it. Under that option, the operator will have to wait until the death of the person before they can receive that payment.As I said at the beginning, the bouncing ball may have moved on from this point but I would like the minister to clarify for me and for all of the people in my electorate whether or not that particular option in relation to the payment of these moneys is a true one or whether it is one of many other aspects of this moving feast. In other words, is he saying that it may work and it may not work; that it is up to the elderly and their families to work out whether they can come to some agreement about accommodation with the facility operator? That is not good enough.We are dealing with a very vulnerable section of our community at a time in life when the last thing they need to be doing is finding the most cost-effective, economically equitable method of receiving health care. For heaven's sake, what has this country come to when we are imposing those sorts of regimes on people requiring health care? It is not a housing option, it is health care.Let us talk about the additional daily fee from 1 March for a moment. That was another one of those changes on the run for those residents in facilities not only prior to 1 March but also prior to November of last year. I received a number of representations from people in my electorate who were already in facilities, had already arranged their finances and had already worked out how much they could afford to live on in those facilities. They went through a terrible time and we cannot forget that. Even though the debate has moved on, the impact on their lives has not. It should have and I wish it had, but it has not. I received phone calls and letters from people in their eighties, crying over the phone that they did not know whether they would be able to afford that additional daily fee. I believe this was a criminal act by this government against those people.I did not scare them; the government did by bringing in that particular idea. Thank heavens, because of the pressure put on the government, that particular option was removed and those new fees will now apply from 1 March, as we understand it. A 28-day period of grace has also been put in for that particular increase in daily fees.It is interesting to see the comments made by the principal solicitor with the Aged-Care Rights Service in the Australian of 28 February. The Australian reports her as saying:. . . the latest Government backflip allowing a 28-day grace period for paying the new income-tested fee of up to $36.90 daily, on top of other charges, meant many will enter nursing homes not knowing the cost.That is outrageous. People have to make financial arrangements. They have to negoti ate with the facility. In some cases they will have to negotiate with their children to find the money to do this, but in this instance people are saying they might not know how much it will be. Goodness gracious! The same article states:The national president of the Association of Independent Retirees . . . said the 28-day moratorium for the new daily charge—designed to soften the blow of the unpopular extra fees already deferred from last November—was "not worth a damn"."Everyone has the right to know exactly what they are up for," he said.I could not agree more. I do not believe that one reasonable member of this place would disagree with that particular hypothesis.In the last 24 hours we have also received advice from a meeting recently held for a group of representatives of facility providers. The meeting—comprising church aged care providers and peak welfare and consumer organisations, and organised by the Uniting Church—was called to reassess the aged care policy of this government. Among the agencies represented at that meeting were Uniting Community Services Australia, the Australian Catholic Health Care Association, the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation and the Salvation Army. We could not get a more unbiased, I would think, and fair group than that. That group said:The Federal Government must have a specific capital funding program. Capital funding is critical to the maintenance of high quality aged care. Capital development in many areas has ceased. The impact is being borne disproportionately by socially disadvantaged people and those in rural and remote areas.They went on to say:It is impossible to remove hundreds of millions of dollars from the aged care system without a drop in the levels of care to which ageing Australians are entitled.They also said:The Government says it cannot afford to spend more on aged care. The Government has no choice but to spend more or the system will decline.I have to confess I have a very strong interest in social policy and how we in this parliament reflect the needs of our community. That said, I believe this is one of the most important issues that we have faced in this parliament so far because it covers such a broad spectrum of our community. I believe that most members of this House do not disagree with what we on this side are saying. I also believe that a number of people on the other side of the House share our concerns very clearly. I encourage them individually with all the strength I can to continue their debate on this whole issue within their own party rooms—not because we want to win politically but because we care about what happens to the aged and the less advantaged in our community.Before I finish I would like to pay a small amount of attention to an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald. What is reported is a little alarming because apparently further changes are occurring and maybe not the proper emphasis is being put on them in the public forum. The article refers to a new income tested daily care charge taking effect `next Sunday, to be followed by another regular fee rise only four days later'. It states:The income-tested daily care fee will apply to new residents who entered homes and hostels from March 1 but were granted a 28-day "period of grace" after the Government came under pressure over its aged care policy changes.It will cost non-pensioners up to $36.90 and part-pensioners up to $12.60 a day, and is on top of other charges.It will be around the sum of $460 annually, I understand. The national treasurer of the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation, Ms McGuire, said of the increases:Older people are getting angrier and angrier. Once again, this shows the Government didn't think it through.That same Sydney Morning Herald article reports:Confusion was increasing with each new change and many would consider the fee rises unfair. The pension rise flow-on would result in a total annual fee increase of $153 for pensioners, up to $226 for part-pensioners and up to $460 for non-pensioners. From April 2, the maximum combined charges which any operator can charge a resident will rise by $1.26 daily (or about $460 annually . . . The executive director of the Uniting Ministry with the Ageing, Mr Les MacDonald, said representatives of non-profit operators of nursing homes and hostels meeting in Orange yesterday believed there had been `minimal' publicity about the extra fees.Because of time constraints, I need to draw my comments to a conclusion, but I want to very strongly reiterate a couple of points. The aged in our population requiring nursing home care are not making a housing choice; they are in that position because they need health care. It seems to me a pretty pathetic turn of events when people have to finance what is basically a hospital bed. Secondly, the way this government have handled this whole issue from the beginning is to be condemned. They have shown little, if any, care for the impact of their policies, made on the run, on the families concerned.As I have said a couple of times already this morning, I believe that almost every member in this place will have had representations from people in their constituency saying just that. My view is—I believe it is a view reflected throughout the community—the community will neither forgive nor forget what this government has attempted to do in its initial policy release on this issue and how it has continued to abuse those people in the community affected by this public policy in the way it has been managed. It has been an administrative nightmare.I welcome the day when the minister or the Prime Minister can clarify in here—not on television—once and for all the government's view on aged care in this country. We do not share the views of this government. We do not support this bill. We condemn the government for its attitude to the community in relation to this policy area. I have the pleasure, unfortunately, in saying in this place that I will be joining with my colleagues in condemning this bill. I encourage all other members of this place to think very carefully before they put up their hand to vote.12:08:001509Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—One of my local nursing home operators pointed out to me that the equivalent amount of the Thai baht bailout committed by the federal government would actually refurbish the entire nursing home stock in the country. That is an interesting feature he pointed out to me.I will start by reflecting on some comments I made in relation to child care when the most recent piece of legislation was being debated in this place not long ago. At two critical points in a family's lifetime experience there is what one might consider to be greater stress than at others—one is the arrival of new children into a family, which is quite clearly a combination of stress and joy but, nonetheless, a test of parents' and a family's ability to meet the challenging circumstances of an arrival or arrivals; and the other is at the other end of the spectrum where aged members of a family require aged care. These are two areas which are critical.Hugh Mackay has pointed out in his columns and in his most recent book that one of the most underlying problems in our community today is the sense of insecurity. At the two key points in a family's lifetime experience, this government has introduced legislation which has gone to undermine what is left of the sense of security in many families' minds about the way in which they can meet the challenges of those particular times.The Gregory report criticised funding and capital work failures in the aged care sector. It established clearly that there had been a long history of neglect and that change was needed. But, rather than being a basis for change, this report is now little more than a rod with which the government beats the Labor Party over its neglect over the years. I predict now that during the election campaign and in the future Labor will be using this government's aged care reforms to beat it about the ears over incompetence in delivering reform.The Australian public does not need this kind of debate. As I said, and as Hugh Mackay has said in his most recent works, it serves to undermine the sense of security that families in this day and age of rapid change so desperately need. The Australian public needs action and a working aged care system. Both the government and the opposition need to be working towards that or no-one will benefit from this.What is the government seeking through this bill? In his second reading speech, the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) said that this bill will put into place a series of measures to maintain the integrity of the government's structural reforms because it has become apparent that there are some issues that require finetuning and others that relate to the administration of the act that need addressing.I acknowledge that from time to time legislation will have unforeseen effects that must be addressed or that some aspects of a reform might have been overlooked. I am concerned, however, that given the intensity of the debate on this issue even now the government has not been able to get its changes right.This bill is intended to implement a system with the following characteristics: in the case of nursing home accommodation charges and bonds, people who have already paid a bond for a hostel can now have the balance of their previous bond transferred to the nursing home. However, only up to the retention amount of $13,000, plus indexation, can be transferred. The daily fee is income based. Pensioners pay $21.10 per day, part pensioners pay $21 per day plus an additional amount and non-pensioners pay $26.40 per day plus an additional mount. The additional amount is equal to 25 per cent of income over the pension free area and up to $100 for a single. So if a non-pensioner were in receipt of an income of $500 per fortnight they would be liable.How much for the accommodation charges and bonds? The accommodation charge is a daily fee based on the resident's assets. If your assets are below $22,500, there is nothing payable. The maximum amount payable is capped at $12 a day, if assets exceed $36,000, or $6 a day for assisted residents, if assets are between $36,000 and $22,500. This works out to $4,380 per year, indexed. Consequently, the maximum amount payable is $22,500 divided by five per year or $4,380 per year, whichever is lower—plus interest at double the minimum deeming rate, currently six per cent, if deferred payment from the estate is chosen.I want to illustrate this using a couple of the Department of Health and Family Services' own examples. Doris is a part pensioner with $30,000 in assets. Consequently, the maximum she will pay per year is $30,000 minus $22,500, which equals $7,500, divided by five, which is $1,500. Her daily accommodation fee would be around $4.10. Frank is a self-funded retiree with $45,000 in assets. The amount Frank will pay each year is $45,000 minus $22,500, which equals $22,500, divided by five, which is $4,500, minus the maximum of $4,380 per year. So Frank's daily rate would be $12.The accommodation bond is what you pay when you enter an aged care facility. You must sign an agreement to pay this bond, which can either be a lump sum or periodic payments. The accommodation bond cannot leave you with less than $22,500 in assets, but apart from that there are no limits. The facility can only retain up to $2,600 per year, indexed, for up to five years—that is, $13,000—with the rest refundable to the estate resident leaving care.A senior contemplating accommodation bond might ask: does my home count as an assessable asset? Unless you have a partner, dependent child or relative living at the home at the time of entry then the answer is yes. This will remain a sticking point for many older Australians as the upshot is that if it is taken as an asset it is considered as if it were cash. In the likely case where it is worth more than $22,500, the likelihood is that it would have to be sold to meet an aged care liability.Public response and the reaction of both profit and not-for-profit service providers and the government's record so far for implementing reform should be enough to sound warning bells about this legislation. What is wrong with the government's approach to aged care? I acknowledge the minister is now at the table, and I do not want to reflect adversely on his contribution thus far. I think he has tried very hard to address what has effectively become a dog's breakfast, but that was not of his making in the first instance.The government continues to blame the opposition, particularly the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), for a scare campaign which has frightened older Australians. The real truth of the matter—and I think many backbenchers will agree—is that the government has mishandled this issue. When the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) took personal control from the previous Minister for Family Services, now the Minister for the Status of Women (Mrs Moylan), things probably moved from bad to worse.The reality is the government underestimated the complexity of the reforms it was proposing. It failed to market its reforms in any substantial way, it failed to convince people that this was anything but a cost-cutting exercise for the Commonwealth, it failed to convince people that it was a fair system, and its performance in policy implementation has failed to convince people that this would be anything other than what it has arrived at—a dog's breakfast. The reasons that people are scared about the government's aged care reform agenda are the fault of the leadership of this government, not of the opposition. There are parts of this reform agenda which are scary to people. To deny that is to not face up to reality.This is a government that, in my view, has lost its way in policy implementation under the direction of the Prime Minister. Perhaps the only thing that will save it at the next election is the sheer size of its current majority and the fact that many voters have not yet forgotten their unhappiness with the previous years of Keating and Hawke administrations. The Howard government was elected with a record majority, with a seemingly overwhelming mandate to implement a program of reform. But what has happened since?Recently I read a review of the book entitled The Victory. This book is acclaimed as the first inside view of the Liberal federal election campaign. The reviewer implied that the campaign was the source of the current government's problems in the implementation of policy. The book tells of an election campaign geared to a policy launch each day, designed to limit wider discussion of the coalition's policies. It indicated that the success or failure of each policy announcement relied on a daily polling regime, on instant voter approval or rejection. This may well be a successful way of winning an election in some instances, but it has obviously led to problems in long-term reform legislation implementation.I think one of the most glaring examples of this is in the case of the ministerial guidelines—a set of guidelines which, in my view, were far too high a bar for people to jump over in the first place and which as a consequence have led to the unfortunate situation in which the government currently finds itself. It was unnecessary and has obviously led to the situation where the rules have now been watered down. This regime of policy making—costed but with no plans on how to implement it, and measuring success through a poll-driven response—has not encouraged discipline within the leadership on policy implementation; it has been inconsistent in following its ideas through to their conclusion where they become working programs within the community.I feel there is more than an element of truth in the comments associated with this review of The Victory. The government's inability to implement change has hamstrung those within it—even those with the best of intentions. I look again at the minister because I think he is an honourable man whose intentions are truly to offer a better aged care regime. He is a person who has had experience in dealing with consumer complaints and reactions so he knows that you cannot merely dump reform legislation on top of the community and expect them to cop it. His problem, though, is that he has been hamstrung, in my view, by the personal intervention of the leadership following the fiasco that took place in the first stage of the formulation and implementation of policy reform.Make no mistake, this aged care policy is part and parcel of the government's cost-cutting agenda and an indisputable testament to how out of touch with the needs of the community the government can get when it fails to implement policy with a proper consultation process. I think that is something that is, thankfully, being addressed by the current minister. Remember that this bill was born out of an approach characterised by the previous minister being captive of a department, refusing to undertake any meaningful dialogue with a not-for-profit portion of the service provision industry. Apparently, they were seen as part of the problem and definite ly not as part of the solution. Instead, the minister fell in line with the requirements of the large providers who operate not to provide a community service to that extent but to generate profit from those services. Their complicity in the original reform program is evident in the speed with which some of them so publicly jettisoned the government's program once it modified the program in what it calls `an accommodation to community concerns'.The minister paid the price for this—which might demonstrate to many how the ministerial system can work responsively. Unfortunately, though the new minister has made admirable attempts at reform and modification of the approach, the government's basic premises on aged care reform remain very similar to those which brought down the previous minister. This government is messing around with trying to improve a system that is unfair and unlikely to work in the best interests of the people who will need to enter into aged care arrangements or of the aged care industry service providers.As the minister would well know, government backbench members are privately very unhappy with the way the aged care debate has been handled. They have been forced to fall into line on this issue. The most consistent defence they have been able to muster is to place great store in the inherent fairness of making those who can afford it pay for care while those who cannot afford it receive the same level of care but do not pay. This, in my view, is a head in the sand approach which ignores either the reality of the policy or the real functions of government in providing community services.Australians, and particularly senior Australians, expect government to provide for people in their old age. They are not against paying for the service, but they do demand a simple and fair system. Unfortunately, that is not what the government is proposing with this bill. Through this bill—and this is the most worrying aspect, I would imagine, in the minds of many backbenchers—the government has alienated and is continuing to alienate traditional Liberal supporters and their families. Its child-care policy, as I have explained previously, is being promoted as an attack on women in society. This bill allows for a continuation of the attack on the government that it is taking on the older generation and their families.This bill implements a plan which effectively takes away the savings of those who have planned for their future on the claim that this government cannot afford to use its funds to guarantee a minimum standard of aged care in this country. Further, it says that it is fair to tie up the savings of those who have planned for their future. Those funds are collectively being used to fund care at the same level for those who have not planned or could not or were not in a position to plan for their future in the same way. These savings are being denied to the children of people going into aged care. Older people have lost the choice of what they can do with their own assets because the government does not want to pay the extra money to establish a basic standard of care for all. This government has even had the temerity to attack some of its critics—the children of people going into care—as being greedy for the family inheritance. Coming from a government that is supposed to support the concept of private property ownership, this is unbelievable. The reality is the government has looked at those assets and it is driven by its greed for these funds as a means of being able to cost-cut elsewhere. The proof of this is that much of the money will never be seen by service providers, but will go to the government.The government says that only about five to 10 per cent of us will ever need residential aged care—as if that is supposed to make it all right when they cannot solve the problem. Unfortunately, though, you usually cannot predict whether you are going to be one of those people. This has meant that the fear of an inept system is spread widely amongst the whole aged community and their families.Let me give a couple of examples of problems identified by service providers which are serious concerns and have not been remedied by the changes proposed in this bill. Recently, a representative of an aged care operator advised me:The government has devised a category system outlining the level of care required (Residents Classification Scale) and award care subsidies to seven out of eight categories. It is true that much less work is required to look after people in category S-8 than other classifications. However, I feel that if the government concedes that a person requires residential care they must be prepared to provide some form of subsidy as it is not possible to support an elderly person in residential care for $26.40 per day. I am aware that we have a draw down on their accommodation bond (in our case a draw down of $2,600 per year and interest on $30,000 . . . approximately $6.00 per day). Therefore, for a financially advantaged person, we receive $26.40 per day plus approximately $6.00 in benefits. I defy anyone to keep an elderly person in at least reasonable accommodation, with three meals a day for this amount. (Back packers are paying $15 to $20 per day without meals).The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr Andrew Thomson) spent some time with backpackers recently and he would know that. The advice goes on:My concern is that a section of the community who are potential category 8 Residents, will find it increasingly difficult to gain entry to low care facilities as operators will not be able to afford to have them in their establishments.Secondly, I have great concern over the "care Awaiting Placement" situation . . . low care facilities continue to cope with high care residents as long as is practically possible, however, when it comes to the situation when this is not possible, there is a huge hole in places to situate persons who need high level care in a particular area until they can be placed in a suitable, high care facility. At the moment . . . there are three such facilities for the Northern Suburbs of Perth but all are full and have waiting lists.The message for this government is simple: for goodness sake, get it right. After two ministers and all the public outcry, further failure to fix aged care will certainly see this government answering to it at the next election.The reason the previous system of aged care was unable to meet the needs of the community was not just lack of funding. Certainly there have been private operators who made substantial incomes—and in some cases substantial fortunes—as aged care operators. Why wasn't some of this money ploughed back into services and capital works? To me, it seems clear that, for what ever reason, the governments of the day allowed sub-standard operations to continue in this sector without forcing them to improve their performance. This is clearly a case of the failure of government to regulate in what the community deems to be an essential service. It has been nothing short of a failure of duty of care.In the case of the current government, the community has come to believe that reform is being introduced primarily to reduce government outlays in the sector over the longer term, not to improve services. Why can't the government solve these problems with aged care? I believe that this program, like child care, Austudy, the youth allowance, health care, the pharmaceutical benefit system, Commonwealth Dental Care and a raft of other reforms, is seen by the community as merely a cost cutting exercise dressed up to look like a social policy. What is more, a large section of the community—a larger section than the government gives credence to—believe this to be the case. It is quite clear that aged Australians and their families deserve better.From my consultations on accommodation charges and the bond, particularly with self-funded retirees, I urge the minister for goodness sake to provide an incentive for those who have made savings in their lifetimes to contribute to their aged accommodation and care costs. At present this bill provides a gross disincentive. In many instances people who have saved for their retirement and old age would consider those efforts to make those savings as having been a waste of time. They have seen this in the totality of the tax on their savings through a variety of legislation, taxation and other costs. In the end, self-funded retirees—people who have saved for their retirement and aged care costs—believe sincerely that they are now being discriminated against in such a way that it was not worth the effort and the sacrifices they made in the first place to put themselves in those financial circumstances.I reiterate the remark I made earlier about the government's attack on people as being greedy for wanting the family inheritance. This government supposedly supports the concept of private ownership of property—philosophically I also support the concept. In my view this bill attacks that concept in a way that undermines the sense of security that many people had until recent times about their retirement savings.12:28:001514Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—in reply—We find ourselves at an interesting stage in this debate on the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 . I am apparently the last speaker and should sum up. As I understand it, under an agreement that has been reached—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Without either of us knowing.GJ4Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITH—Without notification to the shadow minister or the minister, some people have negated their right to speak.QT4FILINGMr Filing—Or the Independents.GJ4Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITH—You made a very useful contribution and I will come to that in a moment. I am left in the situation where, I understand, the opposition wants to move some amendments which will not be ready for some time. Some discussions are taking place right now and I am sure someone will let me know what is going to happen. In the meantime, I will address the substantive issues that the shadow minister raised during the course of the debate.Thank you to all honourable members who contributed to this debate. The aged care legislation that came to the parliament in October last year saw the implementation of a long negotiated piece of legislation to change the arrangements under which aged care was to be funded in this country. It involved extensive discussion with the aged care sector—consumers and providers—and it sought to address a fundamental issue for this nation, and that is the increasing number of aged people who are going to require residential care and the capacity of the community to fund it at a level of quality that all Australians can be proud of. We have had many debates in this place and in the broader community about the issue of aged care and I do not intend to canvass those matters today. Some days after I became minister—which was in early October; the new legislation came into effect on 1 October—some substantial issues were raised in the public arena about the policy. I subsequently, following detailed discussions, made some changes, with the support of the cabinet, in November. The nature of those changes was to promote a vision for a secure future for older Australians in residences. There are a range of matters which that legislation reflected, not the least of which was a change from what was known as an `accommodation bond' to an `accommodation charge'. The principle of contribution to the capital cost of care by those who could afford to pay is captured in the legislation to provide a streaming of capital into nursing homes. This is now reflected in the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 , which is now before the chamber, and it is about this matter that the debate over the last two days has been pursued.All would agree that the changes that have been made reflect a better approach to the delivery of aged care in this country. I would take the opportunity to thank those in the provider sector and the consumer sector, and indeed the experts in my own department, for the extensive consultation and the extensive work that has gone into making the amendment bill and being able to deliver it to this place. It is not without some differing of opinion. Indeed, the shadow minister addressed those matters but I would assure the House and the previous speaker—the Independent member for Moore, Mr Filing—that the intent of the government is to address these matters on a long-term basis to put in place a funding regime that will sustain, at a higher level of quality, nursing home accommodation for elderly Australians.I would like to refer to some issues of a technical nature that were addressed by the shadow minister. Some of these may be picked up in the amendments that she has been briefly able to tell me about. Whether they actually see the light of day before the chamber right now I am not actually sure, but I would make the point that the shadow minister would not be precluded from moving such amendments in the Senate, so all will not be lost if this bill is now passed. I would indicate to the shadow minister that in such matters I would certainly take account of her amendments when they are finally presented, if not in this place then in the other place. During the course of the shadow minister's contribution yesterday, she asserted that the accommodation charge of up to $12 may be illegal.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Questioned.GJ4Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITH—Yes, I think you questioned it. Firstly, at the outset I would certainly indicate to you that is not the case.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Will you indicate why not?GJ4Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITH—I will indicate that, but I would indicate that it is not in any way questionable. Apparently the shadow minister based her suggestion on a view that the accommodation charge is, in fact, a type of accommodation bond. The accommodation charge is not an accommodation bond. If it were, it could not be charged to people entering nursing home type care because the government has changed the subordinate legislation to cap the level of the accommodation bond. The accommodation charge is an additional amount of resident fees that providers are allowed to charge people entering nursing home type care.Step 5 of the resident fee calculator under section 58-2 of the Aged Care Act, the principal act, makes it clear that additional amounts can be added to the fee provided this is in accordance with the user rights principles. Subparagraph 58-1 (a)(ii) of the Aged Care Act provides for additional fees to be set out in the user rights principles. This is where the accommodation charge has been provided for with a maximum of $12 a day. The user rights principles are subordinate legislation under the Aged Care Act and these principles were amended and gazetted on 16 November, coming into effect on that day, to provide for an additional amount of up to $12 per day where someone was entering nursing home type care. If I recall correctly, that amendment was gazetted on the day that I made the announcement. The member for Jagajaga may not have understood the meaning of the relevant section of the user rights principles. The relevant section is 23-8(3)(a) headed `Cap bond amount to be taken into account'. The reason for this heading is that this additional fee, the accommodation charge, is allowed only for people who have had their accommodation bonds capped under the user rights principles—that is, people who are entering residential care at nursing home level. I think that Ms Macklin would be aware that the headings do not form part of the legislation and are used as a guide only.The member also suggested that paragraph 57A-2(1)(a)(ii) allowed people to gain access not through the ACAT assessment but through ability to pay. Indeed, I was listening to her speech and I heard that reference made, and I would assure the shadow minister that that is not true. Anyone entering a nursing home or hostel must—I stress `must'—be approved by an ACAT before any subsidy can be paid. It is a precondition of entry into either of the services. Section 21 of the Aged Care Act makes this clear, and no amendment is proposed to this in the Aged Care Amendment Bill. So the gatekeeping role of the ACAT is absolutely essential and there is no capacity to avoid that gatekeeping role; and I am sure the shadow minister will be pleased to have that point clarified.The paragraph that the member refers to relates to the very limited circumstances where an ACAT cannot determine whether nursing home or hostel care is most appropriate, and that happens on occasion. For example, this will occur where a person's care needs are very unstable or where they are on a borderline between the two types. In these cases the type of accommodation payment is left open for agreement between the resident and the provider, and what is paid will probably depend on the type of facility the resident prefers to enter. I do not have the actual numbers but I understand a very small number of people fall into that category.The member also indicated that the government intended to increase the level of accommodation charge without reference to parliament. This is certainly not true. The cap on the level of the accommodation charge is set at $12 and there is no intention to increase this amount. There must obviously be some mechanism for change to take account of inflation over time, just as we have seen recently with the increase in age pensions. We must be able to take account of movement in prices.The rate must be set out in the subordinate legislation and this must be tabled in both houses and is subject to parliamentary disallowance. The reason is that these are substantial issues and, in a democracy, having a system of parliamentary scrutiny and a disallowance system is a fundamental commitment of the executive to enable the public, through its representatives, to see changes in charges. I would reiterate that point for the benefit of the shadow minister and assure her that there is no intent to be able to vary those fees other than in the way and in the circumstances that I have described.The member also asked for `nursing care' to be defined. It is the commonly understood definition. It has been used for very many years in the National Health Act with no difficulty whatsoever. ACATs are very familiar with the term and they are the ones who will determine whether a person has a continuing need for nursing care or not. Accepting the pivotal role that registered nurses and others perform who are on ACAT teams gives definition to the term `nursing care'. With those few remarks, I again thank members for their contributions. I have here a late message from my sponsor.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Doug Moran!GJ4Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITH—I was thinking it was the whip, actually. I understand that detailed amendments will be moved. We will wait for the actual printout of those and then shadow minister will proceed to deal with her amendments. I might say to the shadow minister that I have not had an opportunity to look at the detailed amendments, but I indicate that from the brief look that I have had at them—and responding in the way that I have to your earlier concerns which I understand your amendments reflect in the main—it would not be possible for the government to support those amendments. We would like the bill to stand as it has been presented to the House.We will give consideration to your amendments, which I have no doubt will be moved in the other place. I am keen for this amendment bill which gives effect to decisions in November to pass through the House of Representatives and move to the Senate. I therefore commend the amendment bill to the chamber.Finally, I indicate to the shadow minister that I may be called away from the chamber for a short period. I am not sure how long the consideration of amendments in detail will take. If I do have to leave the chamber, I apologise to the shadow minister. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time.12:44:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs De-Anne Kelly)81Anderson, J. D. Andren, P. J.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. 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.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. 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.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, J. M. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.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. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C. Smith, W. L.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.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.41Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.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. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McMullan, R. F. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Downer, A. J. G. Crean, S. F.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Kemp, D. A. Lee, M. J.McLachlan, I. M. Thomson, K. J.Somlyay, A. M. McLeay, L. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.1517Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:50:001517Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I would like to commence my contribution to the consideration in detail stage of the Aged Care Amendment Bill by expressing my outrage for having been denied the opportunity to speak in the second reading debate.I believe that this is one of the most critical bills ever considered by this House and the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) is scurrying out of the chamber. I remind the House that this bill amends the government's own Aged Care Act 1997—the act which introduced the now infamous and universally condemned entry tax for nursing homes. The former Minister for Family Services, the member for Pearce (Mrs Moylan), came into the House day after day during question time and unsuccessfully attempted to justify that entry tax. Thankfully, after a period, we did have a backflip. The bill we are debating today deals with the backflip. It pulls the backflip into place.JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—A triple backflip!8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Indeed it was. Today we are considering a bill—which the minister is not prepared to stick around for—that apologises for kicking pensioners in the ribs, but then it kicks them in the other side. It apologises for beating up on older Australians and makes amends by whacking them across the face with the introduction of an annual charge. In my two years in this parliament I have not seen a piece of legislation cause so much angst in my local community as did the government's Aged Care Act, with its accompanying entry tax and, of course, its extra daily fee. The minister told us, in his introduction to the new bill we are considering today, that the bill is in response to issues raised by some older Australians.The minister must have a funny electorate, very different to my own. In the last 12 months my office has been inundated with letters, petitions, phone calls and visits from older Australians and their families, concerned about the impact of that original act. The minister wants us to believe that this is only a finetuning of what he believes to be an appropriate piece of legislation. To me, that is extraordinary.We have had the backflip, but the impact of the original legislation has not moved on. There are still older Australians out there who are confused about where they stand with respect to the entry tax and there are still aged care facilities bearing the costs of the original proposals. I want to share with the House a copy of a letter written in December of last year by Mr Bob Russell to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). Mr Russell is the General Manager of the Upper Hunter Village Association, which is in my electorate. In his letter, he said:My dear Prime Minister,Please find enclosed an account I have received from our Solicitor for the preparation of "Nursing Home", "Hostel" and Accommodation Bond Agreements.These contracts, as you are fully aware, are now little more than scrap paper. Therefore we believe that it is more than reasonable to expect reimbursement for the attached account.I also assume that as a gesture of goodwill you will try to send us your cheque prior to Christmas.The cheque should be made out for $2902.40 and made payable to Upper Hunter Village Association Ltd.I thank you in advance for your cooperation and understanding in this matter.Bob Russell is a great bloke and a competent manager, but how misguided his faith in the Prime Minister was. He has now found it necessary to write to the Prime Minister once again. The letter is dated 9 February and he says:I refer to my letter regarding reimbursement of Solicitor's fees, dated 2nd December.It appears that you may have misplaced my letter, or Treasury has been a tad slow in processing it because you see I still have not received a cheque for $2,902.40.(Time expired)12:55:001518O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Like the member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), I am not happy that the government's threat to guillotine this aged care debate has prevented me from raising in detail the concerns of many of my older constituents in Corio who are angry and disgusted at the policy shambles now evident in aged care in this country.The Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 gives effect to the tortuous set of changes made to the original June 1997 bill presented by the government. Members will recall that at that time the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) proudly announced that his policy introducing accom modation bonds was set in concrete. The Prime Minister denied that older Australians would have to sell their family home to pay for the accommodation bond. It was only after the Labor opposition and the aged care sector turned the blowtorch on the Prime Minister that he withdrew that obnoxious provision.This bill gives effect to the latest government changes. It introduces an accommodation charge of up to $4,380 per year or $12 per day for those with assets over $44,400. The assets test will include the family home and, as 70 per cent of aged pensioners have only one asset and that is the family home, most will be affected by this charge.The bill also introduces new daily fees for new residents, who will have their income tested to assess their liability. Part-pensioners and self-funded retirees will be affected by this measure. The extra daily fee is set at 25 cents of every dollar over $50 per week of private income they earn—not counting the pension—up to a maximum fee of $36.90 per day or $258.30 per week. It should be clearly understood that the money from this additional daily fee goes directly to government revenue and constitutes another tax on the aged.The aged care bill we are debating in this House today is an indictment of the failure of the Howard government to master the policy process in an area of critical policy affecting the lives of older Australians. Chaos and confusion reign in the aged care sector today. Older Australians are confused and angry at the myriad changes made to the government's policy since it was first announced in 1997. They are also angry at this new Howard government tax on the aged in this country.Church and community aged care providers have continually criticised the government for the aged care mess it has created. Only yesterday at a national meeting organised by the Uniting Church, the welfare sector called on the government to institute a specific capital funding program and called for extra funding to support expanding needs in the home and community care area. Perhaps the greatest condemnation came from the welfare sector in its press release issued on 24 March, when it said:Six months since the introduction of the government's aged care reforms, there is still massive confusion and uncertainty among residents, carers and families.The aged in Australia have borne the brunt of Treasurer Costello's cruel spending cuts. John Howard and Peter Costello have ripped some $500 million from aged care in their first budget, and Geelong's aged are now suffering. While the Treasurer protects the tax rorters by failing to move on the use of family trusts to minimise income tax, he drives the boot into the aged of Australia with a whole series of budget measures that attack their income base and their lifestyle.It does not stop with the nursing home changes that are the subject of debate in this House today. We have seen an increase in nursing home fees. We have also seen the axing of the Commonwealth dental scheme. We have seen cutbacks to essential medicines and to hearing services and we have seen increased charges for home and community care in this country. Now the aged are staring in the face a goods and services tax that will really penalise them.In my own electorate, the great public aged care facility, the Grace McKellar Centre, registered an annual loss of $826,000 in 1996-97 in its annual report. I put on the public record that state government funding cuts totalling $750,000 and Commonwealth funding cuts of $221,000 are responsible for that. (Time expired)13:00:001519McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—At the outset I would like to indicate—and I get some joy in doing so—that, last night in the course of my speech, I received an interjection from the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) and another government member saying that a statement I made was wrong. The statement I made was that there is now a two-year waiting period for a carer before the home is exempt from the means test, but that carer must be on a pension. That was conceded by government members. I also said that a close relative—I understand a close relative, for instance, includes a grandchild—must be in the home for five years but that, as an additional qualification, he or she must also be a pension recipient. That was disputed by way of vigorous interjection. I have since gone back to the bill and I refer the honourable member for Bradfield to subparagraph 44-7(1)(b)(ii) which says:. . . a close relation of the person who had occupied the home for the past 5 years and, at the entry time, was eligible to receive an income support payment—That is, a pension or a part pension. So I was right and the member for Bradfield was wrong. The government members should look at what they are talking about.What this government has done to the aged care sector is disgusting. There is no other word for it. It has taken money out of the sector. It wants money to come into the sector via hitting the senior citizens who need the service—hence, its description of the user-pays principle. It has taken $500 million out of the sector, and what is going in is not going to be enough to satisfy the capital needs of the nursing homes. In saying that, I am not advocating that the user-pays principle be applied. I think this is a matter for the whole community because the whole community has a responsibility for caring for our senior citizens.By way of demonstrating the point as to what has occurred, I asked the former Minister for Family Services, Mrs Moylan, a question on notice, on 13 May 1997:Do parts VAB and VAC of the National Health Act provide for payment of additional recurrent funding for upgrading, rebuilding or erection of new nursing home premises.And the answer was yes. Those parts were, of course, the initiatives of the former Labor government and the minister conceded that they provided for the capital improvement and creation of nursing homes. Then I asked:Is she able to say whether the payments were introduced by the Government—that is, the former Labor government—in recognition of the need to provide special funding for upgrading of nursing home premises.And the answer was an emphatic yes. So the minister conceded the rationale, the reasoning and the purpose of the former Labor government's provisions to upgrade and improve the much needed capital infrastructure of nursing homes. I also asked what was going to happen to the joint funding arrangements that the Labor government had initiated as a result of the Liberal government changing its regime. This is what the minister had to say:Under the new Aged Care Bill 1997, a service may receive certification to charge accommodation bonds if it meets certain building and care standards. To receive certification, any outstanding additional recurrent funding would need to be relinquished.The minister was saying that, to receive the entitlement to charge the bond that was being introduced and to get the benefit of that intended capital flow under the mark 1 aged care amendments, the nursing homes had to relinquish parts VAB and VAC of the National Health Act—the joint funding arrangement payments. And that is what happened. Nursing homes relinquished the funding arrangements they had in place. In many instances, they had contracts with builders and so forth to develop the capital infrastructure of the nursing homes. And what happened? The minister said, `If you want to enter into the brave new world, into the new regime—the bond regime—you've got to abandon those capital projects.' These capital projects were worth literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in the case of very many nursing homes. And what has happened? The government has pulled the brave new world away. It is not such a brave new world; it is a horribly muddled, a confused and a cowardly, discriminatory world for senior citizens. As a result of this government's complete ineptitude, nursing homes have been deprived of funds—they have been specifically required by the government to relinquish their capital funding. (Time expired)13:05:001520Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—The Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 and the amendments that we are debating today give a most graphic demonstration of two things: firstly, the incompetence of this government and, secondly, how not to conduct public policy making in social policy. This is how not to do it. If someone thinks this is accidental, it is not; it is symptomatic.Let us go back to the previous conservative government. Remember Medicare? How many versions did we have of Medicare—nine versions in seven years or something similar? We are up to about version three of fee structures for nursing homes. We said at the start that the up-front fees would not work. We have said that since day one. I am saying here and now that this will not work either. This does not solve the problem; it just creates a set of new ones. I also make another prediction: it will be changed again, and guess what is going to happen? The aged of Australia will be told, `Vote for us to sell Telstra and we'll put money into nursing homes.' You watch, that will be the pay-off. The problems being caused in nursing homes will be used as an incentive to sell Telstra in order to get some money to put back in. That is absolutely guaranteed. There is no doubt that that is what is lined up—create chaos and then try to find a quick fix which solves some ideological problem.The tragedy is that the Australian people are very good at public policy making. We have coherent, sensible public debates on a range of issues, and we have done over a number of years. We have a society which is mature and which is caring. If well led, its members will take hard decisions. They will go with governments that give leadership and give them respect for their points of view. What they do not want are announcements out of nowhere, with no policy underpinning them, simply aimed at cutting half a billion dollars out of an area such as residential aged care. But that is what they got—bad process, bad policy, bad politics. The reaction following on from that was to blame everybody else—blame us for scaremongering; blame pensioners for squatting in hospitals, as put forward by Doug Moran; blame somebody else. Eventually, the government has been forced to face reality and is being dragged, kicking and screaming, to amendments which it knows will not work.We all service our constituents. We all have nursing homes in our electorates. All our electorates contain families with a member or members requiring nursing home care. All of us, government as well as opposition members, are being approached by nursing homes saying, `We're in trouble. It doesn't work. What do we do next? What's going to happen next? How can it be fixed?' And people are coming to us saying, `What do we do?' I have had a number of these cases in recent weeks. In one case, the person died—and I think the family were so grateful he died, because they were absolutely despairing; they did not know what to do. They rang a number of nursing homes for a solution just to have the nursing homes say to them, `We don't know.'The legislation currently in force is for up-front fees. The government has announced some changes—but God knows when they will happen! What is more, the government has just changed the dates, it has changed the amounts and it has changed the assessment instruments. We do not know what is happening. Why would a government create such chaos? The fact is that the government cannot help itself; that is why. It is symptomatic of its incompetence. No-one sets out to cause chaos deliberately—perhaps some may, but governments do not do that. This is just symptomatic. This government is judged and marked on this one issue to be a disgrace. This is not about nursing homes. This is about finance; it is about cutting half a billion dollars out of a budget off the backs of the aged and their families—all that nonsense.I have listened with interest to remarks about how the Labor government reduced nursing home subsidies. The fact is that there was enough there to cut half a billion dollars out, wasn't there. There was enough there to save half a billion dollars. We left you that much in the forward estimates and the budgets to enable you to save that much. How dare you suggest that somehow it is our fault. How dare you try to blame us for your own ineptitude. (Time expired)13:10:001521McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—In again opposing the second and third readings of the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 , I note that the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) in his summary of the debate said that the government's principle was to introduce a system where those who could afford to pay paid and made their contribution, and that those funds went into the capital needs—or words to that effect—of nursing homes. If you look at what the government has on the table, it is a proposal whereby anyone whose assets exceed the $44,000 assets test will be required to pay the $4,380 accommodation charge. That applies across the board. As soon as anyone jumps over the $44,000 cliff, they have to dish out. So there is no sense of equity or capacity to meet the fee in there; that hits everyone. Even if someone's assets are $44,005, they still to pay. So it is wrong to say this is falling on those who have a capacity to meet the fee.In most cases, the principal asset—just about the only asset—of senior citizens at that stage of life is going to be their home and, of course, some of the furnishings they will have within it. So they are going to have to pay. They are going to have to either find some alternative source of funding or sell their homes. But I suppose it is arguable, in the minister's reasoning, to say that the daily fee structure that he is implementing, or proposes to implement, with this bill falls more heavily on those who have a greater source of income. That is at least arguable. That, of course, applies where someone earns $50 more than the pension; for every dollar that they earn above that amount, a quarter of it goes into this daily fee.Again, it is arguable that that burden falls more heavily onto those who have a higher income stream. But the minister is quite wrong in saying, as he went back to his rationale, that the burden falling on those who have a higher income stream is then going to be applied to upgrading the capital of the nursing homes. I say that because we have seen from our side of the debate that that is not happening at all. This accommodation charge is not going into the capital structure, capital improvements, of the nursing homes; it is going into government coffers.I was disappointed that the minister did not address that issue which we emphatically have said was the case. Indeed, we have challenged the minister to say that he has given false information to the House in stating that that accommodation charge is going into nursing home capital. It is not. The nursing homes themselves say that it is not going into their capital improvement.So the minister is quite wrong in his fundamental premise for this bill—his fundamental premise being that he has said the burden is falling on those who can pay, and that burden is being put into additional funding for nursing homes. That is not right. The burden is hitting everyone as soon as they fall over the $44,000 cliff. And, in so far as there is a means test criterion applied, that criterion is simply being used as an additional tax measure. There is no question that it is a tax in all but name only.One would think we were talking about people of substantial means in this discussion; we are not talking about such people at all. Fifty dollars a week over a pension equates to about $2,500. Any person who earns money over $2,500 and is faced with this situation of going into a nursing home loses a quarter of it. For instance, if we are talking about an income of $7,500 over that pension amount—which is a meagre amount; often it is topped up by superannuation—that person is going to lose a quarter of it. It is a meagre income to start with. The government just has not realised, or if it has it has ignored, the extent of hardship that this is going to create for people of very, very meagre means. Again, the government is quite wrong to suggest that those people can afford to pay. (Time expired)13:15:001522Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—As I was saying earlier, we in this country have had a decent process, a good process for public policy making. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the parliamentary committee report on the home and community care (HACC) program, Home but not alone . This report canvassed the need for us to integrate our aged support programs, whether they be in a person's home or in a nursing home, together with post-acute problems, and the need to synchronise and make complementary all those programs.There is a real need in this country, with its ageing population and the increase in dementia. We are all very aware of those issues. The community is very aware of them. We all live in our community. We all live in communities with families that have family members who are now, or will be, in need of some kind of support. What this country needed from this government was an approach which would allow the community to understand the issues, to recognise that demands are being made and to canvass options to fairly share the burdens. That is what we needed. That is how you develop public policy. That is how you bring things forward. What we have instead is a budget announcement of a cut of $½ billion from residential aged care, a cut of $80 million from the home and community care program as well as user pays of 20 per cent. Think of what that means in terms of things such as volunteer programs. You would pay a volunteer to come and visit you. How do you have user pays with volunteer programs? None of this was thought through; none of it was brought into the community and canvassed and developed. That is more than an insult; it is so very disrespectful and destructive. The damage that has been done to public policy making is untold.Add to that the defunding of the Pensioners and Superannuants Federation, which is one of the key bodies that has helped us as a parliament and in government to consult with our community and to work through issues and policies—the taking away of their funds so that they can no longer contribute. The removal of support to a range of peak bodies in the welfare and community sectors has all been aimed at removing voices. In other words, this government does not want debate, it does not want discussion and it does not want a dialogue with its own community. It wants to issue edicts and make announcements which have nothing to do with policy.Then the government tries to somehow fill in behind. We have watched government speaker after speaker somehow try to justify that all these measures were about improving standards. The minister may well be able to clarify it and tell the parliament and the people of Australia how much money has been raised to compensate for the cuts in the budget to date. How far behind is the sector in terms of moneys raised by its initiatives which have been removed by budget cuts? What is the balance?The message that the government is trying to give to the community is—and this is what the government backbencher who was speaking was saying—that this is going to give extra resources; this is going to improve the standards. The fact is that we know that it is the opposite; we know that standards are being reduced, because there is less money available. The government has cut $500 million out and the nursing home sector cannot pick it up, so it is actually behind. The extra fees being charged are not for nursing homes; they are for the government.This pretence that somehow this is all about improving standards is an absolute deceit; it is deceitful, it is dishonest and it is disgraceful. It really is important that the government comes clean and gives an accounting of the funds saved to date and the funds raised to date. On that measurement, I have no doubt that the nursing home sector would be delighted to be advised of how much better off they are.Nursing homes are one part of the sector. We have had a government member speaking as though hostels and nursing homes are identical. They know that is not true, as do we, the aged and their families. Nursing homes relate to hospitals, not hostels. So the deceit being practised in this place by using a system for hostels as though they were nursing homes is absolutely dishonest—totally dishonest. We need to integrate home and community care and support programs, post-acute care, nursing home care and hostel care; they need to be part of an integrated holistic approach for the support of our people—our frail aged and disabled. This is not. (Time expired)13:20:001523Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 56:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item.(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (lines 6 and 7), omit the item.(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (lines 8 to 10), omit the item.(4) Schedule 1, item 14, page 6 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item.(5) Schedule 1, item 17, page 6 (lines 24 to 27), omit the item. (6) Schedule 1, item 21, page 7 (lines 12 to 14), omit the item.(7) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (lines 12 to 14), omit the item.(8) Schedule 1, item 30, page 9 (lines 11 and 12), omit the item.(9) Schedule 1, item 32, page 9 (line 26) to page 10 (line 5), omit the paragraph (aa), substitute: (aa) at the time of entry, at least one of the following must be true: (i) the care recipient's approval is accompanied by a statement under section 22-2A that the care recipient is considered suitable for hostel care; (ii) the service, or the distinct part of the service through which the care recipient is to receive care, has extra service status";(10) Schedule 1, item 34, page 10 (lines 11 and 12), omit the item.(11) Schedule 1, item 37, page 11 (lines 1 to 33) and page 12 (lines 1 to 7), omit the item.(12) Schedule 1 , item 38, page 12 (line 8) to page 21 (line 14), omit the item.(13) Schedule 1, item 39, page 21 (lines 15 and 16), omit the item.(14) Schedule 1, item 40, page 21 (lines 17 to 19), omit the item.(15) Schedule 1, item 41, page 21 (lines 20 to 22), omit the item.(16) Schedule 1, item 42, page 21 (lines 23 to 25), omit the item.(17) Schedule 1, item 45, page 22 (lines 2 and 3), omit the item.(18) Schedule 1, item 47, page 22 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item.(19) Schedule 1, item 49, page 22 (lines 14 and 15), omit the item.(20) Schedule 1, item 52, page 23 (lines 5 to 7), omit the item.(21) Schedule 1, item 54, page 23 (lines 11 to 17), omit the item.(22) Schedule 1, item 55, page 23 (lines 18 to 21), omit the item.(23) Schedule 1, after item 58, page 24, add: 59 Paragraph 58-1(a) Omit paragraph 58-1(a), substitute: (a) subject to section 58-6, the resident fee in respect of any day must not exceed the maximum daily amount set under section 58-2"; (24) Schedule 1, after new item 59, page 24, insert: 60 Section 58-2 Omit Step 5 of the Resident fee calculated.(25) Schedule 1, after item 58, page 24, insert: 60 At the end of proposed paragraph 24 of Division 57 add:57-23 Scope of DivisionThis Division applies to a person if: (a) at any time from the beginning of 1 October 1997 until the at the end of proposed paragraph 24 of 5 November 1997, the person paid an accommodation bond for entry to a residential care service; and (b) at the time the person paid the bond, he or she had been classified under section 25-1 as requiring a high level of residential care. 57-24 Effect of Division(1) If this Division applies to a person, the amount of accommodation bond paid by the person and referred to in section 57-23 is to be refunded to the person (or if the person is deceased, to the estate of the person).(2) Amounts refundable under subsection (1) may be recovered by the person in a Court of competent jurisdiction.(26) Schedule 2, item 1, page 26 (lines 4 to 6), omit the item.(27) Schedule 2, item 3, page 25 (lines 12 to 21), omit the item.(28) Schedule 2, item 4, page 25 (lines 22 and 23), omit the item.(29) Schedule 2, item 5, page 25 (lines 24 to 27), omit the item.(30) Schedule 2, item 6, page 25 (lines 28 and 29) and page 26 (lines 1 to 22), omit the item.(31) Schedule 2, item 7, page 26 (lines 23 to 26), omit the item.(32) Schedule 2, item 8, page 26 (lines 27 and 28), omit the item.(33) Schedule 2, item 9, page 26 (lines 29 to 31), omit the item.(34) Schedule 2, item 10, page 26 (lines 32 and 33), omit the item.(35) Schedule 2, item 11, page 27 (lines 1 and 2), omit the item.(36) Schedule 2, item 12, page 27 (lines 3 to 5), omit the item.(37) Schedule 2, item 13, page 27 (lines 11 to 24), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) This Division applies if the person has become entitled to a refund of an accommodation bond by virtue of Division 57A of the Aged Care Act 1997 .(38) Schedule 2, item 13, page 28 (lines 3 to 5), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) at the time the person sold his or her principal home, he or she had been classified under section 25-1 as requiring a high level of residential care.(39) Schedule 2, item 13, page 28 (line 6), note to subsection 1099A(2), omit the item.: accommodation charge.(40) Schedule 2, item 13, page 29 (line 4), omit the item.: under the refund agreement mentioned in that subsection, substitute: in accordance with Division 57A of the Aged Care Act 1997 .(41) Schedule 2, item 14, page 29 (lines 22 and 23), omit the item.(42) Schedule 3, item 1, page 31 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item.(43) Schedule 3, item 2, page 31 (line 8), omit the item.: accommodation charge 5L(1).(44) Schedule 3, item 4, page 31 (lines 14 to 25), omit the item.(45) Schedule 3, item 6, page 31 (lines 29 and 30), omit the item.(46) Schedule 3, item 8, page 32 (lines 5 to 8), omit the item.(47) Schedule 3, item 10, page 32 (lines 12 to 31) and page 33 (lines 1 to 6), omit the item.(48) Schedule 3, item 11, page 33 (lines 7 to 10), omit the item.(49) Schedule 3, item 12, page 33 (lines 11 and 12), omit the item.(50) Schedule 3, item 13, page 33 (lines 13 to 15), omit the item.(51) Schedule 3, item 14, page 33 (lines 16 and 17), omit the item.(52) Schedule 3, item 15, page 33 (lines 18 and 19), omit the item.(53) Schedule 3, item 19, page 34 (lines 9 to 21), omit subsection (2), insert:(2) For people who either: (a) are entitled to a refund of an accommodation bond by virtue of Division 57A of the Aged Care Act 1997 ; or (b)— (i) sold their principal home on or before 5 November 1997 in order to be able to pay certain accommodation bonds; and (ii) at the time the person sold his or her principal; home, he or she had been classified under section 25-1 of the Aged Care Act 1997 as requiring a high level of residential care; and (iii) for the partners of such people, certain amounts relating to refunds of such bonds, or to the proceeds of such sales, are excluded from the income and assets tests under this Act. Note: Accommodation bond has the same meaning as in the Aged Care Act 1997 : see subsection 5L(1) of this Act.(54) Schedule 3, item 19, page 34 (lines 23 to 27) and page 35 (lines 1 to 12), omit subsection 13(1), substitute:(1) This Part applies to a person if, he or she is entitled to a refund of an accommodation bond by virtue of Division 57A of the Aged Care Act 1997 . Note: Accommodation bond has the same meaning as in the Aged Care Act 1997 ; see subsection 5L(1) of this Act.(55) Schedule 3, item 19, page 35 (lines 13 to 24), omit subsection (2), substitute:(2) This Part also applies to a person if the Commission is satisfied that: (a) on or before 5 November 1997, the person sold his or her home for the sole or principal purpose of raising money to pay an accommodation bond for entry to a residential care service; and (b) at the time the person sold his or her principal home, he or she had been classified under section 25-1 of the Aged Care Act 1997 as requiring a high level of residential care; Note: Accommodation bond has the same meaning as in the Aged Care Act 1997 : see subsection 5L(1) of this Act.(56) Schedule 3, item 19, page 36 (lines 17 to 20), omit subsection (2), substitute:(2) If the person is covered by subclause 13(1) (but not subclause 13(2), the person's exempt bond amount is any amount of accommodation bond payment refunded to the person.Before starting to go through the amendments, I would like to put on record my thanks to my staff and to the clerks for getting these amendments together so quickly. This is an area where we have had considerable debate over the last 18 months and we are still here today, trying to clean up an act and the Aged Care Amendment Bill which is before us. It is still a mess. Nevertheless, we will try, through these amendments, to make some improvements to it.Some suggestion has been made by some government speakers that this issue is really not of any great interest any more to the elderly in this country. I would just draw the government's attention to a media release that, in fact, was put out yesterday by the main welfare groups—ACOSS, the Salvation Army, the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation—headed `Welfare sector calls for urgent action on aged care'. As stated in this press release:The Aged Care Amendment Bill is currently before the parliament. The opportunity still exists to redirect its focus. Six months since the introduction of the government's aged care reforms, there is still massive confusion and uncertainty among residents, carers and families.It goes on to say:It is impossible to remove hundreds of millions of dollars from the aged care system without a drop in the levels of care to which ageing Australians are entitled.This press release sums up the enormous concern that exists in this community about what this government is doing to the elderly—the enormous concern that exists all around this country. We will try again today to remove some of the most iniquitous parts of the changes that this government is trying to impose on the elderly in this country. If the government does not see fit to support our attempting to do so here in the House today, I very much hope that the other parties in the Senate and the Independents do so. That then will enable us to have a return to a fairer and more equitable system of aged care in this country.I will just go through the purpose of the amendments that are before the House today. We are trying to achieve a number of things. The first is that we are seeking, by these amendments, to remove all reference to the accommodation charge. The Labor Party has made it very clear that we do not, and will not, support charging fees to people who need nursing home care.One of the critical differences between the Labor Party and this Howard government is that, as far as we are concerned, nursing home care is not a matter of choice. Nursing home care is sought by people when they must have intensive nursing care. It is not an accommodation choice, as the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) likes to say to people. It is something that happens when someone might have had a stroke or when some other disastrous health change has occurred and they need to go into a nursing home. What we do not want to see in Australia is that charges are put in the way of people receiving essential nursing home care.We on the Labor side of the House know, through our experience over the last 20 years of this government's opposition to Medicare, that this government—this coalition of Liberal and National parties—does not understand what it means to have free and universal access to health care. We see that again today in this bill that is before us.This government does not see that there is anything wrong with charging people $4,380 to stay in a nursing home, for every year they are going to be there, for up to a maximum of five years. This government does not see anything wrong with charging nearly $22,000 if you need to go into a nursing home. What, of course, has resulted already since this government introduced this charge is that people are saying, `We can't pay this fee, so we are either going to stay in hospital, because we have had to go—' (Time expired)13:25:001526Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—The amendments before the House—whilst no-one would deny some of the substance of what the opposition is saying today—are precipitated by the fundamental issue that it is $40,000 a year to keep these people in these homes and, within about 15 years, we will have about one million people in that category, which is $40,000 million off a budget of $100,000 million. So, clearly, the problem here is enormous.If we roll the clock back to 1972—and the honourable member who comes from Tasmania who at present is representing the govern ment on the front bench, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), will agree with me very strongly when I say this—and look at the 20 or 30 years prior to that, the population of Australia doubled in that period of time. If, in fact, the population Australia were to double over the next 20 or 30 years, we could easily accommodate this problem because there would be a lot of young people in our community working and paying taxes, and those taxes would be able to handle the problem that is arising here.However, we have an ageing population and we have the sorts of social attitudes that constantly come from the opposition benches—many of those attitudes being created by the opposition benches with respect to family law and family life in Australia—and the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) would be one of the great exponents of the sorts of attitudes which have resulted in women now feeling ashamed to be mothers, so we simply do not have a population. In fact, the population of Australia this time next century will be 12 million people, that is all. They are not my figures; they are the figures of Professor Richard Blandy in a landmark article in the Australian newspaper last year. I went up to the library, because I was quite astounded by this fact, and found out that, yes, on the demographic trends at the present time, that most certainly will be the case: there will only be 12 million Australians. We are, in fact, a vanishing race, and vanishing at a very fast rate. So that is the base reason.But coming back specifically to the amendments being moved, I am finding that with nursing homes the change in categories is taking a very, very serious bite. For example, I asked the Tully nursing home, `What are the changes that are involved?' And they told me, `Well, we are in the process of reclassifying.' I then said, `How does that affect you?' And they said, `Well, a lot of our people cannot be reclassified up to the higher classification; in fact, they have to be classified downwards into a lower classification.'Whilst a lot of nursing homes in Australia I do not think are playing the game honestly and fairly in the way the Tully nursing home is, I must say that a number of the nursing homes in North Queensland certainly are, and they are taking very real and substantial pain. Tully nursing home is a nursing home of a moderate size; I might even say that, size wise, it is on the lower end of the spectrum. It is a very beautiful facility. But the change in categories is costing it $50,000 a year. So it has played the game. It has had to downgrade an awful lot of its people.What is happening in the bigger city based nursing homes—which appertains to the amendments that are being moved—is that they are shuffling out the patients. This is a very easy thing to do in the big cities with a big turnover of patients: those nursing homes simply replace category 4 patients with category 2 patients and, therefore, are able to keep their incomes up. That is not an option that is available to the smaller nursing homes. They cannot achieve a turnover anywhere near as quickly and replace those people with bigger revenue earning—as far as the government funding system is concerned—type patients.It is a very serious issue to suddenly find a deficiency of $50,000 or $60,000 a year in nursing homes the size of the Tully nursing home. I pay very great tribute to those people who run that nursing home—Mr Collins, Mr Bryson, the head nurse and the various other people. But this place must acknowledge the very real problems they have in replacing their assets, as every speaker in this place has made reference to. If the proposals being put forward are cut off, clearly there will be a great problem in replacing the assets, and the assets will fall further and further into disrepair. That is part of the problem. The second part of the problem is a very serious issue that has arisen for the smaller, regional based nursing homes, and I have put that before the House in line with the amendments that are going forward. (Time expired)13:30:001527Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—For the information of the previous speaker, I am a proud mother of three. Maybe he is not up to date—I am sure the member for Adelaide (Ms Worth) is—but women have aspirations both for their children and for themselves. I will leave that matter as it is.As I was saying about the issue of the charge, the purpose of the amendments before us is to remove from this bill all reference to the accommodation charge and to remove the notion that people have to pay to get essential health care. The Labor Party do not support that notion. If we are unsuccessful in removing any reference to the charge, either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, then Labor in government—we have made this commitment, and I will make it here again today—will get rid of this charge. Labor believe that if a person needs to go into a nursing home, they should be able to get that care without having to pay large sums of money.We have already seen the impact of these charges on people's willingness to go into nursing homes. They are seeking to remain in public hospitals. I imagine that, because of the level of care that they require, many people are going home when they should not be. One shudders to think the burden that that will impose on families.The other amendments before us today try to ensure that accommodation bonds apply only to people in hostels. We do not want to see a situation where people who move from a hostel to a nursing home have a choice, as the bill puts forward, about whether to pay an accommodation bond or a charge. We do not think that that choice should exist for people. Our view is that if you need nursing home care, that care should be available to you without charge. We want to make sure, through these amendments, that no bonds are chargeable in nursing homes.The next section of amendments makes it clear that we are trying to make sure that this government cannot introduce any other sort of charge. The Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) came in here today and explained how it was that he introduced these charges in the regulations on 6 November last year. I have to say that to us it seems the most convoluted way that any government could bring about a charge to one of the most vulnerable groups in the community.This government introduced a major piece of legislation into the House which we debated for some time last year. Then they found that the community outrage was so great they had to make some very rapid changes. The first of these changes was made by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and was announced on A Current Affair. The next day the minister had to pick up the ball and make what I would say were fairly rapid moves to put in place the capacity for the government to get rid of the accommodation bond and in its place have this charge.The section that they have used to bring about this charge would enable them to introduce any other charge in the future. So the amendments that are before us today seek to remove those sections so that we get rid of not only the accommodation charge that is in this bill we are currently debating but also the sections in the substantive act to make sure that this government and any future Liberal government cannot introduce any of these sorts of charges on very sick and frail Australians.The next part of the amendments goes to the refund of accommodation bonds. The House would be aware that when the Prime Minister went on A Current Affair, he said that people would no longer have to pay accommodation bonds because the government had realised that people would have to sell their homes to pay these bonds—a situation about which, not surprisingly, the community was outraged. (Time expired)13:35:001528McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I rise to respond to the comments of the member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), which effectively continue this line of scapegoating against our senior citizens. It started with the government's National Commission of Audit, which, from an economic rationalist point of view, very much put the senior citizens of this country into the debit side of the economist's ledger.An interesting article written by Professor John McCallum, who is the Dean of the Faculty of Health at the University of Western Sydney, said:Since the arrival of the Howard Government in Canberra, the ageing of the Australian population is being more generally argued to make unsustainable demands on the health and social security system. In his article he talks about the arguments and concerns about the ageing population. He also talks about a report of the Economic Planning and Advisory Council which said that expenditure on health in 1990 represented about 8.4 per cent of gross domestic product and that, by the year 2051, it could represent about 11.1 per cent of gross domestic product. If that is supposed to be a cause for fear and trepidation when we are talking about a 2.7 per cent rise over 60 years, they should say it in that context. As Professor McCallum says, those predictions for 60 years in the future are so frequently flawed.He points out that it is a fallacy to attribute, except to a trivial extent, the consequences of ageing to the total health care budget. He says that most health treatment is needed just before someone dies, but the consequence of medical science is that we are pushing back the age at which someone dies. When more and more people were dying at younger ages—below their 60s and 70s—the health costs were focused on debt incurred by those age groups. An average of five times more money is spent on someone immediately before they die. So the reason more money is required for health for our ageing population is simply that people are dying at later ages and more money is required at that final point of their lives. On the whole, the cost of sustaining senior citizens is really no more than normal up until that point of time.My father is 71, and I cannot remember the last time he went to a doctor. I know there are so many like him. Then there is me with a young family—you always seem to be a revolving door when you have young kids. It is simply wrong and fallacious to use scapegoating for this sort of measure. It is purely and simply an introduction of a user-pays philosophy that falls on those who confront misfortune.Look at all the contributions that senior citizens have made to our society. Last night I mentioned the Depression, the Second World War and the post-war reconstruction. There is also a failure to have regard to what they now contribute to society. I understand, for instance, that the older community provide much more in unpaid child care than does the whole child-care system—that is, both the private and community based child-care systems. They contribute more by way of charities. If you go to any Meals on Wheels service, you will see that the participants are more likely to be senior citizens. They are certainly net contributors to society. They are not net takers from society.So to use them as scapegoats is simply wrong. As I have emphasised, it is based on fallacious analysis. Just about all the speakers on the government side have had a scapegoating mentality. It is wrong and fallacious. The amendments that the shadow minister is moving are entirely appropriate because they recognise the responsibility of the community for looking after our senior citizens. (Time expired)13:40:001529Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The opposition amendments go to ensuring that those people who unfortunately entered nursing homes from 1 October to 5 November last year have their accommodation bonds refunded. A few days after the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) went on A Current Affair and announced to the nation that he had done the biggest backflip of all time and was going to get rid of these accommodation bonds, it was announced that the government would have a person to help people get refunds of these accommodation bonds. In these amendments before us today, we are seeking to require the government to refund accommodation bonds.I want to tell the House of a story that is behind the opposition moving this amendment. I was at a community forum on the Central Coast which was attended by about 200 people at an RSL hall. A woman who was only in her 60s put up her hand and said, `I want to tell you what happened to me when my husband and I moved up to the Central Coast from Sydney. We sold our home in Sydney and bought another home on the Central Coast.' Obviously they were looking forward to a long and happy retirement.Unfortunately, her husband had a massive stroke and had to be moved into a nursing home very quickly. Very unfortunately for the family, this happened during the period 1 October to 5 November last year. She had to sell the home that they had just bought on the Central Coast to make sure that her husband could get accommodation in a nursing home. He had had a massive stroke and was absolutely unable to stay at home, and she was unable to look after him. This is the reality of what this government is doing to the elderly and the not so elderly in this country. People who desperately needed nursing home care were required to sell their homes to get this essential care.The lady had everybody in this hall in tears in response to her story. Afterwards, I asked her, `Have you approached the government to seek a refund for your accommodation bond?' She said, `I didn't know that I was entitled to do that.' That is the reality of the situation that faces so many people: they are not informed of their rights; they are not told that they have the capacity to seek a refund; and it is not required of the government, under the current legislation, to pay all these accommodation bonds back to the people who were so wrongly charged the bond for the bit over a month that it applied.In this amendment we are seeking to require the government to make a refund to people who most unfortunately had to pay these accommodation bonds. The amendments that flow from that are equally important. This lady had to sell her home. If we can require the government, through this amendment, to refund these accommodation bonds, we do not want to see some further adverse circumstances apply to this woman or to anybody else in her circumstance. In further amendments before the House today we are seeking to make sure that any money that is repaid to people who were required to pay these accommodation bonds is not counted as income under the Social Security Act.Another amendment before the House deals with the situation of those who had been assessed to go into a nursing home and who had sold their homes before 5 November in anticipation of having to pay an accommodation bond—because they were not to know that the Prime Minister was going to do this backflip. (Extension of time granted) We do not want to open up this system to fraud and therefore do not think it is fair for those people who sold their homes to have their social security payments reduced as a result of having the income that results from the sale of their homes. That is another very important amendment before the House today.As I said before, these are very significant changes that go to the heart of the difference between Labor and this government. As many people on the Labor side in this debate have made so clear, there is a fundamental difference between the way Labor sees access to nursing home care and the way this government sees it.When we started this debate nearly two years ago, we heard the minister at the time, and the Prime Minister in particular, making it clear that this was just an accommodation choice—people could just decide to choose between a hostel and nursing home care. Gradually this government has been forced by the elderly of this community and by their representatives to recognise that it was an unfair system that they put in place, that they had to get rid of the accommodation bond. Given the government's recognition of the need to get rid of the accommodation bond, I hope that they will support our amendments to ensure that people who were so unfortunately charged this accommodation bond will be refunded.What we would also like to see is the members of the government recognise that they have gone only a small part of the way, that what they have done is get rid of only the sheep's clothing, as the Australian Catholic Health Care Association so aptly put it. They have got rid of only the sheep's clothing; they have not got rid of the wolf that is still lying there waiting for people who need to go into nursing homes in this country. It will be the case, as a result of this government's changes, that people will have to pay very large sums of money if they need—not choose—nursing home care. If our amendments are unsuccessful, they will have to pay $4,380 every year, up to a maximum of five years, if they need nursing home care.It means that they will have to pay more than $20,000 for essential health care. That is what this Liberal Party stands for: making people pay more than $20,000 for essential health care. That is the bottom line. We do not agree with it. We move these amendments here today. We will continue to argue against this shift in the whole approach to essential health care in this country that this government is seeking to introduce—that is, people should pay for essential health care. That is what we are debating today. These amendments now before the House seek to remove the capacity of this government to charge people an accommodation charge for essential health care, for nursing home care.It is a very serious matter. It is of great concern to so many elderly Australians. In fact, in the Sydney Morning Herald today the national treasurer of the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation said:Older people are getting angrier and angrier.This is really at the heart of it. She continued:Once again, this shows the Government didn't think it through.She said that confusion was increasing with each new change, and with each new change the fees just continue to rise. That is what the elderly have to look forward to in this country with a government that is committed to making sure that people pay and pay for nursing home care—for essential health care. That is at the heart of this bill, and that is the purpose of the amendments today—to get rid of the capacity for the government to continue to require people to pay for what we consider on this side of the House to be essential health care.13:51:001531Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I go back to a theme that I have raised previously in this House, which is to do with debt and capital. We have a government telling us about the debt we are going to pass on to our children and our grandchildren. It is a theme that has been run over and over again as a mask for a lot of social engineering. This is basically about social engineering.It is important that we equate debt with assets. We will pass on to our children debt—there is no doubt about that—but we will also pass on to our children assets. The question is: how do they balance? There is no doubt whatsoever that over the last 15 years—certainly the 13 years of Labor government—the asset value increased at a much greater rate than the debt value. Anybody who drives to Canberra on the national highway which we have all shared the cost of will understand that, anybody who goes to an airport which we have all shared the cost of will understand that, and anybody who goes to our ports and looks at the infrastructure which we have all shared the cost of will understand that. These are being passed on to successive generations. We have all shared the cost of hospitals and nursing homes. These are infrastructure, not some luxury item that we choose to have or not to have. These are things that are needed by a decent society to care for its own people. They incur a capital cost; that cost can be shared by generations via intergenerational debt. Intergenerational assets and intergenerational debt are a valid and sensible form of sharing those costs.We are being told by this government that the generations that built the other assets are going to have to pay for their own care. Having shared the cost of the nation's assets, they are going to have to pay the cost of the assets to care for them. That is an enormous shift in both philosophy and in relationships, which is a fundamental shift in the way we have done things. We are making the aged who need nursing home care feel guilty. We heard the member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) mention the figure of $40,000. What a disgraceful way to approach it. We have heard the term `bed blockers' being used over and over. People who have the misfortune to need nursing home care are now seen to be culprits, like criminals—that it is their fault.People would love to die in their own beds peacefully with their family around them. That would be the choice for all of us, but some people are not so fortunate any more. We tried to put it in a form that, if you required nursing home care in your later years, it was unfortunate for you and we understood that but we shared the burden of it. We all took some responsibility. Now the government says, `No, you take it yourself.' Just contrast that with what is happening today in terms of this new device we are now hearing a lot about—family trusts. Think about it for a moment. If, five years before, you transferred your assets to a family trust which is controlled by somebody else who can give you money if they want to or do not want to, do you still pay up-front fees, do you still pay nursing home charges? No, you do not. We are saying now that the Aussie battler is going to have to transfer their family home to a family trust, then all of this will be irrelevant. What a shonky exercise is going on. On one hand this government is telling the aged people that all they have is a house and that they are going to have to pay but, on the other hand, the bulk of their frontbench is creating artificial vehicles to avoid both tax and those kinds of payments. That is what is happening. Why else would you have family trusts being created?We are now being told by representatives of the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) that this is a sensible thing to be doing. If you want to pass on your assets to your children, you put them in a family trust; the Aussie battler is being told to sell their house. You cannot give it to your kids because you are a squatter in a hospital, a bed blocker. But those who are clever put it into a family trust instead so their kids get the assets well in advance via that family trust. This government had better come clean as to its true agenda and who it actually represents. (Time expired)13:56:001532Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I think we just need to remember why it is that we are debating this legislation and to make reference to what the Labor Party will do if we are not successful in getting rid of this accommodation charge. It is the case that this government removed $500 million out of the aged care budget in 1996, and it sought to get that money which had been allocated in the forward estimates to rebuild nursing homes. The idea of this government was to get that money out of the homes and the savings of the elderly of this country. We know the saga with the government denying day after day, week after week, `No, it won't be the case that anybody will have to sell their family home.' I do not know how many times we were told that in here. The elderly of this country got so angry once they did have to start selling their family homes—and a number of people did have to sell their family home in the month that this accommodation bond did apply—that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) finally realised—the penny dropped—that it was not a very popular move. It was the biggest backdown we have seen in the last couple of years with the Prime Minister going on A Current Affair and saying, `Yes, we finally realised that people would have to sell their family homes, so we'll get rid of the accommodation bond and we'll call it the accommodation charge.'The government still has the same objective—it still wants to get the money out of you somehow. That is really what this government is all about. This Liberal-National Party government took $500 million out of the aged care budget with the sole objective of making sure that it was made up somehow out of the pockets of the elderly of this country. If it was not going to be their homes, it was going to be the savings of their families. How many times has the Prime Minister come in here and said to me, `Why don't they just ask their families whether they have got a spare $4,380 every year?' I do not know any battling family in Australia that has got a spare $4,380 that they can pull out of their pockets every year for five years to care for their elderly relatives. That is what this government wants to impose on this community.The whole purpose of the accommodation charge before us today is to make the elderly themselves pay for their essential health care. That is what this government is all about—strip mining the assets of the elderly in this country, taking it out of their homes, taking it out of their savings. If they do not want to use that option, as the Prime Minister says, `Just go and ask your family for the $4,000.'10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice153215321532Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday Senator Parer told the Senate in relation to QCMM Group (ESP):I have never had any involvement in what that company puts money into . . . and never have had any control over it.Is the Prime Minister aware that on at least eight occasions Senator Parer chaired meetings of QCMM Group (ESP), which discussed allotting 1,000 employer shares to AQRM, putting money into Bruce Resources, devising the Terra Firma joint venture with Pan Australian and the impact on ESP shares of Tomen's takeover of AMI? Is the Prime Minister also aware that Senator Parer was authorised to sign off on the annual financial statements of QCMM (ESP)? Prime Minister, how can Senator Parer claim he has never been involved in QCMM (ESP) and hasn't he misled the Senate?1533Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In accordance with my longstanding and very prudent practice, I always check the accuracy of claims made by the opposition about what my colleagues have said. I will follow that practice. I will analyse what Senator Parer said and, of course, I will analyse what the member for Hotham said as well.15331533McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, would you inform the House of the government's broad approach regarding taxation treatment of trusts?1533Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for the question. I think it is a very apposite question, given not only the report of the Taxation Office but also the matter of public importance that appears in the name of the newly rediscovered Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is sort of trying to get back into the game after having been put in the shade a bit. He did not get much of the sort of conflict of interest actions, so he decided he wanted to get back into the game on this.The other important aspect of this is the report of the Commissioner of Taxation about the growth of trusts in Australia. One of the most interesting things, of course, is that the Commissioner of Taxation's report entirely relates to the period that the Labor Party was in office before the last election. So let it first be understood that trusts exploded under Labor. It is under Labor that trusts exploded, and in case the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or indeed any other members of the opposition are minded to say, `What are you going to do about trusts?' I will reply, `Why didn't you do something about them over the last 13 years?' No doubt the retort will come back, `Oh, we were gonna do it in the 14th year.'Let me say that again: if there is any argument about the explosion of the uses of trusts in this country, if there is to be criticism of that, that is a damning indictment of the administrative performance of the former Labor government, because it was under Labor that trusts became a fast growing industry. It was under Labor, if there are any alleged abuses claimed in relation to trusts, that those abuses occurred.I want to say on behalf of the government that we naturally do not accept responsibility for what occurred under Labor, but once again, as with the deficit, although we were not responsible, we will endeavour to fix problems and we will endeavour to fix abuses. We had to fix the deficit. The Leader of the Opposition left us with a $10½ billion deficit. We not only had to fix that deficit but had to face obstructive tactics from the Labor Party in our efforts to fix that deficit.Let me go further and make it very plain: our attitude in relation to any tax avoidance practices is that they will be addressed, and they will be addressed properly. I remind the parliament that only two nights ago the Senate passed some government legislation which prohibited trafficking in trust losses. That was an earnest of my government's determination to stamp out abuses, whether they occur under family trusts or whether they occur under any other area. May I repeat to the parliament, for the benefit particularly of the opposition, that the attitude of my government in relation to the taxation issue and in relation to family trusts is that the government parties in any taxation changes we make will not be acting in a manner which would seriously damage, or indeed damage at all, the small business community.I also want to make it clear that we will take, if necessary, action against the abuse of trusts. We have always taken action against the abuse of trusts, and that will be the attitude we will bring to the formulation of our taxation policy. But let there be no cant and humbug from the opposition: it was under the Labor Party that the use of trusts exploded. The report of the Commissioner of Taxation was not about our period in office. Trusts did not arrive on the Australian political scene on 2 March 1996; they burgeoned, they flourished, they grew like wildflowers under the Keating and the Hawke administrations, and any attempt to pretend otherwise is absolute humbug.15341534Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, have you seen advice prepared by the Clerk of the Senate which says that your interpretation of conflict of interest is `a complete misconception'? Is the Prime Minister also aware of the recommendations released by the Treasurer as part of the corporate law economic reform program concerned with company directors avoiding conflicts of interest and not operating in areas where they hold a personal interest? Why are you prepared to hold ministers to lesser standards than those which your government insists upon for company directors?1534Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have seen the letter issued by the Clerk of the Senate. The Clerk of the Senate issues letters from time to time on a miscellany of subjects. Some of those letters are accurate and some of them are not so accurate. One that I saw recently about section 57 of the constitution, according to the legal advice the government has received, was quite inaccurate. I will be analysing Mr Evans's letter in relation to the matter that he spoke of yesterday. As to the other part of the honourable gentleman's question, just as I like to satisfy myself about the accuracy of quotes made in relation to my colleagues, I will do the same in relation to him.15341534Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, could you advise the House of the level of business support for the changes to the unfair dismissal provisions which have today been rejected by the Labor Party and the Democrats? What will be the impact on the employment prospects of young Australians resulting from this rejection?1534Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Eden-Monaro for his question. The Labor Party, the Democrats and the Independents have today rejected the government's bill which would have provided an exemption for small business from the unfair dismissal laws. In doing so, I think it is fair to say that the Labor Party have destroyed their credibility on the jobs issue. This was a measure which was aimed at providing opportunity and encouragement to the small business community to give people jobs. It has been estimated by small business itself that the passage of this legislation would have created 50,000 jobs.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—You can tell from the interjections on the other side that the Labor Party think this is a smart political game to play. The Labor Party think that if they do what the ACTU tells them this is somehow smart politics and this justifies their rejection of this proposal. Today the Labor Party have not rejected the government; they have rejected small business. You have rejected the 50,000 people who now will not get a job because of your weak policy. That is the consequence of this. The Labor Party would tell you that they are concerned about unemployment. When they get a chance to actually vote to give somebody a job, what do they do? They play politics and vote against a measure which by any reasonable standard was a fair and commonsense proposal to give people a chance of a job.This issue has been around for some considerable time. The opposition say, `Where is the evidence for the benefit of this particular proposal?' The evidence to justify this particular proposal is absolutely overwhelming. The small business community itself has made it clear that they would create more jobs. COSBOA, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, said that this measure, if passed, would create 50,000 jobs. The 50 major small business organisations which form the Small Business Coalition met in Canberra last month and they unanimously supported this proposal. The micro-business consultative group, which had on it people who were nominated by the Labor Party, unanimously supported this proposal.This is genuinely a very sad day, as the Labor Party has rejected the opportunity for 50,000 people to get a job. It destroys their credibility on jobs. It shows us that the hypocrisy of the Labor Party is now complete on this issue. Their credibility is in tatters. It reveals again that when we need some national leadership and we look to the Leader of the Opposition we find a person unable to speak on behalf of the 50,000 people who would have got jobs from this change.15351535Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, have you seen the official announcement of Pan Australian to the Australian Stock Exchange this morning which confirms that QCMM (ESP) held 318,250 shares in that company at the time Senator Parer became a minister? Prime Minister, if you were fully briefed yesterday on this, why did you omit this in your explanation at the beginning of parliament? I seek leave to table the document from Pan Australian.Leave not granted.1535Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I might rhetorically ask through you, if I may, why did you not disclose to the parliament when you asked that question that the very same announcement to which you referred said in its first paragraph that a resolution was passed by QCMM Group on 31 October 1995? In other words, the transfer took place before Senator Parer became a minister. The fact that the transfer was not registered until after he became a minister is no fault of Senator Parer's.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Mr Speaker, I request that the Prime Minister table the document from which he was reading.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I table the document.15351535Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—My question today is addressed to the Prime Minister, and it is a relevant question. Prime Minister, what are the benefits to all Australians of reforming the waterfront? Can you also advise the House of the restraints that have been put in the way of reform and who is responsible for this obstruction?1535Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I think it is very instructive that, since the parliament resumed this week, we have not had one question from the Labor Party about reform of the waterfront. We have had no question about the most important industrial relations issue facing Australia in 1998. There is a very simple reason for that and that is that the Labor Party, and particularly its leader, is scared stiff of the issue of reform of the Australian waterfront.The problem is that the Leader of the Opposition is bound to the Maritime Union of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition does not have the courage to stand up for the public interest against the bullying tactics of the Maritime Union of Australia. You never hear the Leader of the Opposition condemning the bullying tactics. You never hear the Leader of the Opposition speaking out in favour of reform in the national interest. All he does is say, `Let's have another meeting.' When you were in government you had a meeting on taxation and that collapsed. You had a meeting on native title and that ended up with the 1993 native title mess that we now have the responsibility for sorting out.Waterfront strikes are nine times higher than the national average across all industries. Despite the fact that the Labor Party spent over $400 million of the Australian taxpayer's money on an absolutely useless, pointless and unproductive reform process for the Australian waterfront, the Australian waterfront has suffered scandalous levels of productivity and scandalous levels of uncompetitiveness and has been way behind the standards required to make this nation a truly competitive export country. Despite all of that, what is the answer of the Leader of the Opposition? The answer of the Leader of the Opposition is to march down the road, bound to John Coombs, the Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia.This is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say, this is what the alternative Prime Minister had to say, on 2 February 1998 on 3AW:If you look at the record of the last eight years, one after another those bad practices have fallen over.What an extraordinary sort of tick to give. What an extraordinary blank cheque to give to a union whose record of industrial thuggery is reaching its height in the way in which it is behaving in relation to Patricks at the present time. What do you hear from the Leader of the Opposition? Instead of getting up and condemning the Maritime Union of Australia in the public interest, instead of standing up for Australians and instead of standing up for the battlers of the trade union movement instead of the MUA, who are the elite of the trade union movement, what does the Leader of the Opposition do? The Leader of the Opposition puts his hand up and says, `It's perfectly all right. Don't anybody worry, I will fix the waterfront. I will solve all of these problems. I will do what has not been done for the last 30 years. If I happen to get elected at the next election, I have a solution: I'll have a meeting.'That was the solution that Bob Hawke offered us; $420 million later we still had an unproductive waterfront, $420 million later we were still uncompetitive and $420 million later our crane rate was 18 a day versus 30, which is the average of our Asian competitors. The Labor Party, because it is bound hand and foot to the trade union movement of Australia, has no answer, no suggestion, no policy and no decent alternative on the waterfront because it is hopelessly bound, hand and foot, to the Maritime Union of Australia.15361536Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen comments by a spokesman for Senator Parer 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'? Prime Minister, can you advise the House of precisely how many of your ministers use family trusts as part of their personal financial arrangements? Is it not a fact that such arrangements can serve to minimise tax and effectively conceal the full range and extent of a minister's financial interests from public and parliamentary scrutiny? In the light of recent events and in order to increase public confidence in the integrity of the government, will you guarantee that the complete range of business interests held by your ministers through their family trusts have been fully and effectively disclosed, as required by your own guidelines?1536Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Declarations have been made by my ministers and, in accordance with the practice that was employed by my three predecessors, I do not intend to say anything further about their personal affairs.15361536Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade and is relevant to the Australian community, unlike those asked opposite. Can the minister inform the House whether exporters are in favour of waterfront reform—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable members will remain silent. The honourable member for Robertson has the call.IK6Mr LLOYD—I will ask my question again. Can the minister inform the House whether exporters are in favour of waterfront reform and what is the significance of the waterfront dispute on Australian trade policy?1536Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I respect the work of the member with regard to building on our export efforts, particularly from the Central Coast area of New South Wales.I am pleased to be able to inform the House that Seafreight, the official journal of Liner Shipping Services, the body representing Australian shipping interests, recently reported a survey of 750 businesses by the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce on the waterfront. In answer to four questions, which I draw to the attention of the House, the following was the response: `Do you believe the overall performance of the Sydney waterfront is unreliable?' Yes—81 per cent. `Do you believe this waterfront performance is inhibiting your business growth?' Yes—81 per cent. `Do you support the introduction of competition on the waterfront?' Yes—88 per cent. `Do you support the federal government in pushing for waterfront reform, even if it meant disputation and disruption on the waterfront?' A resounding yes—90 per cent.That is the level of support. That is why Australian exporters' support for waterfront reform is not just comprehensive, not just widespread but absolutely overwhelming.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Clearly they are very sensitive about this issue—no questions, no policy, no commitment and no achievement in their 13 years of government with regard to waterfront reform.There is another poll relevant to the answer to the member's question. I refer to the Rural Press farmpoll in The Land of 12 February. In that poll the question was asked: `Do you support the NFF setting up its own stevedoring operation?' The answer from cropping farmers was yes, 86 per cent; from woolgrowers was yes, 94 per cent; from beef producers was yes, 90 per cent; from dairy farmer was yes, 94 per cent; total farmers in support of the NFF stevedoring operation, another resounding yes, with 90 per cent.The support continues to roll in. In a media release from the Australian Meat Council dated 25 March, Executive Director Christopher Creal said that the red meat export industry is fully in support of a competitive waterfront marketplace and, effectively, the sooner the better.Yes, I am honest enough to admit there was a little bit of static—not from this mob with any effect—on AM this morning. I just happen to have a letter from R. J. Quirk, Executive Director of the Australian Council of Wool Exporters Inc. I quote from the letter:Further to our conversation earlier today, I would confirm that the wool exporting community totally disassociates itself from the recent comments made by Mr Frank Beaufort regarding Patrick Stevedores. The coalition government, including the minister, Peter Reith, are trying to get our waterfront truly internationally competitive—and the sooner the better for the sake of all our exporters. To all of this I would add just one other thing.Mr Kerr interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Denison.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Nice clean war.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Denison.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—We support fair pay for fair work and we support every shift on the waterfront being as productive as the stripper shifts, and the sooner the better.15371537Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—Will the Minister for Sport and Tourism agree to reconsider the decision by the Australian Sports Commission to cease funding to Recfish Australia, the peak body representing the interests of millions of Australian recreational fisher men and women? If not, why not? Why does ballooning get funds and not fishing?1537Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLPSport and Tourism;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I wonder if he spends as much time fishing as I do. I have had representations from Recfish Australia.Mr Kerr interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest the honourable member for Denison should be very cautious.FB6Mr ANDREW THOMSON—I think the position they put to me is not quite on a par with submissions from other sports in Australia, but I am happy to discuss it further with them. If the member would like to discuss it with me in person, I welcome him around this evening for a cup of tea.15371537Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of media reports this morning outlining how much wharfies are meant to earn? Have you had any correspondence on this issue? Have you had any independent information on the average earning of wharfies in comparison with other workers—like those in, say, Salisbury, Moorooka and Annerley in my electorate of Moreton?1538Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Moreton. I have had some correspondence. I got a letter the other day from a wharfie in Brisbane—probably from the member's electorate. The letter said, `I'm sick of the government misrepresenting how much we earn.' He went on to say, `I don't earn $90,000, and for proof of it I will tell you what I earned last year. It was $80,414.'We have had a lot of correspondence on this issue. The correspondence is providing overwhelming support for the government's support for waterfront reform. The State Chamber of Commerce had a very good poll out yesterday on this question of support for reform. It is an interesting one which reflects public opinion. I quote from the press release from the executive director. It says:According to the survey, support for the Federal Government has risen from 34% in the last quarter to 50.8% in the March quarter—according to Katie Lahey—The Prime Minister's personal support level rose from 38% to 46.5%—which is no surprise because she gives the explanation. She says:The Howard Government's willingness to actively pursue tax reform and to confront problems on the waterfront may have played a part in this increase in support . . . That is no surprise because this government and this Prime Minister have taken the lead to ensure that Australia's waterfront problems are finally confronted and finally fixed. One of the reasons for widespread support for the government's program is that, whilst we like to see somebody earning a decent pay packet—of course we do, and it is our policy that people should earn more—in return for earning a decent pay packet we expect people to put in a decent day's work.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable members of the opposition will remain quiet.WI4Mr REITH—The truth is that on the Australian waterfront the average wharfie is on a very good wicket indeed. The member asked whether there is independent evidence on this issue. There is—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—There is an analysis—and no amount of interjection can drown me out. It is a report prepared by the authoritative—HK5ANDREWSMr Andrews—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: even with the amplifiers in the chamber, the level of conversation from the opposition is so loud that—Opposition members interjecting—HK5ANDREWSMr Andrews—Precisely.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable members of the opposition will extend the same courtesy to other members as they expect for themselves.HK5ANDREWSMr Andrews—I was trying to say over the hubbub that the level of conversation and noise from the opposition, even with the amplifiers, drowns out any words from the minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member has made his point. I agree that there has been far too much noise within the chamber. I ask members on both sides to lower their level of conversation and to desist from persistent interjections.WI4Mr REITH—Resuming quietly, in answer to the question that has been put to me, the National Institute of Labour Studies have done a report on this. What they show is that the average wage is $71,000 and $73,800 at Port Botany. In comparison to others in the Australian community, a nurse's average salary would be around $43,000. A nurse, of course, would put in a lot more hours than the average wharfie.John Coombs—I call him `Chardonnay Coombs' because he has his weekender and grows chardonnay grapes; good luck to him—likes to contest the figures. Continuing to speak quietly, the breakdown for the average weekly hours of a crane driver in Fremantle is 50.3 hours. But, of that, relief time and other duties is 14 hours; holidays and sick leave—and remember you get 22½ per cent, which is the increment for these guys—is 10½ hours; idle time and training 8½ hours; and meal breaks 3.2 hours. So, therefore, they spend 14.1 hours a week on the crane for an average annual salary of $90,000. It is a pretty good wicket. Whilst there are skills involved in being a crane driver on the Australian waterfront, quite frankly, it is not such a difficult and burdensome task.I want to conclude by paying tribute to Carmel Egan, who is a female journalist with a major Australian news outfit. She went down to Webb Dock and obtained her certificate to drive a portainer. There are two interesting things there: firstly, this industry has had very few women working in it—and, in that sense, she is a glimpse to the future for this industry where women will also be able to work in stevedoring—and, secondly, she has demonstrated that people who are prepared to put in a decent day's work and go through the training effort can also achieve high levels of productivity and be able to undertake that work. It is time for reform. This government remains absolutely committed to it.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, could the minister table the document he was reading from, in particular the alleged letter from a constituent?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Minister, were you reading from a document which was confidential?WI4Mr REITH—I did not have any confidential material. This is the media release from St George. These are the figures on how much they earn. These are the average weekly hours at Fremantle. This is the National Institute of Labour Studies submission. The rest of it is for the other question.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Where's the letter?WI4Mr REITH—I didn't have a letter.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for the minister to allege to the House that he is reading a letter from a constituent when he tells us that he does not have it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It was not my hearing that the minister said that at all.WI4Mr REITH—It is hardly a surprise that you would not hear with the din coming from the other side.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!WI4Mr REITH—What I said, for the benefit of the honourable member, was that I had a letter from a wharfie in Brisbane. I am sorry, I do not actually have it with me.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!WI4Mr REITH—Before the excitement gets to fever pitch, I read out part of this letter last week. Furthermore, I will, provided the member for Watson respects the privacy of the person who wrote to me, give him a copy of the letter after question time.Just so there is no question about it, I will also table a letter that I have from the Maritime Union of Australia that I had in my hand when I answered the question. I will table the minutes of a meeting I had with John Coombs in 1996 on the question of waterfront productivity. I will table a minute from my office on Mr Beaufort's slowly, slowly catch a monkey quote from this morning. What else would you like? I will table an article from this morning's Australian newspaper with annotations from my office as to where the figures are wrong. You would like that one, would you?What else is there? I will also table the rest of a draft answer from my staff that I did not get round to because I was having too much of a good time. Just to completely finish off the member for Watson, the heading on this piece of paper is `Those crane drivers earn $90,000 a year for the 14 hours of work a week in the crane'. It details in minute detail how these blokes are ripping us off. All tabled!Distinguished Visitors153910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Papua New Guinea led by the Hon. John Pundari, Speaker of the national parliament, and the Hon. John Luxton, New Zealand Minister for Commerce. Also present in the gallery this afternoon is the Hon. Misa Telegoni, Minister for Health in the government of Samoa; Mr Ronald Sebago, Minister for Agriculture of Botswana; the Hon. Dr David Watson, Minister for Public Works and Housing of the Queensland parliament, and formerly of this place; the Hon. Tony Messner, Norfolk Island Administrator; His Excellency Dr Ranchod, High Commissioner of South Africa; and the Hon. Dawid De Villiers, former Cabinet Minister for Trade and Tourism of South Africa and former Springbok captain. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice154015401540Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—All those visitors, all that paper, but still no letter. My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House where the fairness is in imposing a new 10 per cent or more tax on virtually every product or service that lower and middle income families buy when, at the same time, high wealth and high income families like Senator Parer's can avoid paying their fair share of tax through the use of family trusts? Now that we all have today, for the first time, statistics about the huge scale of the trust creation problem, what new measures are you proposing to introduce to deal with it? Or are you going to give in again to the interests of your 19 frontbenchers with family trusts and to your 19 senators, your other backbenchers and your other supporters with family trusts and do absolutely nothing at all?1540Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Oh, really! What on earth did you do for 13 years? Nothing. What did you do to reform the taxation system? Nothing. You allowed these practices to accumulate. You did absolutely nothing. Having been a member of the government who for 13 or 14 years did absolutely nothing to curb the alleged tax avoidance practices—and I stress the word `alleged'—against which he now rages in some kind of confected sort of latter-day concern, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has got the nerve to come into this parliament and say, `Why haven't you done something about this?' You ran down the Australian taxation system. You allowed the Australian taxation system—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was: we have got a new problem which we now know about. What new measures are you going to introduce to deal with it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister is answering the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I find the intervention of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition quite extraordinary. He says we have a new problem. The taxation report dealt with the period between 1991 and 1995-96. Apart from the last three months of that period, the Labor Party was the government of this country. They are asking the Australian people to believe that, because we were in government for three months of that period, in some way it is our responsibility.Let me say again to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that we are committed in our taxation proposals which will be presented to the Australian public before the next election. We are committed in those taxation proposals to do a number of things. One of those things we are committed to doing is restoring the fairness of the Australian taxation system—which you ran into the ground for 13½ years. I repeat: you ran the taxation affairs of this country for 13 years. You have no moral authority at all, or political authority or political credibility, to come into this parliament and give us lectures about the fairness of the taxation system. If the Australian taxation system is now unfair, it is Labor's fault. If the Australian taxation system discriminates against low and middle income earners, it is the Labor Party's fault. If the Australian taxation system now allows high wealth individuals to avoid their tax responsibility, it is the Labor Party's fault.Unlike the former government, we are not prepared to allow people to evade their tax responsibility. Every single item of that tax report relates to a period, bar three months, that the Labor Party was in office. It has no capacity to lecture us in relation to tax avoidance matters. If the Australian system is now unfair, which it demonstrably is, that is an indictment of your 13 years in government. Unlike the Labor Party, which wants to preserve the present system, we are prepared to reform it. Unlike the Labor Party, which wants to maintain the unfairness, we are prepared to get rid of it. Unlike the Labor Party, which tolerated tax avoidance for 13½ years, we will not. You will see the measure of our resolve in the tax reform plan that is revealed before the next election.15411541Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—I address my question to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen comments by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this morning claiming that `we have a big tax problem' in Australia in relation to trusts? What has been done to address this `big problem' by this government, and what action was taken by previous governments?1541Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I was rather astounded by the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this morning. He never ceases to amaze us with the comments that he makes on his way into parliament. It may well be that I am the only person who ever reads them, but I would commend them to other members. They are a source of great amusement early in the morning.Yesterday the Taxation Office released a report which showed the number of taxpayers in 1995-96 compared to the number of taxpayers in 1991-92. It is important that members understand the dates. The Commissioner of Taxation was reporting the number of taxpayers in the 1995-96 financial year. Members will remember that this government was elected in March 1996. These numbers showed that, whereas in 1991-92 there were approximately 300,000 trusts in Australia, in 1995-96 the number had grown to 398,000 trusts in Australia—an increase of 32.5 per cent between 1991-92 and 1995-96. Who was in government between 1991-92 and 1995-96? Who was the then Minister for Finance in the government?The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot resist what he thinks is an opportunity when he sees one. He walked in to the doorstop this morning and, with all the solemnity that he could muster, said, `We have got a big tax problem.' He put out a media release which had these words: `We have got a big tax problem.' As I said, one of the advantages of actually reading what he says is that you can remember things. You can remember Gareth Evans, on the Nine Sunday program on 17 August 1997, saying this:Those who say that the tax system is broke are really being quite a bit absurdly breathless.We have a big tax problem. In 1997:Those who say that the tax system is broke are really being . . . a bit absurdly breathless.Gareth Evans at the National Press Club said:Tax reform is a second or third order public policy economic issue.Their whole case for the last 18 months has been this: there is no need to reform the Australian tax system because it ain't broke. This morning: `We've got a big tax problem.' We know there is a big tax problem in this country and we know who created it between 1991-92 and 1995-96. We know that. That is why we want to fix it. That is why, for example, this government passed legislation on Monday night clamping down on the trading and trust losses. This is why this government passed legislation addressing tax avoidance by the misuse of charitable trusts. This is why this government announced measures to deal with franking credit trading through discretionary trusts. This is why this government introduced the measures to deal with R&D syndicates.When I became the Treasurer and I had a report from the tax office on the level of deductions that were being claimed under R&D syndicates, I was moved immediately to announce that we would be closing them down. One of the reports I had was that a company—this is a confidential report—with a gross turnover in 1996 of $930 million paid $14,000 in tax. The group first entered into R&D syndication in 1993, generating $39.2 million tax losses between 1993 and 1996. Who was in government between 1993 and 1996? Who was the finance minister? Who was the government that closed down R&D syndicates? And who is the opposition that wants to reopen them again?The member for Hotham runs around after Senator Parer and trusts and he has promised on behalf of the Labor Party to reintroduce R&D syndicates. That is a Labor Party policy. And you have a weak Leader of the Opposition who cannot control his frontbench. He cannot control the member for Hotham. The member for Hotham, as anybody in the Melbourne business community knows, is running around the Melbourne business community offering tax breaks to whomever he wants as a chosen friend, and the Leader of the Opposition does nothing about it. We have a tax problem in this country and it was created by Labor. But we have a government in this country which is determined to fix it and an opposition which stands against tax reform, and we are not going to take any lectures from the authors of the R&D syndicates on tax.15421542Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—We solemnly promise not to run around saying what the Treasurer has been running around saying in the Melbourne business community lately.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition have a question, or are you going to resume your seat?PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I am going to ask a question, Mr Speaker. You allow plenty of abuse on that side of the House. My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware of the recent decision in the case of Murton and Lemmon Investments in which the employment of an employee of a small business was terminated for taking sick leave to which he was entitled? Do you realise that in this case the IRC found the dismissal to have been `harsh, unjust and unreasonable' and that the employee has not received the fair go all-round which you promised? How can you justify stripping future employees of their right to protection against dismissal which independent tribunals find harsh and unfair while you continue to protect Senator Parer's job when every independent analyst has concluded he should be sacked?1542Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am not aware of that particular decision, but I will have a read of that decision, and if there is anything useful that I can add to the answer I will. I take this opportunity—across the confected and phoney outrage of the Leader of the Opposition, the man who now pretends that he is interested in the welfare of the less fortunate in the community but who drove unemployment to 11.2 per cent when he was in charge in employment in Australia—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Can you take this ranting opportunity without being completely irrelevant?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will raise a point of order and not engage in dialogue across the chamber.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. This is completely irrelevant to the question he was asked. They get enough of a rage; they ought to be held up at least on our specifics.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I had read a particular case. I went immediately to that point and I choose to add something else to the answer, and if you do not like it that is your bad luck. You do not like being reminded of your lousy record for the downtrodden and the battlers when you were part of the government. That is your problem. The problem with you lot in the Labor Party is that when you had a chance to help the battler you ignored it. You discovered the battlers in opposition.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the House will remain silent before I call the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I know that he is more than usually hysterical today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Do you have a point of order?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He is on auto-jibber. I raise the question of relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Raise the point of order; do not engage in debate.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The point of order is this: his answer to the question is completely irrelevant to the question that was asked. He might have had his first sentence in order, but the rest of it is not. He had a specific question directed to him and he is way off the mark.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will take note of the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition. ZD4Mr HOWARD—I wonder which political leader in Australia used an autocue at his national conference. It was not the leader of my party. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the law that we have passed in relation to unfair dismissal in no way affects the right of people who are the victims of discriminatory conduct. That discriminatory conduct is well defined under the legislation.I say again to the Leader of the Opposition: what you have done in another place today is to destroy the job prospects of 50,000 Australians. What you have done in another place today is to strike another blow against the interests of small business in Australia. What you have done in another place today is to remind the Australian people that when the ACTU snaps its fingers Kim Beazley comes running. What you have done in another place today is to remind us that your defence of the Maritime Union of Australia is no one-off aberration; it is part of a long pattern of conduct. You in government ignored the battlers, in opposition you try to rediscover them, and you demonstrate all the time that when push comes to shove you are the handmaidens and the lackeys of the trade union movement of Australia.15431543Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. Minister, what is the government doing to fix the mess it inherited from the previous Labor government with respect to the JORN project, located in my electorate? Minister, will Australia eventually have an operational radar network able to provide surveillance of Australia's northern approaches?1543Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BISHOPSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—I thank the member for the Northern Territory for his question, because the operative word is `mess'—and certainly we were left with a mess from the previous Labor government. To put it very firmly, the report that came out from the Public Accounts Committee yesterday showed that the awarding of the contract in the first place to Telstra was, indeed, the responsibility of the Labor Party government.There is plenty of evidence now on the record that the original recommendation was to give it to AWA and General Electric as the preferred contractor for Defence, but it was overridden and, indeed, the contract was awarded to Telstra—a billion dollar contract with a company with absolutely no experience in the area.Furthermore, Telstra was able to give a government funded guarantee about overruns, whereas AWA, as a properly prudent company, wanted to limit that to $50 million. You could hardly say that was a fair competition. Nonetheless, the mess that resulted from that only became worse when the former Labor government changed the benchmarks for the payment of money. Eighty per cent of the money was then paid for 20 per cent of the work, and that is an absolute government scandal by the Labor Party.Further, it meant that we got so far behind in the performance of the contract that the Labor government allowed a feud to exist between Telstra and GEC-Marconi for two years without intervening at all. The net result is that we acted when it was brought to our attention on 24 May 1996 by Mr Blount, who spoke to the secretary to the department and said they wanted out of the contract.From that point on we have worked assiduously to put in place a new manager of the contract, RLM Management Pty Ltd, which is a joint venture of Lockheed Martin—which has since taken over GE, the company which was the original partner with AWA—and Tenix. I might point out that, in this report tabled yesterday, apparently they failed to pick up that Transfield Defence Systems changed its name at the end of last year. It is now Tenix, not Transfield.I might say further that we have worked so that we can be assured in this country that we will see the proper performance of this contract, we will see the capability acquired, and we will see proper management of the contract. The buck for the mess that was left rests squarely with that Labor Party government.15431543Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of comments today by Dr John Yu, the 1996 Australian of the Year and former head of the Westmead Children's Hospital in Sydney? Is he aware that Dr Yu said:I'm not sure how well briefed the Prime Minister is. . . I'm certainly disappointed that Dr Wooldridge doesn't have a better understanding of what's happening . . . Is he also aware that Dr Yu said:. . . there really is a crisis in the public health system . . . we're faced with the possibility of . . . denial of treatment for things many of us would believe were the right of any Australian.Prime Minister, given that you completely ignored the Premiers when they told you that public hospitals are in crisis, will you now also ignore the Australian of the Year, Dr Yu, who says, `Public hospitals deserve a better deal'? Prime Minister, just when will you swallow your pride and recognise there is a problem and you need to fix it, and that you are responsible for it?1544Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—That is another example of the Labor Party, on this occasion, asserting one thing in government and asserting and doing the complete opposite in opposition. When the member for Fremantle was the minister for health in the Labor government she argued, as late as less than 12 months before the 1996 election, that what was happening with public hospitals in Australia was that the federal government was putting more money in—XS4LAWRENCEDr Lawrence—It was then.ZD4Mr HOWARD—And the state governments were shifting the money away from hospitals into other areas of expenditure.XS4LAWRENCEDr Lawrence—What are you doing now?ZD4Mr HOWARD—Much as the member for Fremantle may now be embarrassed and she may call out and she will say it is in another context, that in reality is what the member for Fremantle argued.Mr Beazley interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition gives me the opportunity to say again that at the Premiers Conference last Friday we made an extremely reasonable and fair offer to the states. That involved a 15 per cent real increase over a period of five years. The general revenue funds going to the states in an era of zero inflation—I repeat: in an era of zero inflation—rose by 4.8 per cent in real terms. Of the 40 to 41 per cent of the revenue that the states will get from the Commonwealth in 1998-99, it will rise by three per cent in real terms, whereas the states, from their own sources, will increase their revenue by 1.9 per cent. In other words, on any criterion, on any basis and on any judgment, the Commonwealth has made a fair provision to the states.The states have primary responsibility for public hospitals. The states are ready, whenever something positive happens in their area of administration, to claim total credit. When something negative happens, the mantra—particularly of the New South Wales government led by Mr Carr and Dr Refshauge, his very ill-informed health minister—is to say that it is the fault of the federal government. The states have primary responsibility for health care. We have made decent provision.Any suggestion by the states that we have not made them a fair offer is wrong, and any attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to contradict blatantly what he asserted and supported when he was in government just demonstrates once again that Labor's doctrine is: you say and do one thing in government; you say and do the complete opposite when you are in opposition.15441544Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Can the minister inform the House of the government's action in protecting our children against measles? Minister, what support has been forthcoming from professional and community groups for this coalition government's Immunise Australia program?1544Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for Gilmore for her interest in this area. There is some good news on this. This morning I met with 23 community and professional groups who are supporting the government's Immunise Australia plan. They signed an Australian childhood immunisation charter which gives us the opportunity to try to increase childhood immunisation to levels of 95 per cent by the year 2000. These organisations are very diverse, ranging from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia to the Australian Nursing Federation to the Deafness Forum, and they have all put in action plans as to what they can do to help fix Australia's very low rate of childhood immunisation.Not all the news is bad. Data from the Australian childhood immunisation register suggests that kids under 15 months of age now have a 76 per cent rate of completed immunisation, which is still far too low but a lot better than it was 12 months previously. Also the data that has come out of the advertising campaign that we ran with baby Amy shows that parents now put immunisation as a much higher health priority, and in fact 99 per cent of parents support immunisation while 91 per cent strongly support it. These figures are very much up from when the survey was last done.On the issue of measles, measles is actually a serious illness caused by a virus. It is contracted by coughing or sneezing and the incubation period is about 14 days. One in every 15 children who gets measles will get pneumonia. One in every 2,000 children who gets measles will get inflammation of the brain or encephalitis, and of those, of every 10 who gets that, one will die and four will have permanent brain damage. One in 25,000 children get a disease called SPE, sclerosing pan-encephalitis, which is invariably fatal.We estimate that there are 360,000 children in Australia who are not properly immunised against measles. If we did nothing, by the end of the year that would be 400,000 children who were not properly immunised against measles. Measles epidemics come with a regular periodicity and we are expecting an epidemic in the next 18 months. New Zealand had one last year. The only way we can stop this is to try to vaccinate all of Australia's primary school children. This is a task that has never been undertaken before in this country. So between 20 July and 23 August this year we intend to offer every school child in Australia at primary school a dose of measles vaccine. We are doing this in cooperation with the states and the state education departments and state health departments. It will cost us just under $31 million but, if we can prevent an epidemic of measles that we know is coming, I think it is very good expenditure for the money.15451545Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Family Services. Is the minister aware that a 50-year-old schoolteacher whose wife is about to be admitted to a nursing home with Alzheimer's and whose net weekly salary is $400 has been advised by your department that he must pay nursing home fees for his wife in the nursing home of $283 a week? He also has car loan payments of $80 a week, leaving him a net weekly income of $37. Is the minister also aware that the nursing home providers are advising him that the way around the fees is to legally separate from his wife? Minister, isn't it enough that this man has the tragedy of his wife's illness without being confronted with a choice between bankruptcy and divorce by your government's cruel extra nursing home fees?1545Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I said at the outset of the discussion about matters of aged care that where there are individual cases I will always deal with those, and I will with that one if you bring it to me. No-one in this place would want someone to suffer in any way that is adverse. There are hardship provisions, and I do not believe bringing into this place someone's individual circumstances advances the debate at all.Furthermore, this question continues a pattern from the opposition to misrepresent policy, to heap on confusion for the Australian public and to pursue a political aim. You have done nothing for the aged in this country. The reason we have a problem is that you ignored it. We will fix it. We will fix it fairly and with equity for the needs of the aged people of this country.15451545Hicks, Noel, MPMr HICKSAH4RiverinaNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Can the minister confirm that the Commonwealth has agreed to inject an additional $750 million into the hospital sector over five years for the care of veterans and war widows? What effect will this have on veterans' access to hospital services?1546Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—I thank the member for Riverina for his question. He, like other members of the government, is certainly committed to the welfare of our veteran community in our country. Even in this 80th anniversary year of the repatriation system in Australia, the government remains committed to the responsibility for the delivery of health care for our veteran community. We also remain committed to the improvement of the way we deliver that health care to our veterans.I can confirm that the government intends to move to pay the states fully for the treatment of entitled veterans and war widows. Under this new direct purchasing arrangement, the government expects to inject an additional $150 million annually and $750 million over the next five years into the public health sector. This means that states will no longer subsidise the cost of veterans' treatment and the states will then be able to direct the current subsidy that they are paying for veterans into the treatment within their public patient sector. Veterans and war widows will continue to be admitted as private patients with a choice of medical practitioner, and all the costs will be met by my department. Veterans' and war widows' care will continue at the same level under these new arrangements and with the same range of services being available, but the new arrangements will give veterans more options for their treatment and care.The payment arrangements for the states will be negotiated on a bilateral basis, and that is important because of the history of the former repatriation hospitals. The way they were divested to the states or the private sector is an important consideration in the way we negotiate the arrangements between the states.The bottom line is that, while the states have money freed up to treat public patients, the Commonwealth injection of $750 million over the next five years means that veterans will have more choice in their health treatment and the best possible access to hospital services. The additional $750 million being injected into the state and territory health systems for veterans' health care over the next five years means that this is another very good reason why the states should accept the health care offer that was made to them last week.15461546Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. It flows from an answer you gave earlier, Prime Minister, in which you quoted only from paragraph 1 of today's Pan Australian document to the Stock Exchange. Doesn't paragraph 3 of the letter confirm that, whilst the transfer was registered in May 1996, the other 318,000 shares in QCMM (ESP) continued to remain with that company, uninterrupted? According to paragraph 5 of the letter, as of today's date that transfer has not been lodged. Prime Minister, I ask again: why have you excluded this information from your answers in your pathetic defence of Senator Parer?1546Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The comment that I made yesterday related to a question you asked me about QCMM (ESP), and everything I said about it was right.15461546Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you inform the House what action the government is taking to foster partnerships between governments, business and non-profit groups to promote the cultural, social and economic wellbeing of the Australian community?1546Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am very pleased to inform the House that I had the opportunity—and I think it is the first occasion that this has occurred in Australia—to convene a gathering this morning of representatives of various welfare organisations, a group of companies and other organisations concerned with philanthropic activity in the Australian community. The purpose of this meeting was to see whether it might be possible to develop more effective partnerships between the government, the community sector and the corporate sector so that some of the goals that we as Australians have in common as we go towards the 21st century might be more effectively realised.I am very pleased to say that at the meeting this morning there were people of esteem in their respective sectors, such as Margaret Bell, who, as many members will know, is the Chief Executive of Volunteering Australia, Ms Elizabeth Cham of Philanthropy Australia, Mr Everald Compton of Everald Compton Pty Ltd, Mr John Fairfax AM of Marinya Media Pty Ltd, Mr Rob Ferguson of Bankers Trust Australia, Mr David Gonski of Wentworth Associates and Mr Frank Lowy of Westfield Holdings. All of these people were brought together in response to a request from the government that these three sectors might explore more effective ways, in partnership, of delivering not only better outcomes for the community in relation to the welfare sector but also other objectives that I think we hold in common as a community.I told the gathering this morning that the government was taking this initiative now because it believed that in the 1990s there was a better balance in the Australian community towards the respective roles of the government, the corporate sector and the community sector. In the 1960s and 1970s there was a view that the government, by excessive intervention, could solve every problem. In the 1980s that was rejected, perhaps in an overreaction by what has been loosely called `the me generation', but in the 1990s I think there is a more mature balance in the Australian community, and there is a recognition of a bedrock of a role of the government to provide an effective safety net in the social security system. It is one of the proud boasts of my government that we have maintained the integrity of the social security safety net in full, and it will remain an objective of my government to maintain the social security safety net in full. The time, therefore, has come for a more practical partnership between the government, the philanthropic sector and the community sector.One thing that I believe has not been fully recognised in the context of this pursuit is the contribution that is made by many Australian companies to the welfare sector and to philanthropy generally. One of the goals of this round table—and I know one of the objectives of those contributing to it—is to recog nise and, through that greater recognition, to give further encouragement to those in the corporate sector who do not contribute.I regard this as a very important exercise—one that has received very enthusiastic support from those who are participating and one which recognises that if we are to achieve the goals we want for Australia as we go into the 21st century we need a shared endeavour between the government, the corporate sector, individuals and the welfare sector. The government cannot do it all, the welfare sector cannot do it all and the corporate sector cannot do it all, but in an effective shared endeavour I believe those goals can be realised.Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker154715471547Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether your attention been drawn to page 998 of yesterday's Hansard . You may recall that I rose on a point of order that I had not heard the Leader of the House seek indulgence or take a point of order. You ruled that he had indeed taken a point of order. After carefully perusing the Hansard record, that does not appear to be the case. Could you reflect on the matter or, alternatively, is the Leader of the House now given an aside as a new form under the standing orders?1547Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Like a number of other members of this House, occasionally licence is granted. It appears that yesterday I gave the Leader of the House the licence that today I gave the Leader of the Opposition.Auditor-General's Reports154710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 34 for 1997-98 entitled Performance audit—New Submarine Project—Department of Defence .Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That:(1) this House authorises the publication of the Auditor-General's audit report No. 34 of 1997-98; and (2) the report be printed.Documents15481548Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—One paper is tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the paper will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—Report, May 1997—A right to protest—Government response, November 1997.Matters of Public Importance1548154810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans), proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The urgent need for a crack-down on the growing use of discretionary trusts for tax avoidance purposes.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—15:16:001548Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—The Parer affair has thrown into very stark relief this government's abdication of responsibility and its total default on the whole question of the taxation of discretionary trusts, and family trusts in particular.As I said in my doorstop this morning, which was misquoted and incompletely quoted by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) in question time, we do now have a tax problem with these trusts. As we now know from the statistics issued yesterday by the Australian Taxation Office, we have a problem that is emerging on a spectacular scale. We have a government which, on all the evidence so far, is spectacularly failing to deal with that problem and which has no intention whatsoever of dealing with it in the future.We know all about this government's enthusiasm for taxing lower and middle income Australian families with a brand-new 10 per cent GST on virtually every product and service that Australian families purchase. Not only will it be on their food, clothing, hamburgers, haircuts, football tickets and car services, not only on their medical and dental bills, which have not been excluded by this government, not only on their school and university fees, which have not been exempted in anything the government has said so far, not only on their electricity and gas bills, not only on their water rates, not only on their rent even, but also, certainly on New Zealand experience, even on their council rates, because council rates stand for the services that are delivered by the local council and they are GST-able. And those have not been excluded by this present government.We know all about this government's enthusiasm for doing that. What we do not know is what it proposes to do, if indeed it proposes to do anything at all, about taxing trusts because it steadfastly refuses to tell us. We know, however, that there is very strong pressure in the coalition ranks to do absolutely nothing at all about taxing trusts. There are 19 frontbenchers with declared interests in family trusts. We know now, in the case of Senator Parer, of the gold mine, the coal mine, the platinum mine and every other kind of mine of assets and income streams he possesses through that trust. What is still to be revealed is how many other ministers have similar interests, and how many conflicts of interest there are.We know now, because they stood up lugubriously in the Senate the other day, that 19 coalition senators, more than half their numbers, have interests in family trusts. We have no idea yet how many House of Representatives members have family trusts, but it is a fair bet that the proportion is pretty much the same in the coalition ranks. We know that the pips are squeaking in the coalition party room on this issue. We know there is massive resistance to change on the part of all those who stand to be losers or who think they might be losers, if for the first time they have to pay the fair share of the tax they should be paying on the income they earn.So far, we know that, as a result of that party room pressure and of other pressures from high wealth individuals and coalition supporters in the community who lobbied hard on this issue, the government has already failed one crucial test of its commitment to doing something about cracking down on the misuse of family trusts. I am referring to the exemption in the trust loss legislation that passed the Senate this week which dramatically diluted the effect of the crackdown on trafficking in family trust losses set in train by Ralph Willis as Treasurer in 1995. I am talking about the new expanded Costello exemption which enables a wide range of family members who are not already beneficiaries of a family trust to inject other taxable income into that trust, to set it off against trust losses and to collect it back tax free, at a probable aggregate cost to the rest of the taxpayers in this community of some tens of millions of dollars a year in tax forgone.What this parliament and this community is entitled to know is whether the government's tax package will crack down on tax avoidance through the use of discretionary trusts—and family trusts in particular—or whether this government will give in again to those coalition frontbench and backbench interests and supporters' interests that are all clamouring to be protected now. We asked that question today. Of course we did not get an answer.Above all, we want the government to answer a question which is on a great many lips as a result of the Parer revelations and will be on the lips of a great many more people as a result of the information now available for the first time from the Taxation Office about the scale and explosive growth of discretionary tax usage in recent years. That question is this: where is the fairness in imposing a new 10 per cent plus tax on virtually every product or service that ordinary low and middle income families have to buy when, at the same time, high income, high wealth individuals and families like Senator Parer's can, through the use of family trusts, avoid paying their fair share of tax? That was another question asked specifically today and absolutely unanswered.If the government recognises that there is a fairness issue, it should come out and say so. If it stands mute, it stands condemned. The government should make it clear that it does intend to crack down on tax avoidance through the use of trusts. Even if at this stage it does not want to tell us or it cannot tell us precisely how it is going to do that, at the very least the Treasurer should put the product of the review of the taxation of trusts that he commissioned from the Treasury and the tax office a year or so ago into the public domain for discussion and analysis. He announced last budget night that that would be publicly released, he confirmed again in this place in October last year that it would shortly be released but three weeks ago he announced, without any ceremony or credible explanation, that it would not now be released at all.As a result of the release of yesterday's taxation statistics by the Australian Taxation Office, we now know much more than we ever did before—certainly much more than we knew when we were in government—about the explosive growth in the use of trusts in recent years. Yesterday, we received for the first time the 1995-96 figures. For the first time, those figures have become available. We know now, as a result of those figures, that the number of trusts rose by 32½ per cent in the four years to 1995-96—five times the growth in the number of individual taxpayers, which was just 6.1 per cent.We did not know then, but we know now, that 35,000 new trusts were formed in 1995-96—the latest year for which statistics are available—and that that exceeded the number of new companies formed that year. We know now that the rise to a total of just on 400,000 trusts in 1995-96 represents an increase of 20 per cent over the previous two years, meaning that, if this growth continues, trusts will very soon rival companies and partnerships as vehicles for doing business. The question to be asked is why trusts are growing so rapidly, as they are obviously now continuing to do out there in the community. The answer, of course, is because of their attractiveness, above all else, as a tax minimisation or avoidance vehicle.I acknowledge that for very many decades—for centuries, in fact—trusts have been performing important functions in our society which have not necessarily been linked only with tax avoidance. A trust is a very appropriate way for people to have testamentary bequests administered in certain circumstances. They are perfectly appropriate ways of making bequests to worthy causes. Many scholarships for educational purposes operate on that basis. Many charitable trusts operate in Australia, providing assistance to various people and worthy causes. Further categories of benevolent trusts include scientific research trusts, medical research trusts and so on. There is absolutely no doubt that it is perfectly appropriate for those bodies to continue to enjoy tax relief.But there are many other areas apart from the traditional ones where trusts are now increasingly commonplace, especially for investment and for business trading purposes. When advisers are asked to explain—and I have been asking them in recent days—why trusts are so popular, especially when they are relatively costly to put together and to run, the answer is always given that a trust is a very flexible way of doing business. Whilst this is true in terms of introducing new capital and members into a business and true in terms of getting money out of again, it also reflects the fact that trusts are flexible, above all else, because they are so damn good for tax avoidance.The first clue to this comes when you look at the higher costs of operating trusts, as compared with other forms of business organisation. A tax report was released three weeks ago into taxpayer costs of compliance, which showed that it was very much more expensive—in fact, something like twice as expensive—for small businesses to operate through trusts rather than as sole traders, corporations or partnerships—the other more traditional ways of doing things. There are also quite significant costs involved in establishing trusts at the outset—some of which were reported today—and particularly so when you are using trusts as a vehicle to employ employees and distribute income in that way. It is pretty obvious that there has to be some very good reason for incurring additional costs in this way of this order of magnitude, and it is not an unreasonable suggestion at all that it is the tax minimisation incentive that makes the difference.This becomes very much clearer when you understand the way in which discretionary trusts are used to enable tax avoidance to occur. How are they used? First of all, through income splitting. That provides tax benefits because of the structure of individual tax rates. As we know, each individual adult taxpayer is allowed to earn $5,400 before any income tax is payable. Indeed, if the low income rebate is taken into account, that then rises to $6,100 per year. So a wealthy taxpayer, like Senator Parer, is able to split income to a spouse and, say, seven sons and daughters in this way: through the trust, if none of them had other taxable income, he could distribute $48,800 per year to his family members without any tax payable at all, whereas if he had to pay it himself at his own marginal rate he would be up for something over $23,000 extra in tax.That is just the advantage of using the tax-free threshold. Since there is a progressive rate structure, the advantages of fully utilising income splitting continue to grow. Where the principal taxpayer earns over $50,000, he is paying tax at the top marginal rate. If you have a trust, how do you avoid that fate besetting you? Take again Senator Parer's trust, and assume again that his wife and sons and daughters are not earning other taxable income. If you divide up $200,000 worth of annual income into eight chunks of $25,000 for each beneficiary, the tax payable under that scenario would be $4,897 per beneficiary—a total of $39,176 for all of them—whereas if it had been taken directly by Senator Parer he would have had to pay the income tax plus the Medicare levy, 48½ per cent, on that $200,000, that is, $97,000 in tax. So the benefit in that little routine scenario of income splitting is a whopping $57,824 worth of tax benefit for one year alone. So income splitting is a reasonably powerful way to avoid tax.Employing the beneficiaries is another reasonably powerful way of doing it. Divi dend streaming—the practice whereby companies stream the payment of their dividends to their shareholders in a way that benefits that group of shareholders who gain most from the use of the franking credits and away from those shareholders who do not—is another classic way in which discretionary trusts are used for this purpose. Tax exempt bodies like charities and sporting clubs do not, of course, need imputation credits, and people in a loss-making position for a similar year, ditto. What you do is stream, arrange, organise and manipulate your dividend flow in order to take maximum advantage of that.A further source of concern with respect to the use of trusts for tax avoidance has been in relation to trafficking in trust losses. Three years after we introduced the legislation, yes, the government has finally done something about implementing it, but with a whacking great exemption in the middle of it—to which I have already referred—which makes it clear that whole classes of family beneficiaries, if they manipulate their affairs with sufficient enthusiasm and precision, can avoid the operation of that particular measure.Then, of course, there is the use of trusts, as distinct from companies, as a conduit for many types of other income to be paid tax free to beneficiaries for types of income which would face tax if earned by companies when distributed to shareholders. Examples here include grandfathered or otherwise tax exempt capital gains and exempt foreign dividends.The Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Carmody, was so concerned about this whole situation of discretionary trusts and, in particular, about the misuse of trusts for tax avoidance purpose in that context that I have just mentioned that he took the unprecedented step in his speech to CEDA on 10 September last year of calling for reform of this whole issue. In the context of that speech he did make the point:. . . our examination does reveal that during the 1995 income year alone the total amount of tax free distributions from reserves to beneficiaries of the trusts was around $50m. In one case, an amount of $19m was distributed to a wealthy individual. In another case, a wealthy individual received distribu tions of $5m per annum over at least three years from trusts.I asked the Treasurer whether that view of the tax commissioner represented his own. He ducked and weaved. He was a bit inclined to suggest that it might have been last year. I am not at all sure now that he wants to own up to that because I am not at all sure that this government is even remotely committed to doing something about this issue.As to the question of what should be done: yes, there are a number of individual, piecemeal measures that can and should be taken, like the trafficking in trust loss legislation that we strongly supported and, in fact, introduced. The speech by Mr Carmody indicated that perhaps the preferred way of dealing with it so far as he was concerned was to simply treat companies and trusts the same way for tax purposes, equalising in the process the competitive environment between them.This is a complex issue and I do not purport to state the answer now in any concluded way for the opposition. What I do say is that it is the government's responsibility to address these issues. It is not clear at the moment that it proposes to do anything at all about them. It simply cannot be taken seriously in its stated desire to do something about this problem and increasing public understanding of the issues if it refuses to produce this document. Those opposite are hiding their approach to this. They are simply not serious. They deserve to be condemned. (Time expired)15:32:001551Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—In the closing remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer, the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans), he came up with the fascinating comment—that the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Michael Carmody, has suggested that trusts be taxed in the same way as companies. This is not a new idea. You can go back to the 1985 draft white paper for the famous taxation summit. There, at the end of chapter 5, it made a suggestion that companies could be treated the same as trusts in terms of taxation. If you go to the 1991 report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, chaired by the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin), you will again see a recommendation that trusts be treated in taxation the same way as companies are. So the previous government, in 1985 and 1991, had reports which recommended doing something about trusts—and they didn't.The shadow Treasurer is suggesting that this is a new problem. In actual fact, the Australian Taxation Office data which was released yesterday showed that, while the number of taxpayers grew from 8.2 per cent from 1991-92 to 1995-96, the number of trusts rose 32½ per cent, to nearly 400,000. Almost all that occurred in the period of the previous Labor government, with a coalition government for only the last four months. We get an indication of the thinking of the shadow Treasurer from the Sunday program of August last year when he was talking about the states raising property taxes and inheritance taxes—the old death duties. He said:Well the point makes itself I think. That tax increases, new taxes, are always . . . very unpopular. I think the only tax that ever runs the risk of any popularity is a VVWP taxLaurie Oakes asked:What's that?He said:Very, very wealthy person's tax. Apart from that, forget it. Everybody hates the thought of any form of tax increase or any form of new tax.So we have Labor's strategy in relation to tax. They will not address the problems we have: differential rates of wholesale sales tax that make no sense, whereby you can pay tax on toothpaste but not on tooth brushes; you pay tax on biscuits but not on caviar; you pay tax on engagement rings but not on wedding rings. They do not want to address the issue that sees average weekly earnings this year moving people into paying 43c in the dollar on the marginal income. They do not want to address the issue that with the interaction of the social security and tax systems people are on effective marginal rates of taxation of over 100 per cent and that people who are receiving social security benefits actually have a very significant disincentive to go out and get a job and earn some money because they are going to lose more in government benefits than they could ever pick up.It is the same strategy we saw from the government before the 1996 election when, suddenly, a week before the election they announced how they were going to fund their promises; and that was by finding $800 million from 100 high-wealth individuals. The current government has chased that up. We have given $19 million to the tax office to investigate the high-wealth individuals but those investigations are not yet complete.So Labor was advised of problems with trusts as long ago as 1985. They did nothing about it. The 1985 draft white paper raised the whole issue of trusts and the 1991 Follow the yellow brick road report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration both raised the issues of trusts. That was not picked up in the 13 years of the Labor government. This was in 1985 and 1991. We are now in 1998 and, still, Labor in their 13 years never did anything to address the problem of tax avoidance through trusts. It has only been this government which has addressed tax avoidance through trusts. For example, we have passed legislation regarding trust losses. That is the legislation that was passed in the Senate.ZJ4WILLISMr Willis—That was our legislation.TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—I faintly heard the member for Gellibrand, the former Treasurer, speak. In the 1995 budget he did introduce a bill which dealt with trust losses but it was never passed. That was in May 1995 and they did not get it through the parliament. The government has passed legislation relating to trust losses and relating to tax avoidance by the misuse of charitable trusts. We have also announced measures to deal with franking credit trading through discretionary trusts. We have had a number of other measures to address tax avoidance. The abolition of R&D syndicates was opposed by Labor. There was the abolition of using infrastructure borrowings as a tax minimisation strategy. The tax minimisation of income earned by companies offshore—we have addressed that. There were specific anti-avoidance provisions for interest withholding tax, the tightening of thin capi talisation rules to address avoidance of tax through high levels of debt and also measures to address tax avoidance through tax exempt entities distributing funds offshore.The Treasurer (Mr Costello) announced in the 1997 budget that he would be reviewing the issue of trusts and their use as a tax minimisation vehicle. Since then we have had an announcement that the government will be reviewing the whole of the Australian tax system. So it is appropriate that trusts and their taxation treatment be considered in a fair way so that by addressing it in the context of broader taxation reform, you can actually compare it with how business is taxed and also make sure that you do not have some vehicles which do allow minimisation by high-wealth individuals to reduce tax.That is one of the features of the tax system that we inherited from the Labor Party. We inherited a tax system from the Labor Party where the burden falls on the average weekly earners and people who are able to arrange their tax affairs are able to minimise their tax. That is the Labor tax system. What we want now is a policy from Labor in the area of taxation.Just going back to 1985 and the tax summit, it is worth remembering that trusts were specifically addressed in the draft white paper. What was said sounds very familiar:As mentioned earlier, there has been a marked erosion of the company tax base in recent years. One important reason for this has been the use of both public and private (family) trusts in substitution for companies as a mechanism for conducting trading and investment activities.It goes on to say:Tax minimisation has been the most important factor underlying this substitution . . . That was the famous taxation summit in 1985, where the Labor Party was pushing for option C, the 12½ per cent consumption tax. It is interesting to hear the shadow Treasurer railing against a 10 per cent consumption tax. When we read Paul Kelly's The End of Certainty , the story of politics in the 1980s, we find something very interesting. We all know that Keating was a strong advocate of option C, but people might not know that Kim Beazley, Gareth Evans, Susan Ryan and Bob Hawke were the only supporters within cabinet for the consumption tax. So we now have a Leader of the Opposition and a Deputy Leader of the Opposition who were supporting a consumption tax back in 1985.I refer to the 1991 report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. The shadow Treasurer should speak to the member for Cunningham. He knew all about the problem with trusts in 1991. The shadow Treasurer was in cabinet for 13 years. Apparently, this is a new problem. That report went on to say:The principal concern was that the flexibility of discretionary trusts, by allowing streaming of particular types of income to particular beneficiaries, is facilitating the establishment of tax avoidance arrangements which rely on interest income being directed to non-residents.The committee had a number of recommendations. Recommendations 3 to 6 dealt specifically with anti-avoidance measures for trusts. Recommendation 3 says:The Committee recommends that there should be a move towards a system of taxing trusts and corporations in a uniform manner, with tax payable on the trust's net income at the company rate of tax and credit given proportionally to beneficiaries for income tax paid.This was back in 1991. The government's response said:On a broader issue, the Committee recommended a move be made towards taxing trusts as companies in order to achieve greater equity in the tax treatment of different kinds of entities . . . The Committee recognised a number of broad social and economic implications going well beyond interest withholding tax issues would need to be examined before decisions could be reached about altering the existing tax rules. The Government intends to keep this area under review.They had it under review. We have heard from the shadow Treasurer that this is a terrible problem. These problems were known back in 1985 and 1991. The government's response to recommendation 3 states:The Government will continue to monitor developments and introduce adjustments as necessary.Any keen viewer of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister will understand exactly what that is saying. Recommendation 4 dealt with interest streaming through a trust to non- resident beneficiaries. In response, the government said:The Government is not satisfied that the recommendation would be effective in tackling the underlying mischief.Further, it states:The Government also received advice from the Tax Office that vehicles other than trusts could be used in such arrangements but that the current law, in particular the general anti-avoidance provisions, are believed to be effective.Accordingly, the Government does not accept this recommendation.That was the government's response back in 1991. Now we have a situation where Labor is all over the place on taxation. This is Labor's strategy before the 1996 election and it looks like it is their strategy now. They are going to address the area of trusts but they will not address, for example, why people are paying 32 per cent tax on things like televisions and radios and 22 per cent tax on motor vehicles.The differential rate for wholesale sales tax was actually introduced in 1940 by Artie Fadden. It was a temporary measure. It was introduced to address things that were not necessities during World War II. We now have a situation where, if the shadow Treasurer is going to hypothesise a 10 per cent GST, that means that cars, radios, video recorders and televisions are going to be cheaper. These are so-called luxury items. There is not much difference between people on low incomes and higher incomes when deciding whether to buy these items.It is very interesting trawling through some of the comments of the shadow Treasurer on tax going back to October 1996. This is what he said on 3AW:I think, since we are so under-taxed by any relevant international standard, there is a case for having some overall revenue increases.Okay. What do we get the next day? He said:I did not say that there was a case for higher taxes or for increased taxes . . . On 19 May, regarding the broad-based indirect tax, he said:If the business community (and) the welfare community can get together— that is what the government is doing at the moment—come up with some proposal that makes some kind of sense on all these fronts, that genuinely meets the concerns that people had about the equity of a tax on consumption or expenditure, and that meets the needs of the larger economy, then of course we'd have a look at any such proposal.Two days later he reversed his decision, and said:Let me make it absolutely clear that . . . the GST is not on our agenda.This is the man who supported a consumption tax in 1985. He supported a consumption tax in 1997, but only for two days, and then he backed down. On 13 May he said that there was a problem with the tax system. He said:In particular the fact that the services part of the economy is not pulling its weight . . . What is the shadow Treasurer's proposal? What does he propose? He mentioned haircuts and council rates, saying that they are not pulling their weight. What we need to hear from the Labor Party is a policy. It is now over two years since the last election and we are still waiting for a policy from the Labor Party. What is the Labor Party's policy on tax? Does anyone know?On 17 August 1997, regarding the issue of vertical fiscal imbalance, the shadow Treasurer said that the states could redress vertical fiscal imbalance in a number of ways `not only through service taxes, but through the old chestnut of property or inheritance taxes.' What he was talking about was getting the states to reintroduce death duties.The Labor Party are not showing any leadership in the area of tax reform. There is only one group in this country that is looking at tax reform and that is the Liberal and National parties. The Australian Labor Party are telling us that the current tax system is fine; there are no problems with the current tax system. They have no problems with the wholesale sales tax levels, which fall at levels of 41 per cent on wine and 22 per cent on cars, and which exempt things like antiques, fine art and caviar. Can you explain that to me?On 25 August, regarding death duties, he came back to the parliament and said:I did not say that the states should impose death duties, service taxes, income tax surcharges or higher payroll taxes—just that they can do any of these things if they choose.So in the area of taxation we have a Labor Party who are opposed to reforming the tax system. They say the current tax system is okay. Good luck to them. But we are saying there are problems with the differential rate of wholesale sales tax. People are paying a lot of hidden taxes. There are poverty traps which are keeping people on low incomes from working. They are keeping people from having an incentive. (Time expired)15:47:001555Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLISZJ4GellibrandALP00—Failure by this government to take concerted action against tax avoidance through trusts is a scandalous dereliction of duty. This government came into office knowing what the situation was in terms of tax avoidance through trusts by high-wealth individuals in particular, but they have done little about it. That lack of concern is shown by the fact that in the debate today we do not even get the Treasurer (Mr Costello) turning up to have a discussion.What has this government actually done? What have they done in the light of coming into office knowing the situation? The first thing they did was to withdraw our legislation to prevent tax avoidance by trading in tax losses. They withdrew our legislation. We announced legislation against this in the 1995 budget; you took it out, you mucked around with it for a year or two, you finally came back with some other legislation, which was weaker, and you just got that through the Senate two days ago. So 2¼ years after they came into office they finally passed a bill with something like treatment of an issue raised by us in the May 1995 budget. It took them virtually three years to do anything. What a hopeless government this is. What a hopeless approach to this important issue of tax avoidance through trusts. They will not even deal with an issue which the previous government had addressed properly.They have taken action against thin capitalisation for both companies and trusts. They have also taken action against the misuse of charitable trusts for tax avoidance purposes. Both of those issues were matters that we identified in the election campaign as matters that ought to be addressed and as matters that we would take action against. They have finally taken action against those—okay, I give you that. That is one small bit. But it was our announcement in the first place.They have continued to survey high-wealth individuals, I understand, through the Taxation Office. They announced in the 1997 budget that there was a discussion paper on the taxation of trusts and that later this year—that is, later in 1997—that tax paper would set out the issues and possible ways of approaching them. Of course, no such paper ever turned up in 1997 and it still has not turned up well into 1998. Now we are told it is not going to turn up because it is going to be rolled into the tax reform package, which will not come out until two months after the budget. So we are talking about the middle of this year before we see any statement by this government at all about what it is going to do about trusts—and this is something like 2¼ years or more after they came into office.What this means is that minimal effective action will have been taken in this government's term of office in the face of rampant tax avoidance through the use of trusts, which they knew about, particularly in relation to high-wealth individuals. Today's tax statistics draw attention to the fact that, at the level of discretionary trusts, where people can income stream away, there has been big growth.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—It was growing when you were in government.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Boothby has had his turn.ZJ4Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLIS—But the even bigger issue is the fact that, for high-wealth individuals, they have done virtually nothing except address the issues which we identified when we were in government.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—What did you do about it?ZJ4Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLIS—We did not do anything about it when we were in government, except for the trading and tax losses, because we did not have the information until the dying days of the government. We got that information and we made that information public. You have had two years and you have done absolutely nothing about it. You are scandalously derelict in your duty in this aspect.Let me remind the House of what the situation actually was—what the government came in knowing. It knew that there was something of the order of $800 million being avoided by extremely wealthy individuals. What the Taxation Office told me was that many of Australia's wealthiest people were paying very little tax. In the 1983 financial year 80 individuals, representing a significant proportion of individuals at an estimated individual net worth of over $30 million, each returned taxable incomes of $20,000 or less. This enabled some of those individuals to qualify for government assistance. Of the top 200 wealthiest individuals in Australia, only a small proportion were amongst the top 200 individual taxpayers in Australia. They also told me verbally that one group of 11 such individuals, with an average net worth of $250 million each, had average taxable incomes of $30,000 and they paid an average tax of $6,000. That was the information that we were given in January 1996, just before the election. The then opposition knew about that. When it came into office it had full access to the Taxation Office for all of the detail, yet it took no action.Of course, the Taxation Office did not just tell me about that; it also told me how it had come about. They said it was because of the characterisation of income as capital by the use of multiple trust structures to conceal a common controlling mind and that, if the activities of the various trusts and associated companies were viewed as a whole, the profits of the group could be treated as trading income and therefore would be taxable; the creation of artificial losses, revenue as well as capital, to neutralise otherwise taxable profits, particularly through the use of related party transactions; distributions to wealthy individuals and family members being disguised as loans and other benefits which are claimed to be non-taxable; continued use of offshore trusts to hold significant funds which seem to be applied for the benefit of wealthy individuals and their families; and the use of charitable trusts and overseas organisations to disguise benefits provided by family trading trusts to family members. The charitable trust issue has been addressed, but nothing else.The tax office went on to say there are various ways in which this could be addressed. They instanced not only the three measures of the trading losses issue which we had already announced, the charitable trusts and thin capitalisation but also nine other measures. This happened just before the last election, so there was no time for us to take action. The tax office said that it would need time to work this into legislation but that action could be taken so that revenue would be forthcoming in 1996-97 and full revenue would be forthcoming in 1997-98.Here we are, three-quarters of the way through 1997-98, and what has this government done to get that revenue? Absolutely nothing. Instead, it is spending all its time working out how to tax ordinary battlers on their food, clothing, dry cleaning, hair cuts, second-hand cars, cinema tickets, gas bills, light bills, telephone bills and so on, but it is not doing a damn thing about taxing those people who, they have known since they came into office, are rampantly avoiding tax. The government is just sitting there watching this go on and on and is doing virtually nothing about it.That is a scandalous dereliction of duty. That is all it is. This government ought to be ashamed of itself for doing nothing about it in the face of full knowledge and having over two years to do something.ZJ6BARRESIMr Barresi—You were a failed Treasurer. You could have done something about it.ZJ4Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLIS—You sit there representing a government doing nothing. You ought to get under the table, you should be so ashamed of yourself. This is a government which shows by its inaction in this area that it is a government without principle, without concern for equity in this country—a government that is not concerned to introduce an equitable tax system.We have the absurdity of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) saying in question time today that Labor had done nothing in its 13 years in government to improve the tax system. He conveniently forgets what happened when he was Treasurer. What famous tax avoidance scheme occurred? The bottom of the harbour scheme. Mention of that scheme reminds me that the tax office also told me that this issue of tax avoidance through trusts by high-wealth individuals is the biggest issue since bottom of the harbour. Bottom of the harbour was something about which the tax office told the now Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer, time and again, `You must take some action.'In the end there was a telephone book of minutes from the tax commissioner to the then Treasurer, now Prime Minister, pleading with him to take some action in this area. And what did he do? He did absolutely nothing. He sat there, holding this information, doing nothing about it, and it took a Labor government when it came into office to clean up the tax system in this absolutely scandalous area, which, according to the royal commission into the Ship Painters and Dockers, which is where the whole bottom of the harbour scheme came out, had made tax payment by the wealthy people of this country completely optional. That is what the bottom of the harbour scheme was about.The Prime Minister stands here and says that we did nothing to improve the tax system, but one of the first things we did was clean up the unbelievable mess that he left. Now we see those opposite leaving another big mess, refusing to face up to the need to take action in the face of a scandalous avoidance of tax by extremely wealthy people and allowing avoidance of tax through trusts to go on and on whilst they meander around trying to work out ways in which to tax ordinary people on their ordinary expenditure. This is a government without principle. (Time expired)15:57:001557Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—It is amazing to hear the member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) talk with false indignation, as he pounds his chest, about a lack of tax reform. It is amazing that he said in his opening comments that his government introduced this bill in 1995 and yet the current government did not do anything about it until last year and the bill went through last week. Isn't it incredible that we got into government in only 1996—correct me if I am wrong, Ralph—but in 1985 it was your Prime Minister who actually put up this paper, the white paper on the tax reform you wanted to introduce, and you did nothing about it?Why is it that you stand in here speaking with such righteousness about battlers, yet it was those very battlers who rejected your party in the last federal election? They rejected you because 20 per cent of the income of the lowest income earners of this country is spent on indirect taxes—indirect taxes that you introduced through the seven different regimes of wholesale sales tax—not to mention that you did not index bracket creep.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—And you are going to slug them with a GST.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Quite frankly, they already have it. What about that famous comment that no child should live in poverty? What about what was happening in the finance sector? I should know because I worked there. The top 200 in corporate Australia made the biggest profits they ever made when you were in government. Every day we would see in the national papers people like the previous Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, ingratiating themselves with the business captains—hardly the light on the hill, hardly what Ben Chifley would have described as Labor supporters. And what about the previous Prime Minister and how he enriched himself on a parliamentary salary? I wonder how that happened. Because of the connection the previous government had with the big end of town.Don't come in here and lecture us about the propriety of taxation. What did you do? Let us have a look at it. Isn't it amazing that even ACOSS is in the process of supporting this government because we are going to come up with a fair and equitable tax regime? Let us look at this.8I4MARTINMr Martin—No, they're not.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Even the member for Cunningham followed the yellow brick road. He is probably one of the best of the bunch over there.AJ4SHARPMr Sharp—What colour hair did he have at the time?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—His hair is now a good colour. In March 1991 he brought down the report about reforms—and what happened to the recommendations? Oh, no, we could not implement those. Ralph was probably the Treasurer at the time. The main tax reform initiative happened in 1995.Let us have a look at what this government has done—much to the contradiction of the pious comments of those opposite. Isn't it amazing that we have introduced reforms after only two years of being in government. Even though it has taken two years, that is a lot faster than 13 years, my good gentlemen. We have introduced tax avoidance measures for charitable trusts. We did it for franking credits.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—You will protect your mates—the 19 in the cabinet that have trusts.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Corio, you are not part of this debate.Mr Barresi interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—And neither is the member for Deakin.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—What did the Labor Party do? What else did we do? We abolished R&D syndicates. You guys! Here you are representing the battlers, the so-called blue-collar workers and here you are fraternising with R&D syndicates. It is quite well known. So is the member for Hotham (Mr Crean). Yet you got up here with all the indignation you could to show how wrong we were in trying to reduce an obvious tax minimisation scheme, tax avoidance—and you had the audacity to actually put up this fake defence that you thought it was wrong.What about the abolition of infrastructure borrowings? Who did that? It was not the opposition. It was not the member for Gellibrand. It was the coalition government. What about franking credits? You guys set up the huge tax reform, the financial deregulation, the flourishing industry of imputation credits and a lot of them were used for inappropriate reasons. It was us who minimised offshore provisions on interest.But isn't it interesting when you go back and look at when the Labor Party was in government. They talk about how we have taken two years to actually do the right thing to reduce trafficking in trust losses and to tighten up legislation. No wonder people are going into trusts. Who introduced capital gains tax? Who introduced FBT? Who introduced 15 per cent superannuation? Who introduced seven different taxes under wholesale taxes? Who did not reform bracket creep? No wonder it was under your stewardship, when you were in government, that we saw this accelerated increase in trusts. It was quite obvious.You and the Leader of the Opposition have got up here. What a defence! It was actually when you were in power. It was actually when he was the Minister for Finance. He was the Deputy Prime Minister. Indeed, Mr Martin was the Speaker at the time. What happened? There was an increase of 32 per cent from 1991 through to 1996. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think the coalition were in power then; it was you. We also had a massive increase in company structures, obviously to legitimately reduce tax, by 34 per cent. There was also a growth in super funds of 67 per cent. Come on, guys, you knew what was happening; you were the architects of it all.You think it is a sin to have a family trust. I do not have a family trust, but I know a lot of farmers do. And why shouldn't they? They are legitimately providing revenue and a structure which will keep people on the land, which will keep that vital industry. That is something you do not know because most of you come out of the union movement. You are not wealth creators but wealth takers. You try to redistribute but you have not.What we are trying to do now is to integrate and to modernise the Australian tax system. What about Mr Burke and Mr Bannon and all those others and some of your previous prime ministers and the Prime Minister before that? What about the $1.3 billion deals that are being done now in China by a Labor icon? Who was that? The previous Prime Minister Mr Hawke. But, of course, he is representing the working man, just like most of you. What we are trying to do is to modernise this tax system, and we should have you onside.Let us look at the record of inconsistency of the opposition, particularly the illustrious shadow Treasurer. Let us have a look at him now. Your policy is that you have no policy, you are a policy vacuum. You hide taxes and hide debt. That is how you operate.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—Is this according to Gareth?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—This is according to Gareth. Listen to this, you might learn something. On 1 October 1996, in an interview on 3AW he said:I think, since we are so under-taxed by any relevant international standard, there is a case for having some overall revenue increase.That is interesting. Two days later he said in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald :I did not say that there was a case for higher taxes or for increased taxes . . .He must have looked into his ashtray to get that. Then in 1997 he was talking about death duties. This was a classic. You come in here complaining about what we are doing to reform the mess you left us with nursing homes and here you are wanting to introduce death duties. On 17 August 1997, the shadow Treasurer said:The States can redress that vertical fiscal imbalance in a number of ways, not only through services taxes but through the old chestnut of property or inheritance taxes . . .But, of course, on 25 August 1997, less than a week later, he reversed the proposition:I did not say that the states should impose death duties, service taxes, income surcharges or higher payroll taxes . . .You cannot trust this guy. Look at negative gearing. You guys introduced negative gearing. Ralph, you did it. Here you are talking about abolishing it, like R&D syndicates. The member for Holt said on 3LO last Thursday:That's certainly one of the many options that we are considering.Of course, less than 24 hours later, he must have been looking in the ashtray again, an article in the Australian stated:In a statement, Mr Evans has now ruled out an end to negative gearing. Come on, guys. If you believe passionately in this, give us a policy. Let us now look at the member for Hotham. On Meet the Press he said:The ALP will fund tax cuts from high economic growth.This is a classic! You are going to reform the taxation system by doing absolutely nothing, by ensuring that the average taxpayer, as you well know, will be in the top marginal tax bracket because you guys did not alter bracket creep. You might have reformed some of the tax scales, but everyone slid up into the top bracket. Remember, these are the workers, these are the people you are meant to represent. But what are you going to do? The magical solution, the magic pudding, is that you are going to have high economic growth.Isn't it amazing, because you told us to look towards Asia. That was your big vision: to look towards Asia. Look at what has happened to that. It is just as well we did not through the prudent fiscal policies that we had.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—We gave you four per cent growth and you could not even match it.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Yes, growth, that is right. It is not called growth. It is called paying today and borrowing from future generations—your kids. One day Steve Martin's kids might be in here and I hope they will not have inherited a national debt. We are talking about the member for Holt because he is proposing to return to the days of fiscal drag—higher inflation and higher tax brackets.Frankly, their attack today has been quite hopeless. Considering the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister, your one-angle defence was, `We were going to do it,' and we have taken two years. You guys were here for 13 years and you did not do anything. Trusts expanded and exploded, and you know that. More companies went into bankruptcy. Bigger profits were made by corporate citizens than by the top 300—probably because most of them were on the payroll of the Australian Labor Party. What are your policies? High debt, high taxes and no vision. What about the poor old worker? For Christ's sake, you have abandoned them and now you are masquerading with R&D syndicates. (Time expired)Committees15601560156010000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities on the provisions of the Company Law Review Bill 1997 and the Managed Investments Bill 1997 be extended to 30 March 1998.Miscellaneous1560Motion (by Mr Andrew) agreed to:That:(1) Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 be referred to the Main Committee for 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.Bills1560r3291560Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments, message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed amendments having been reported; certified copy of bill and schedule of the amendments presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendments—(1) Schedule 2, page 6 (after line 3), insert:5A Subsection 48(2) Omit "50", substitute "50A or 50B". 5B Subsection 49(1) Omit "50", substitute "50A or 50B".5C Section 50 Repeal the section, substitute:50 Panels for appointments to Committees (1) Before making appointments to a Committee, the Minister must ask each of the following bodies to nominate a panel of at least 3 medical practitioners for the Minister's consideration for appointment to the Committee: (a) the Australian Medical Association; (b) the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons; (c) the Royal Australasian College of Physicians; (d) the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; (e) the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. (2) The request must: (a) be in writing; and (b) specify the date by which the body must nominate a panel.50A Compliance with request (1) If each body nominates a panel for a Committee in accordance with the request by the date specified in the request, the Minister must appoint to the Committee one medical practitioner from each panel. (2) If at least one body, but not each body, nominates a panel for a Committee in accordance with the request by the date specified in the request, the Minister must appoint to the Committee one medical practitioner from each of those panels. Note: For the date of effect of an appointment under subsection (2), see section 50C.50B Consequences of failure to comply with request If: (a) the Minister makes a request to a body for a panel for a Committee; and (b) the body does not nominate a panel in accordance with the request by the date specified in the request; the Minister may appoint one medical practitioner to the Committee. Note: For the date of effect of an appointment under this section, see section 50C. 50C Date of effect of certain appointments An appointment made to a particular Committee under subsection 50A(2) or section 50B does not take effect before all of the appointments to that Committee under those provisions have been made.5D Subsection 53(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) If a body nominated the panel from which the absent member was appointed, the Minister must consult the body before making an appointment under subsection (1).5E Section 56 Repeal the section, substitute:56 Appointment to vacant office (1) If a vacancy occurs in the office of a member who was appointed by the Minister from a panel nominated by a body, the Minister must request the body to nominate a panel of at least 3 medical practitioners for the Minister's consideration for appointment to the vacant office. (2) The request must: (a) be in writing; and (b) specify the date by which the body must nominate a panel. (3) If the body nominates a panel for the vacant office in accordance with the request by the date specified in the request, the Minister must appoint to the office one medical practitioner from the panel. (4) If the body does not comply with the request for a panel for a vacant office, the Minister may appoint one medical practitioner to the vacant office.5F Section 57 Omit "section 50 or 56", substitute "this Division".5G Saving provision The amendments of the Health Insurance Act 1973 made by items 5A to 5F do not affect the validity of any appointments made under Part V of that Act as in force before the commencement of this Part.(2) Schedule 2, page 8 (after line 25), after item 15, insert:15A Subsection 19AA(5) (definition of professional service ) Repeal the definition, substitute: professional service does not include: (a) a service of a kind referred to in paragraph (b), (ba) or (c) of the definition of professional service in subsection 3(1); or (b) a professional service (as defined in subsection 3(1)) that is constituted by assistance at an operation.(3) Schedule 2, item 23, page 10 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.1561Bill (on motion by Dr Wooldridge)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1561r2431561Bill returned from Main Committee with an amendment; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendment presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendment—(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 2), after item 8, insert:8A Paragraph 94(1)(f)After "by", insert "or under".Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.1561Bill (on motion by Dr Wooldridge)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1561s1541561Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.1561Bill (on motion by Dr Wooldridge)—by leave—agreed to.Bills1562r4351562Consideration resumed.16:12:001562Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—As I was saying just before question time, the purpose of the amendments before the House is to remove from the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 any reference to the imposition of accommodation charges. I would commend this approach to the House because it will mean that all elderly people and others who need to go into nursing homes will be able to do so without facing very large impediments to seeking that care. The level of the charge that the government has set at the moment is $4,380 each year, up to a maximum of five years. That will add up to over $20,000 that people might have to pay for their essential nursing home care.We are also seeking to ensure that the government will be required to refund the accommodation bonds paid by people before the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) went on A Current Affair and did the enormous backflip when he realised people would have to pay to sell their homes to get into a nursing home. We also want to make sure that, in the refunding of the bonds, people are not disadvantaged as far as social security payments are concerned by receiving any income that might accrue to them from the government's outrageous attempt to take the assets and homes of the elderly away from them.I commend the amendments to the House. It has been indicated to me by the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) that the government intends to oppose these amendments. They are going to vote against the Labor Party's attempt to get rid of this further impost, this further attempt by this government to take money out of the pockets of the elderly. If we find that they oppose the amendments again in the Senate and we do not get the support of the minor parties or the Independents, the Labor Party has made it clear that, in the lead-up to the next election, we will commit ourselves to getting rid of this accommodation charge and to getting rid of the extra daily fee to make sure that when people are sick and need to go to a nursing home—because they do not choose to go to a nursing home—they can do so without these horrific charges that this government has placed before them. That is a commitment that the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, has already made. It will be made again and again if this government refuses to take advantage of the amendments before the House today. Question put: That the amendments (Ms Macklin's ) be agreed to.16:16:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)45Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.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.Filing, P. A. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. 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. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Zammit, P. J.83Anderson, J. D. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.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.Dondas, N. M. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.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. 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. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. 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. Sullivan, K. J.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.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Bevis, A. R. McLachlan, I. M.Price, L. R. Downer, A. J. G.Tanner, L. J. Moylan, J. E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.1563Bill (on motion by Dr Wooldridge)—by leave—read a third time.Personal Explanations156316:25:001563Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Do you claim to have been misrepresented?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Yes.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Please proceed.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—In this morning's Australian Financial Review an article appeared under the heading `Howard gives Soeharto a flying start'. The article says:The Federal Government changed the specifications for a $550 million defence contract after President Soeharto lobbied the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, to give an Indonesian company a better chance against rival US and Spanish bidders.The headline in particular of that article is wrong. The situation is that when I was in Indonesia this matter was raised with me by both President Suharto and Dr Habibie, who is now the Vice-President of Indonesia. I told him that there would be a completely open and fair treatment of all bidders. He did not seek any particular preference, and the record of interview records that.I want to assure all of those who are seeking this contract that it will be dealt with on a completely open and competitive basis. Any suggestion that we are giving favourable treatment to Indonesia or to any company in particular is completely wrong. The article was written without any reference to my office, and the headline in particular is totally and utterly misleading.K26LATHAMMr Latham—What about the article?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—The article is in error, too.Bills1563r4571563Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.16:27:001563Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—After that, is it any wonder the Australian people have so many concerns about the changes that this government is making in all sorts of social policy areas? It is quite clear that the legislation which is before the House at the moment, the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 , is an attempt by this government to go one step forward with its ideological agenda for funding for the Australian public hospital system.Before I address the detail of the bill, it is quite clear that the government's agenda on health care fits in with its broader agenda in social policy right across the broad spectrum. The government is seeking to cut back federal funding for the public hospital system. It is quite consistent in its cutbacks to federal funding for employment programs. We have the fiasco of the federal government cutting back federal funding for skillshare centres in the same way that it is cutting back federal funding for the public hospital system. In the Aged Care Amendment Bill that has just been debated, the government is cutting back federal funding for aged care for older Australians. My colleague the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) has on many occasions outlined the government's agenda for cutting back federal funding for the public education system right around Australia.In health, the government is not only attempting to cut back federal funding for the public hospital system but also squeezing the GP rebate, making it harder for ordinary GPs to continue to bulk-bill. As each day passes and this government squeezes that GP rebate, there is extra pressure on doctors to switch from bulk-billing to charging up-front fees. The government's cutbacks in federal funding subsidise the cost of essential medicines for ordinary Australians.This piece of legislation is to provide a legislative underpinning for the next five-year Medicare agreements, those Medicare agreements between the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments to cover public hospital funding. The first thing we notice about this bill is that this government hates Medicare so much it cannot even stand to have the word `Medicare' in the name of the agreements. The government, of course, has had a long-term agenda to try to undermine Medicare by stealth. As one of the most petty examples of this government's hatred of Medicare, it has renamed the agreements. Instead of being `Medicare agreements' they are now `health care agreements'. There is nothing wrong with the description `health care agreements', but it is just another example of this government's pettiness and the lengths to which it will go to do all it can to distance itself from Medicare. Medicare was one of the greatest achievements of the Hawke Labor government and re-established universal health insurance, which was put in place by the Whitlam Labor government and was one of the great achievements of that short period of government. This government so hates Medicare, it so hates universal health insurance, that it cannot even bear to have the word `Medicare' in the title of the federal-state agreement that provides the funds for our public hospital system.The intention of this bill is to provide the Commonwealth with the power to enter those arrangements with the states. It outlines the principles and mechanisms which must be adhered to in order for the state and territory governments to continue to receive the funding. The federal funding for the public hospital system is an essential feature of Australia's Medicare system. The current arrangements will expire on 30 June 1998 and it is vital that these funding agreements are renewed. Labor supports the main elements of this bill which provide those essential legislative underpinnings of any new agreement.Unfortunately, this government has placed at risk the achievement of new agreements. As we saw last week, every Premier and every Chief Minister, bar Kate Carnell from the ACT, walked out of the Premiers Conference over the meanness of the federal government's offer. We had the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) claiming that he said to the states that he was willing to continue talking to them but he was not willing to increase the financial offer to the states. He dismissed the states' walkout as childish because they were not prepared to continue talking to him. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can imagine if you were trying to sell your house to someone and they said that they were willing to enter into genuine negotiations as to what that price will be, but the person who was negotiating with you to buy your house said to you, `I am willing to keep talking to you but I am not willing to increase my financial offer.' There would not be much point in continuing any financial negotiations on that basis, but that is what this government and this Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Family Services, the member for Chisholm (Dr Wooldridge), said to the states last Friday: we are willing to keep talking to you about the level of funding to our state public hospital system as long as there is no expectation that you will get an extra cent from the federal government to make the public hospital system work better.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Talk until you get the election out of the way.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—As my colleague the member for Hunter points out, this is purely a desperate attempt by this government to try to get the states and the territories to sign the Medicare agreements—a title by which we on this side of the House will continue to call the Medicare agreements. It is a desperate attempt by this government to have the Medicare agreements resolved before this government seeks to go to the people for the next election.One of the crucial problems that this government is going to have to face is that during the short time it has been in office this minister and this Prime Minister have presided over a reduction in the federal funding for our public hospital system—a public hospital system that is already starting to feel the effects of federal and state cutbacks over the last few years. The states will not accept the Commonwealth's offer for one simple reason: all it does is try to put back the money that the Howard government has slashed from health spending in its first two budgets. We have the Prime Minister claiming that the Commonwealth is offering an extra $2.9 billion over five years, yet when you go to the detail of the Commonwealth's offer it is quite clear that the Prime Minister is simply putting back the money that he slashed from public hospitals over the last two years. For example, $479 million of the Commonwealth's offer is for mental health and palliative care services. This is not new money; it is nothing more than agreeing to fund the existing services. These vital existing services are simply getting a continuation of funding, yet the Prime Minister claims that this is an increase of $479 million. It is just a con.The rest of the offer does little more than restore funding which was cut in the Prime Minister's first budget in August 1996. It was a budget that slashed $800 million from the public hospital system, a budget that was probably the worst federal budget for the public hospital system in decades and a budget that meant that not only was $800 million slashed from the public hospital system but we had $400 million taken from the Commonwealth dental health program. So it is hardly surprising that the five conservative Premiers and the Northern Territory Chief Minister treated the Prime Minister and his health funding offer with the contempt that they deserved last Friday. Is it any wonder that they are determined to keep the pressure on this government to increase federal funding for our public hospital system.Last Friday we had the Prime Minister claiming that the public hospital system is ticking over well and that there is no need for the federal government to increase its funding for our public hospital system. Today we have had a former Australian of the Year, Dr John Yu, and the former head of Westmead's new children's hospital in Sydney make the following comments. I quote Dr John Yu:I am not sure how well briefed the Prime Minister is. I am certainly disappointed that Dr Wooldridge does not have a better understanding of what is happening.Dr Yu went on to say:Public hospitals deserve a better deal. There is really a crisis in the public hospital system. We are faced with the denial of treatment for things many of us would believe were the right of any Australian.Hear, hear! That is what doctors right across Australia are saying today. They are saying that our public hospital system is in crisis because federal and state governments have not put in the additional money that our public hospital system needs.If you talk to doctors who work for the Tasmanian public hospital system, they will tell you that there is a desperate need for additional funding in that state's public hospital system. I suspect the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) would have a better understanding than the minister for health, Dr Wooldridge, as to the serious nature of the crisis in our public hospital system. The minister for health must be the only doctor in Australia who thinks that our public hospital system has too much money. He is the only doctor in Australia who does not believe that federal and state governments, Liberal and Labor, should be putting more money into our public hospital system to make sure that ordinary Australians have a chance to receive the medical care that they need.Let me give you a few examples from right across the country. In the Northern Territory, we have reports of a woman spending a night on a recliner chair after having surgery, because of inadequate funding for public hospitals in the Northern Territory. In Queensland, we have doctors misleading patients on the length of public hospital waiting lists in order to trick them into paying for private hospital treatment, because of the inadequate funding for public hospitals in Queensland. In Tasmania, there is no surgery after 5 p.m., even if you have already had the pre-operative medication, because of the inadequate federal funding for public hospitals in Tasmania.In South Australia, we have a dying man who waits 24 hours in accident and emergency before he gets a bed, because of inadequate federal funding for South Australia's public hospital system. In Western Australia, the home state of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), we have an 82-year-old woman with a fractured arm and a grazed eye who is turned away from regional hospitals because of the inadequate federal funding for her state's public hospital system.Here in the ACT, where the Chief Minister has taken her 30 pieces of silver and signed up for a health care agreement that she knows will not provide enough federal funding for her public hospital system, we have the Canberra Hospital emergency department unable to cope with a 12 per cent increase in demand. In Victoria, one in two Victorians have lost faith in the public hospital system's ability to cope and think that resources are stretched too far to meet demand. That is the view of ordinary Victorians, because of inadequate federal funding for the Victorian public hospital system.We have also had Dr John Yu's comments about the serious crisis facing the public hospital system in New South Wales. That is not because of any reductions in funding to the New South Wales hospital system by the Carr Labor government; in fact, under Dr Andrew Refshauge, the state minister for health, there has been a substantial increase in the state commitment to that state's public hospital system.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Even you cannot believe that.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I challenge the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs to get the figures. In fact, I will give the minister for customs a guarantee that I will send him a letter later today comparing the performance of the New South Wales Labor government with that of the Queensland coalition government on the level of increase in the state contributions to the public hospital system in New South Wales. I am sure he could learn something. Perhaps he could encourage his state to emulate the performance of the New South Wales government in state effort.Despite the New South Wales government's efforts, they are still being hit by this government's unilateral federal funding cuts to public hospitals in New South Wales. So, despite the increased state funding effort in New South Wales, the federal funding cuts mean that they are even further behind the eight ball because of this government's dramatic cuts in federal funding for public hospitals right across the system.One of our concerns is that the Prime Minister claims he has no extra money for public hospitals. He cannot increase the offer. Our criticism is that, before the last election, this government argued that the centrepiece of its health policy was one simple solution to every problem in Australia's health care system. The Prime Minister said before the last election that he would subsidise private health insurance to make health insurance cheaper. That would increase the membership of private health funds, and he said that would take the pressure off public hospitals. That was this Prime Minister's promise, in opposition, to address the crisis in our public hospitals.What have we seen in the two years that the member for Bennelong has been the Prime Minister of Australia? Health insurance premiums are dearer, not cheaper. Health insurance premium increases have swallowed up the benefit of the tax rebate that this government has put in place. We have seen membership decline, not increase. If you look at this table, you will be distressed to see that the percentage of Australians who have private health insurance has continued to fall, despite the government spending $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money on the tax rebate. The announcement was back here at the start of this graph—on the left hand side—and it is almost a straight line. In fact it was a straight line almost going back into the days when the Labor government was in power. Yes, there was a fall in private health insurance coverage during the Labor years. It was a straight line during our days and it is a straight line today. The big difference is that this government has spent $1.7 billion on the health insurance tax rebate, and it is still a straight line.Jeff Kennett was the first to recognise this. He said that the rebate was money down the drain. Richard Court said it was a dud. Your own Industry Commission inquiry said it was money that was not being spent efficiently to take the pressure off public hospitals. People like Keith Woollard of the AMA—which is not exactly a sub-branch of the Labor Party—are saying that if only you had spent that same amount of money directly on patient care you could have done something about the crisis in public hospitals. You could have done something about the cases that Dr John Yu raised this morning. If you had spent that same amount of money directly on patient care, we could certainly have assured the states last Friday that they would have had an extra $1.7 billion towards the federal-state agreement that has been wasted because of this government's failure to address the crisis in our public hospital system.One of the other concerns we have is that, once again, with this legislation and this negotiating process we have an example of a minister for health who does not know what is going on or is unable to ensure that proper processes are followed. The legislation that is before the House today was not seen by the states until it was introduced into this House 13 days ago. Certainly the states tell us that they were not consulted. I challenge the Minister for Health and Family Services to dispute that if that is not the case, but the feedback that we get from Labor and Liberal state governments is that there was little consultation with the states about the content of this agreement, and there has been inadequate information provided to the states about what the Prime Minister's current offer is.I will give you a good example. The Prime Minister and the minister for health were claiming yesterday that there was to be, under this agreement, an extra $750 million going into the state health system because of a new offer to transfer responsibility for veterans hospital services. The only information the states were given as part of that process was this piece of paper—a piece of paper which has less than a dozen words on it and less than 16 numbers. Less than a dozen words and less than 16 numbers, and that is meant to be how this minister and this government make a detailed offer to the states to give them an extra $750 million to look after veterans. How would you expect any state government to be able to make any sensible decision about whether veterans would get a fair deal from a dozen words and 16 numbers? A lot of the numbers are small numbers, too, so the states have every right to ask whether or not veterans would be worse off if they were to accept that particular element of this government's offer.This is not the only situation where we have a stalemate between the federal government and the states on negotiations in this portfolio. We are still waiting for the conclusion of all the federal-state and federal-territory public health outcome funding agreements and the Aboriginal health framework agreements. The government is in just as much trouble in the negotiations over the Commonwealth-state disability agreements, as my colleague the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) knows only too well—not to mention the Commonwealth-state housing agreements.Two years ago they said that they would fix up the problem with cost shifting in the health care system. They were going to be the glory days. They were going to give the states control of the pharmaceutical benefits system. Do you remember that one? We were going to have eight pharmaceutical benefits systems right around the country. Different drugs would have been available to different people, depending on where they lived. If, like my father, you lived in Boundary Road at Tweed Heads, under Dr Wooldridge's proposed system you could get access to certain drugs on one side of Boundary Road, in New South Wales, and on the other side, living in Queensland, you could get access to different drugs. Is it any wonder that they dropped that scheme pretty quickly?They were going to hand the pharmaceutical scheme over to the states. They were going to hand over HACC and all the aged care and community services to the states. There was even talk about the federal government opting out of the provision of public hospital funding, transferring all that responsibility to the states. What has happened to all that? How long is it since we have had a COAG meeting? It is probably no surprise that the Prime Minister is afraid to call a COAG meeting when he has as much trouble as he had last Friday in even holding a Premiers Conference.Do you remember COAG? That was the regular meeting every six months when the heads of government would sit down and try to work out ways to make federalism work more smoothly, to get a better division of the responsibilities between the federal government and the states. This Prime Minister is too afraid and too timid to even call the Premiers and the Chief Ministers together to try to make any progress on these issues.At the end of the day, the Premiers and Chief Ministers woke up to what this was all about. This was all about getting the states to do this government's dirty work. It was about getting the states to cut back the services available to ordinary Australians under the home and community care program. It was about getting the states to do this government's dirty work in cutting back access to essential medicines. It was about getting the states to do this government's dirty work in cutting back the public funding to our public hospital system.One of the basic problems is that this Prime Minister is obsessed with private health insurance. One of the consequences of his obsession with private health insurance is that he is providing inadequate attention to the public hospital system. Whether or not we have private health insurance, if we are really sick we will be turning up at the public hospital system to make sure that we or our families are looked after.It is this government's attempts to cut federal funding for public hospitals, for dental services and for pharmaceuticals that generated the $1.7 billion pot of gold that was used to subsidise private health insurance. The public health care programs were slashed to provide the tax rebate for private health insurance that has been a complete and utter flop. It has not made health insurance cheaper or attracted people back to private health insurance or taken the pressure off our public hospital systems. It will only be when this Prime Minister faces up to his responsibilities to provide adequate federal funding for our public hospital system that we will address these issues.We have a certain track record from the Prime Minister on many of these issues. The old John Howard said, `Medicare has been an unmitigated disaster.' He said, `Radical surgery will need to be performed on Medicare.' The old John Howard said, `We'll pull Medicare right apart.' The old John Howard said, `Bulk-billing will be abolished.'The new John Howard says he loves Medicare but has been forced to close 44 Medicare offices right around Australia. The new John Howard, the member for Bennelong, says he loves Medicare, but he has been forced by budgetary problems to squeeze the GP rebate that every day is forcing more and more GPs to switch from bulk-billing to charging up-front fees. The new John Howard says he loves Medicare, but he has been forced to slash federal funding to our public hospital system by $800 million. He claims that he loves Medicare, but he is going to do all he can to make sure that there is insufficient federal funding provided to the states and territories under the next Medicare agreement. Is it any wonder that Labor and Liberal Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory left the room? Because this government is not prepared to meet its particular responsibilities, they walked out, after the shortest Premiers Conference in Australia's history.This Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 will sink or swim, it will either deliver or fail to deliver to Australia's public hospital system, depending on how much money this government provides to the public hospital system. That figure will not be put into this legislation. That figure will depend on whether or not the federal government reaches agreements with the states and territories.Labor accepts that this legislation has to pass, to make sure that, if there is an agreement finally negotiated, it is underpinned by legislation. That is why we are not going to oppose this legislation. Our great concern is that, because of the meanness of the offer and the incompetence of this minister and this government, today it looks like there will be no agreement between the Commonwealth and the states. One of our concerns is this: what is going to be the consequence if we get to 30 June and there is no agreement signed with Premiers such as Jeff Kennett and Rob Borbidge?GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Keep paying the money.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs interjects across the table and says he will keep paying the money. The difficulty he faces is that, if there is no agreement signed with Jeff Kennett and the other states, then there is no obligation for those states to continue to provide public hospital treatment to their citizens free of charge. The agreement is the only thing that stands between conservative state governments and the introduction of new fees for public patients in public hospitals.Maybe that is the real agenda of this government and this Prime Minister. They have set out, every step of the way, to undermine Medicare by stealth, by closing the Medicare offices, cutting the federal funding for public hospitals, abolishing the Commonwealth dental health program, cutting back access to essential medication and doing all they can to poke the Premiers in the eye and not reach and finalise an agreement with the states before 30 June. Maybe the real agenda of this government and this Prime Minister is to try to let Jeff Kennett, Rob Borbidge and, maybe, Dean Brown or John Olsen, be tempted by the possibility of introducing charges for public hospitals right across Australia.The only thing that will stop that happening is this Prime Minister putting his name to a deal with the Premiers on another five-year Medicare agreement that prohibits those charges being introduced. You do not stop those charges being introduced by sending them a cheque once every year. Only those Medicare agreements will make sure that does not happen.The bill is not all bad; in fact, the bill is essential if we are to make sure that there is legislation underpinning the agreement. The bill also allows for the creation of the Office of the Health Care Information Commissioner, which is to be a new cost-shifting policeman—or policewoman, as the case may be. The opposition believes that this initiative can only succeed if it is well resourced and has the support of the states and territories. The opposition welcomes this initiative as it clearly represents an admission that the arbitrary and unfair cost-shifting penalties which were imposed in the first Howard government were both unreasonable and unsustainable.Under this government and this minister, figures were fiddled so that the only Labor state of the Commonwealth, New South Wales, copped more than half of the arbitrary $75 million a year funding cut for alleged cost shifting. Meanwhile, the mates of the member for Chisholm in Victoria were let off the hook, despite the fact that his own department's analysis showed that Victoria was the worst offender for cost shifting. Let us be honest about cost shifting. There is cost shifting by the states onto the Commonwealth, just as there is cost shifting from the Commonwealth onto the states. For every person who should be in an aged care facility, such as a nursing home, who cannot afford or cannot get admission to a nursing home and who stays in a public hospital, that is cost shifting from the Commonwealth onto the states.This government's fiasco in aged care funding has meant that the cost shifting from the Commonwealth to the states, because of the aged care backlog, has increased. There is cost shifting at the individual hospital level because many area health boards and many individual hospitals know that the only way they can keep theatres open and nurses employed is to cost shift. But, if that is the only way they are going to keep hospitals open, how do you fix the problem of cost shifting by taking money off public hospitals? That is this government's proposal. They say that the way you fix cost shifting is to give the hospitals even less money to look after public patients. It is certainly to be hoped that the proposed new Health Care Information Commissioner will ensure that this government's attempt to impose those arbitrary cost-shifting penalties on states is treated a bit more dispassionately and does give the states a fairer go.Whilst having doubts about some of the details of this bill, there can be no doubt that the legislation is needed as the foundation to underpin the new Medicare agreements. Therefore, the opposition is greatly concerned that this legislation has once again been rushed into the parliament at the eleventh hour. As I have said, it is a pretty common problem with this minister. As a result, we are not surprised to see that there is to be a government amendment to this bill, which appeared only a few hours ago. Notwithstanding our dissatisfaction with this minister's—and this government's—handling of the legislation, we recognise the importance of the bill. Therefore, we do not propose to vote against the legislation in the House.However, we do propose to have this legislation referred to a Senate committee. We think that a Senate committee will have the ability to try to ensure that the legislation is examined very thoroughly—hopefully in a speedy and efficient manner. It will of course make sure that one of the most important federal-state agreements for the next five years is examined thoroughly and expeditiously by a Senate committee. It will give the states and territories an opportunity to have their case heard publicly, to be tested if necessary by government senators with questions. At the very least, it will make sure that this government is kept on its mettle on all of these issues.We will also be seeking to move an amendment to this bill to restore the word `Medicare' in the name because we know how much you hate that word. We are determined to force you to vote here in this House to try to change the name in the bill from `health care agreements' back to `Medicare agreements'. In conclusion, my amendment seeks to ensure that there is a wide-ranging debate during the second reading, but does not seek to have the legislation amended. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government:(a) is placing Australia's world renowned health system in jeopardy by failing to achieve new Medicare Agreements with State and Territory governments;(b) is misrepresenting its offer to the States and Territories which amounts to little more than double-counting and putting back health funding which has been cut in the first two Howard budgets; and(c) has failed to adequately consult with the States and Territories regarding the provisions o this bill".10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.16:57:001570Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—This issue and the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 really illustrate, if not emphasise, two things that are failing Australia: the first is state-Commonwealth relations—the solution, if it is ever found in health, will not be found until we have dealt with that, and taxation reform is a significant part of that—and the second is party politics and the failure of people in public life to be honest about both the nature of Australia's health problems and the solutions which are necessary for them. I would like to read a quote from the Australian Financial Review of 14 April 1992:Federal Government officials indicated yesterday that the Commonwealth would reject all claims by the states today for an additional $1.1 billion in public hospital funding as part of the next five-year Medicare agreement.. . . . . . . . .In particular, the Commonwealth wants the States to introduce State-based hospital waiting lists and to introduce national protocols for hospital admissions and procedures.This was at a time when the Keating Australian Labor Party government was governing federally and the health minister was Mr Brian Howe. On 10 April 1992, the Australian Financial Review went on to report:Federal and State government health ministers are expected to open next week's negotiations on the new five-year Medicare agreement with a clash over hospital funding.. . . . . . . . .Sources said the Deputy Prime Minister and Health Minister, Mr Howe, will tell the States that they have the capacity to increase funding of their public hospitals.He would be `surprised' if the States could not raise more funds for public hospitals.. . . . . . . . .A spokeswoman for the Victorian Health Minister, Ms Maureen Lyster, said Victoria would not consider the Federal Government's proposals to link funding to efficiency before gaining a commitment to increase federal funding.She said Victoria was seeking $1,107 million annual increase from the Commonwealth to the States, including $300 million more for Victoria . . . The reason why I have read those passages to the House is to put this whole debate into a proper context. It appears not to make a great deal of difference which party, politically, is governing either at a federal or a state level in terms of the core issues in relation to Medicare financing of public hospitals.To further illustrate that point, let me say that occasionally the political process throws up some people who are honest and people who are of integrity—and they are on both sides of politics, but they are few in number. I would like to read you the speech that was delivered on 27 May 1992 to the Operation Hospital Survival rally that was organised by the Australian Hospitals Association and the Australian Private Hospitals Association on 27 May 1992. This speech was delivered by the then Minister for Health of Western Australia, Mr Keith Wilson, a member of the Carmen Lawrence cabinet at the time. He said:I would like to thank the organisers of today's conference, the Australian Private Hospitals Association and the Australian Hospitals Association, for inviting me to give this address. I was happy to accept because I want to draw attention to the major issues which are of primary concern to me as Minister for Health in Western Australia—the provision of hospital services in that state. I have good reason to believe that these concerns are also high on the agenda of most, if not all, state ministers for health.The pre-eminent issue, which I believe this conference must focus on, is that seriously sick Australians are daily unable to gain access to needed hospital treatment. The tragedy is that the people who are most affected are the aged and those on low incomes with chronic disease. What we are seeing is the growing failure of hospital Medicare to protect the most vulnerable members of the community; the exact opposite of the original objectives of Medicare. The increasing inability of hospital Medicare to fulfil its obligation to Medicare enrolees is unequivocally demonstrated by the growing numbers of people on public hospital waiting lists who are finding that they are no longer assured of timely access to a public hospital.I remind the House that it was under both a federal Labor government and a state Labor government that this state Labor health minister was making these remarks.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—So what is your point, Brendan?RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—I now go on:For a great many people it is now not unusual to wait six, 12 or more months for admission to hospital. Elderly sick patients are all too frequently finding their long awaited appointments for admission to a public hospital have been cancelled and re-scheduled at short notice, as the hospital has no available beds because of a sudden unexpected increase in emergency admissions. What has become increasingly evident is that hospital Medicare works well for people with urgent life threatening illness requiring immediate or emergency care, but not for those who are poor, have a chronic but not life threatening disease and require hospital treatment to eliminate or reduce severe disability or pain. It must be cold comfort for chronically ill people on low incomes waiting months for admission to a public hospital to hear repeated assertions that Australia has one of the best hospital systems in the world. Mr Wilson went on further that day to say:What is relevant is the trend in total Commonwealth general revenue grants to the states, including the public hospital funding grants over the period since the introduction of the Medicare system.He said:In the first full financial year of Medicare, 1984-85, the Commonwealth contributed nationally about 48 per cent of total public hospital costs, the states 40 per cent and private patient fees about 12 per cent. By 1989-90, the percentages had changed to the Commonwealth providing about 41 per cent, the states 50 per cent and private patient fees 9 per cent.He went on to say:There is a very important point to be made. It is quite outrageous of the Commonwealth to make a song and dance about hospital efficiency when it is perpetrating the most inefficient and ramshackle hospital funding system one could imagine.Mr Wilson, during the text of this speech, further said:Additional funds must be found for hospital services either from the public or private sectors. This may be an unfashionable statement in times of economic constraint. It is however my view an unavoidable requirement. There is a need for the Commonwealth to recognise private health insurance as a necessary complement to hospital Medicare.He concluded that day—and I repeat that this was the Labor health minister in 1992, at the time when we had a federal Labor government and when, I understand, the finance minister at the time was the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley)—by saying:I believe that it is essential that we continue to press the Commonwealth for urgent and sensible reform of hospital Medicare. Without such reform we will witness the progressive deterioration of Australia's public hospital system and increasing injustice to many seriously sick Australians throughout this country.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You've had two years and you've done nothing; you're doing a Fraser.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—He continued:Finally, if sensible reform is not forthcoming from the Commonwealth, I would like to give you a foretaste of action which Western Australia will be forced to carry out in the relatively near future. I have brought along a copy of a sign which could shortly appear in Western Australia's public hospitals: `This hospital has been under-funded by the federal government since 1984'.The point that I make in response to the interjections from the member for Banks (Mr Melham) is that the arguments that were put in 1992 are precisely the same arguments that are being put today, except there is not an argument being put that the Commonwealth is not doing anything at all to support private health insurance. In other words, you had a state Labor government that was criticising a federal Labor government in precisely the same terms that the states are now arguing with the Commonwealth over Medicare financing agreements.Turning directly and specifically to the bill: what this government is doing is setting into legislation the hospital financing, philosophy and principles of Medicare, of universal access for all Australian residents to Australian public hospitals and that access being free of cost to sick Australians, irrespective of age, income or health status. The ignorance of the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) and his colleagues is such that they are opining that this is no longer called a Medicare agreement. That is because they are ignorant of the fact that what the bill is seeking to do, amongst other things, is broadband services that are being provided—health care services and services provided in the community—so that hospitals will be financed under these agreements to provide not just in-patient services but step-down care, hospital in the home, renal dialysis at home and a range of services that are not currently funded under Medicare.What we are on about as a government finally is health, not just the financing of health. That is why the title of the bill has been changed. The financing proposal that has been put on the table by the Commonwealth is $30.17 billion over the next five years. That is $2.9 billion over and above forward estimates for the next five years and includes: $1½ billion in base funding for five years; $750 million for veterans, although of course veterans, quite rightly, have entitlements outside this agreement from which the states are financial beneficiaries; $500 million for improving efficiency in hospitals, especially in the area of information technology; and $120 million for waiting lists. The Commonwealth is making available $4 million a week to treat 1,300 people a week languishing on waiting lists, some of whom are at risk of serious ill-health and, without exaggerating, some of whom are at risk of dying as they wait on a waiting list. This represents a 6.9 per cent real increase in the first year of funding. That will move to a 15.4 per cent real increase in funding over the five years of the agreement.The states, as they were in 1992, some of them Labor governments, are demanding an extra $5½ billion over the next five years which, when you consider what happened in 1993-94, keeping in mind that Brian Howe managed to get the states to sign up just before the 1993 federal election, the first year of operation of the current agreements is such that the previous Commonwealth government succumbed to the demands of people like Keith Wilson when he was the ALP health minister in Western Australia, and it increased funding in the first year of the agreements by 11.4 per cent. So what happened? The states cut funding by 11.7 per cent. What happened in one year was that the Commonwealth's share of public hospital financing increased from 45 to 55 per cent, and it has taken three years for it to recover.Some of the most vocal criticism of the Commonwealth's current offer is coming from Victoria. In the first year of those Medicare agreements in Victoria, the amount of money that the state contributed dropped by $205 million compared to 1992-93. One year after that, it had dropped by $396 million compared to 1991-92. To be fair to the current Premier, Mr Kennett, that agenda was driven by Dr John Patterson, who was head of the department at the time, and supported by Mrs Marie Tehan, who was then the health minister.In January 1995—I had moved to Sydney about a month earlier—I was listening to the radio one Saturday afternoon. I heard the Victorian Premier come on and say that there was not a problem in the public hospitals in Victoria. He had just done a tour. I thought, `What kind of nonsense is this?' I rang one of my colleagues who was president of the Victorian branch of the AMA and I said, `I would like you to arrange a tour of the hospitals for me.' I did a tour.At St Vincent's Hospital I found two patients with brain tumours, both of whom had hemiplegia, which means that they could move neither their right arm nor their right leg, and were filled up with cortisone to reduce the pressure on their brain tumours. These two patients had waited three weeks for elective surgery. In an 18-bed neurosurgical ward, only one nurse was specialist trained in neurosurgery. I found a hand surgeon and his anaesthetist waiting in a theatre that had been empty for an hour and a half because there was not a clerk to admit and process the patient because of the cutbacks that the state government had undertaken at the time in funding the hospital.I went into the emergency department at 10 o'clock on a Tuesday night. There were two empty beds in the entire hospital. The hospital was on bypass. The problem was that every other public hospital in Victoria that night was also on bypass, which means the ambulances are supposed to take the emergency cases somewhere else. The waiting room was full.All five of the intensive beds in the emergency department were full. One of the five patients was being mechanically ventilated, which is something you should not do in an emergency department. There were five patients who had already been determined as being in need of admission despite the fact that there were only two empty beds in the hospital. The director of nursing said to me that night—I will never forget this—`A member of our staff goes home crying every night.' That was when we had a federal Labor government and of course by that stage we had a state Liberal government.I went to the Alfred Hospital the following day. The emergency department was like something you would find in a war zone. Patients on elective surgery waiting lists were phoning every day and many were in tears when they were told for the second, third or fourth time that their surgery had to be cancelled. There was a lack of cardiac monitors in the hospital and some patients with cardiac arrhythmias were not being monitored in the outpatient department. A suicidal patient with a drug overdose had waited 24 hours to be seen by a psychiatric registrar.I could speak all day about those kinds of experiences—real experiences affecting real people. The point that I want to make is that it is time that the bickering between Commonwealth and state governments in this country ended and both sides of politics supported a meaningful taxation reform agenda which is critical to reform of Commonwealth-state relations and, most importantly, that the party politics is got out of health.The point I was trying to make at the start of my contribution was that in 1992-93 Brian Howe had exactly the same problems that the current Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge), the member for Chisholm, has in negotiating with the states. But what has happened here is that the Commonwealth has had the courage to put a meaningful offer on the table, which to all intents and purposes is generous, in the knowledge that two states—Victoria and New South Wales—hung out right up to election day, literally, in 1993 and then got more money. I think New South Wales got $78 million. They hung out, and the states are trying to do that again now. The people who are suffering in all of this are the people that Keith Wilson referred to in his July 1992 address—the most vulnerable people that it is intended the Medicare system support most.Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make this contribution. There is great dishonesty in this debate. There is great anger in the community about it. I think that the state premiers, whatever their political persuasion, ought to do what the taxpayers and the hardworking men and women urge them to do and pay them to do—that is, come to Canberra and talk about a meaningful financing arrangement for public hospitals.17:15:001574Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 deals with the new health care agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, and will apply from 1 July 1998. It is a bit hollow, really, when the whole system seems to be under threat, first by the federal government and then by the states.The original scheme was introduced in 1984 and brought Australia a new and national health care funding scheme. This was a system that provided universal access for all Australian residents to free or subsidised medical care and to free hospital treatment in public hospitals, irrespective of age, income or health status. It was a system that everyone could access. It was easy and it was funded from general taxation revenue, plus a levy on the taxable income of those who earned more than a certain basic amount. It has worked well and, since 1984, has enabled people of all ages and social backgrounds to have proper health care without having to pay up-front exorbitant fees, as occurs in some other countries such as the United States.The only trouble is that it seems that the health share of the budget is dwindling. The government does not want to pay out what it collects through tax for health to the states. They would rather give it to the private insurance companies to back up their dwindling funds as people leave private insurance. Private companies have been shored up by $1.7 billion and this money has been ripped out of the public system with the abolition of the Commonwealth dental program, the $500 million lost from the pharmaceutical benefits fund and the closures of the Medicare offices around the country. Private health insurers are in business. They are in business to make a profit. I would suggest that health care is not something one should be making a profit from. It is the right of all citizens of Australia to have decent, affordable health care.The conservatives of this country have been keen to get rid of the national scheme to try to move the whole thing back to the private sector. `User pays' is the old catchcry. This has been made only too clear in the latest round of the battle for Medicare. This is Medicare removal by stealth. Little by little, inch by inch the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, is moving to get rid of the scheme that has always been hated—Medicare, the fair way to deliver health to our community. He will deny it. He keeps promising Medicare will stay and then more money is ripped out. He is accusing the states of not maintaining their level of funding to hospitals while the Commonwealth is clearly taking away funds from the agreement. The states are no saints, as far as funding health is concerned, but what incentive is being offered to them to increase funds in the health budget if the government continues along the way it is going? Nice try, Mr Howard, but it will not wash. People are going to see through this little ploy and understand that it is Medicare itself that is under threat.People are not getting treatment and the waiting lists are long because funding is not getting through to the people who need it. The blame must come back to the Prime Minister. Even the name of the Medicare agreement has changed: this is the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 . It should be the Medicare agreement bill. Another sleight of hand is being perpetrated.The amendment raised by the opposition is important because the government is placing Australia's world renowned health scheme in jeopardy by failing to achieve new Medicare agreements with the state and territory governments. It points out that the government is also misrepresenting its offer, which amounts to little more than double counting and putting back health funds that have been cut away in the first two Howard budgets, and, further, that it has failed to adequately consult with the states and territories regarding the provisions of this bill.Of course, the people who suffer most by this sort of subterfuge are those in the rural and regional areas—families and the elderly, the very people that the Prime Minister is supposedly committed to helping. Country areas are smarting from the closure of 44 Medicare offices. They have suffered the closure of country hospitals and they are also losing the services of their local GPs.What private companies are given an incentive to help those in the country? None. There is no clamour for the private sector to take up small country hospitals or to provide ongoing services. No, they are just closed and the people are forgotten about. They are saying, `Go into the cities. There are better services there.' But people have become marooned in the country, where there is no public transport and no assistance to get treatment regularly. They cannot move closer because they cannot afford the high housing costs in the cities and public housing is being gradually abolished, despite the fact that there are still long waiting queues—2,000 families last week in Tasmania.An article in the Launceston Examiner on 24 March, by Alison Andrews, captures the feeling of those on the east coast of Tasmania in my electorate. They are distressed and disappointed by the closure of yet another service in a country town. She writes:In today's Australia wide health crisis, St Marys must seem to them (State Health Services and Minister) like a tiny irritating pimple on a gigantic pumpkin of finance related hospital problems.But that does not stop rural centres like St Marys all over Tasmania from feeling they've become invisible.These people know that they are alive and kicking and trying to make a living for themselves and their families in the bush where they've chosen to live, but they must feel as though they have been punished for choosing fresh air, big backyards and home grown vegetables for their kids instead of living in the city that seem to be the only places where anybody can now afford to maintain services.Country people on the whole are a self-reliant lot. They've proven that over the years by the hospitals, the churches and community halls they've built, the schools they've maintained and the big annual events like agricultural shows that they run.They tell their kids that if they create something good, then it's worth fighting for and that hard work and straight talking is what pays off.So it's bewildering and frustrating for country town people like those at St Marys to be told that something they believed was a necessary part of their lives has gone and no amount of hard work or straight talking will bring it back.St Marys people built their hospital on land granted by one of the farmers in the district for that purpose and helped furnish and maintain it until it was acquired by the State Government at the start of the 1990s for about $2.They have said that they are prepared to continue helping to operate a 24 hour a day seven day a week hospital to keep it open. They just cannot afford to do it all themselves. . . . . . St Marys is not a rich community. Its people have been miners, shopkeepers and millworkers.They fought their battle to keep their hospital as well as they could and no amount of talk about Tasmania wide and Australia wide health catastrophes will make them feel better now that they've lost.This community's plea is from their hearts. They have lost their hospital and have been given lesser service in its place. With that they have lost their doctor and have been given a locum to fill his place until some magic state government can recruit someone who is prepared to work hideously long hours in this isolated area. That person probably will not receive any relief if they take up that practice.Most doctors who work in country areas have come from overseas. Although they do an absolutely tremendous job, they are often forgotten by their own fraternity as well. It makes for a very stressful life, and therefore they have to say, `No, enough is enough,' after a certain period. Without a properly funded Medicare scheme, their job will be much harder.Members might ask why I keep using St Marys as an example. St Marys is to Tasmania what Tasmania is to the mainland: an irritable pimple on the national stage. Tasmania has a small population but it is widely scattered, as most of its job creating industries are resourced based. St Marys, for example, is coal, timber and farming based. The tax gleaned from these resources is quite considerable, but none of it appears to be being filtered back into this community.The state government has been insisting on massive cuts to costs in the hospital system. The unions have tried to be as cooperative as possible, but between 4,000 and 4,500 jobs have been lost in the Tasmanian hospital system throughout the last few years. This has probably helped a debt reduction program in the state Treasury, but it has cut the services to near unsustainable levels throughout the state.Another debt reduction measure that has been undertaken is that all aged care centres have been privatised in Tasmania. Benchmarking has taken place on all the support services, and they have been narrowed down to the minimum cost. But morale is very low because of the difficulties staff are having with such reductions and how much the funding has been cut. Health and Community Services Union members were surveyed, and the biggest concerns they have are job security and also being able to provide a quality service to the people they look after—both now under considerable stress because of the Howard government. So don't try to tell me that the scheme has been wasteful. Don't try to hoodwink the public that they will be getting a better service by cutting funds to Medicare. That is not true.We have to have an agreement. This one expires on 30 June, and it is vital that it be renewed. Of course, Labor supports that concept. But there has to be some flexibility to allow the states to put their case. There has to be recognition of the cuts that have been made and there has to be additional funding, not just bringing the situation back to the status quo.There are people out there who need to be assisted. While all the arguments continue to go on, patients are not being treated. Health is a priority for many of my constituents. They have a right to the best possible care, and that will be provided by Medicare. The government must find more money for public hospitals to assist the public hospital system to continue to carry out the work that they are there for.The Howard government withdrew considerable amounts of money from the hospital system in its first two budgets. Of the $1.7 billion that it gave to the private health insurance system, $800 million came from public hospitals, $400 million from dental services and $500 million from the pharmaceutical benefits fund in the first budget. This government needs to replace that sort of money in the public health system, especially in the public hospital system, so that people can be covered. It needs to live up to its promises to protect Medicare and to put the money into Medicare that it needs to service the people of Australia. I support the amendments moved by the shadow minister.17:31:001577McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—The great wonder of our health system is that it does work. Throughout this nation, millions of Australians receive medical care of the highest standard every day. Millions more benefit and will benefit in the future from the ongoing study and advances in medical health and technology. Our medical professionals are amongst the finest in the world. In fact, our medical and hospital standards are the envy of so many other countries.I have nothing but praise for the medical professionals at hospitals such as Greenslopes Private Hospital, which is used by so many of the electors in my electorate. In fact, the health system seems to run remarkably well in Queensland, which is due in no small part to the dedication of the health professionals in my electorate who work at those hospitals and clinics. Yet all will agree there are glitches—serious glitches—which need to be resolved if we are to continue to maintain this system which ensures free medical treatment for all Australians.This Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 addresses several of the major flaws which lie in the agreements between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, particularly in the area which affects every taxpayer, every Australian who contributes their hard earned dollars to our free health system.The government has been aware that there has been an alarming increase by the states of double dipping on those taxpayer funds. This is simply a case of taking the Commonwealth funds, which have just been increased from $26 billion to $30 billion, and charging yet again for services which have already been paid for by the Commonwealth. This is called cost shifting, but that is just a nice safe bur-eaucratic phrase for charging the taxpayer twice for the same service.My concern is for the people in my electorate of Griffith. Each and every one of them is affected by inefficiencies in the system, no matter where they occur in Australia. It was not hard for me to find examples of this. I wish to draw the attention of the House to some of those examples which take place in Victoria.Victoria is a state that was sent to the financial wall first by Labor's Cain government and then it was finished off by the Socialist Left led government of Mrs Kirner. With no money left, not even in the State Bank, the people of Victoria had no choice but to dismiss Labor before the entire state was sold off to the lowest bidder. The current Premier hit every ratepayer with an annual levy and set about dragging the bankrupt state back into the black. On the one hand, he is to be congratulated for achieving the success he has but, on the other, one questions his call on the Commonwealth for even more health dollars when Victoria is a master at the art of cost shifting taxpayers' health funds.Not only does this state government double charge the nation's taxpayers for many medical services but it has reduced funding to its health facilities by 18 per cent. In the meantime, the Commonwealth government has increased health funding to Victoria by 19 per cent. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard these figures and also a graph which compares the cumulative increase in funding of hospital services by the state of Victoria over the period of the current Medicare agreements with that of the Commonwealth.Leave granted.The documents read as follows—YearCommonwealth (Index)Victoria (Index)1992-931001001993-94113771994-95115761995-96116791996-9711778 1997-9811982State Source: Data provided by the CGC, compiled on the same basis as 2% Review (1996) Attachment 4.3 States' Own Expenditure for Hospital Services (CGC Data).Commonwealth Source: 2% Review (1996) Attachment 4.1 Commonwealth Outlays on Health and General Revenue AssistanceKK6McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALL—As you will see by this graph, Victoria has dramatically decreased its level of funding to health, by 18 per cent, to lower than it was in 1992-93. This decrease was a direct reaction to the Commonwealth's substantial increase in the level of base funding from the previous 1988 to 1993 Medicare agreements of a real 13 per cent. The effect of this has been dramatic. In 1993-94, the last year of the current Medicare agreements, Victoria achieved a cost per casemix adjustment separation approximately one per cent lower than the national average. But by 1995-96 this had decreased further to almost 11 per cent lower than the national average. Their answer to this is to demand that the Commonwealth supply more and more funds.But do they spend them well and wisely? Not according to evidence I have before me of cost shifting in almost every aspect of health care spread across the entire state. According to the Victorian health minister, Victoria does not sneak extra funds from the nation's taxpayers, and that includes the constituents of my electorate.Here are a few examples of taking the Commonwealth's funds with one hand and then sending patients out to bill the Commonwealth yet again with the other. The Royal Melbourne Hospital quite blatantly instructs doctors to refer outpatients to GPs for prescriptions. The hospital even generated an internal memo to that effect. This same hospital also issued instructions to psychiatrists to issue prescriptions for public mental health patients, in particular for olanzapine and risperidone. These are only two of the examples of Victorian health officials shifting services from the public hospitals that they fund onto the Medicare and pharmaceutical benefits payments that the Commonwealth funds. In the meantime, the Victorian Office of Corrections charges the Commonwealth, via the Medicare benefits schedule, for urine tests and related pathology for prisoners.At Bacchus Marsh, a hospital which services the large regional area of north-west Melbourne, the pattern is to reclassify patients from same day in-patients to private outpatients with all the associated Medicare benefits schedule charges. The list goes on.Take Geelong, the large regional centre south of Melbourne. Here it is common for outpatients to be referred to GPs for prescriptions. Cost shifting has been officially recorded at Geelong in a memo from the Medical Services Director, who instructed medical staff to reclassify patients who require the drug taxol to private status so they are billed for medical services at 75 per cent of the schedule fee. Taxol is then charged to the Commonwealth's pharmaceutical benefits program. These all look minor, but they add up to millions of dollars nationwide.Bulk-billing has become a quick and efficient way to charge the nation's taxpayers for medical services, even when those services are designated to be paid from funds already paid to the states. This is done publicly, despite claims by the Victorian health minister that it does not happen. The Appollo Bay and District Memorial Hospital, for example, is known to be unwilling to employ doctors without provider numbers. The obvious reason is that, without provider numbers, they are unable to bulk-bill for outpatient services. In Leongatha, the billing of outpatient services is carried out in the name of the Leongatha Medical Group—a public hospital by another name.The flicking of public outpatients into the Commonwealth Medicare benefits schedule is so common in Victoria that it has been the subject of the ABC's 7.30 Report. This program revealed that at Korumburra bulk-billing is regularly carried out for outpatients and accident and emergency services. A media report also showed that the same thing is happening at Rosebud. Melbourne's large Austin Hospital has been reported as privatising outpatient services which result in referrals to GPs, who in turn bill Medicare.It is patently obvious that some of the states are trying to erode Medicare. Premier Kennett has made it quite clear that it is his agenda. Last week on radio station 3AW he said:If I had my way at the moment, I would say to the people of Australia, we are going to abolish Medicare, everyone has got to take out a private insurance, those who can't—means tested—will have it paid for by the Government.Let me say that this is not the agenda of this coalition government. At the time of the 1996 election, our Prime Minister (Mr Howard) promised to maintain Medicare. He has kept his promise. I stand by this government's intention and desire to maintain all the principles that underpin Medicare. The major principle of Medicare is that any Australian can go into a public hospital and be treated at no charge to the patient—not just those with health insurance, not just those with the means to pay, but all Australians. This intention, this goal, cannot be maintained if the states continue to demand a 40 per cent increase in Commonwealth funding, particularly when at the same time they are refusing to reduce their own spending. I believe it would be a good idea if the states at least tidied up their own book work and stopped charging the taxpayer twice.The amendments contained in this bill put in place a new health care agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, to apply from 1 July. It provides that financial assistance will be conditional on adherence to the health care agreement principles. It also provides for this government to establish the position of a health care information commissioner. The commissioner's role will be to identify the movement of services around the health system and report how these services are funded. Before the opposition starts ringing alarm bells, might I say that the commissioner's reports will be made available to all parties.Labor ignored the needs of the health system for 13 years, and it has taken this government to put it back into perspective. The states have clear responsibilities to manage the Commonwealth's funds rationally and effectively. These funds are provided by the taxpayers of Australia, including all those taxpayers in my electorate. I support this bill.17:46:001580Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—I am very pleased to enter this debate on the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 . When Medicare was introduced in February 1984 it was heralded as the solution to Australia's national health care funding. Medicare would give universal access to free or subsidised medical care and free hospital treatment to all Australian residents. Financial assistance to the states and territories for public hospitals and other health services would be provided by the Commonwealth conditional on the state or territory entering into an agreement in force under section 24 of the Health Insurance Act 1973. Private medical cover would still be an option for those wishing for a wider choice of medical specialists, hospitals, et cetera. Initially, despite all the critics, this two-tiered system of medical care worked reasonably well when compared with health care systems throughout the industrialised world.However, over the past decade or so a dramatic decline in the number of people contributing to private health insurance cover and the increasing number of Australians now turning to the public health system for their medical needs has placed an ever increasing burden on Medicare to the extent that the states and territories are now demanding a greater level of Commonwealth funding. The current Commonwealth, state and territory agreement on funding was negotiated in 1993 and ends on 30 June 1998. That is only a few months away so it is essential that a new agreement be reached as quickly as possible.Up until now, state and territory health ministers have refused to accept the offer on the table. Can they be blamed? For a start, under the existing five-year agreement and also under the previous agreement the federal government has repeatedly failed to honour trigger points in relation to private health care insurance. The Commonwealth has not increased funding to the public hospitals despite an undertaking in the agreements to review funding each time private health insurance coverage fell by two percentage points. Private health insurance coverage is now at its lowest level ever, with less than one-third of Australians currently contributing to health care funds. Unless the Commonwealth government can come up with a more convincing incentive than the current tax concessions, the numbers will continue to decline. With the decline in health fund membership, two reviews of medical funding have been carried out but the Commonwealth has failed to make any additional funding available to the states.New proposals put forward by the Commonwealth again offer automatic adjustments for any further decline in the coverage of private health insurance in any state or territory, taking the form of an extra payment of $83 million a year for every percentage drop in the numbers in private health coverage from June 1999. But can state and territory ministers trust the Commonwealth to keep to that arrangement this time? It has not done so in the past. However, at issue is not only what might happen in the future or whether the Commonwealth will honour its arrangements in the new agreement. What is vitally important and what must be addressed is that the states badly need additional funding now in order to met rising health costs and the unacceptably high public hospital waiting lists. At present under the new agreement offered by the Commonwealth, the states and territories are being offered a total of $30.17 billion over five years, an increase of $4.17 billion over the previous five-year agreement. The states and territories are united in claiming that that is not enough and have asked for $34.5 billion. The Commonwealth's refusal to consider any further increases on the $30.17 billion led, as we all know, to a walkout of the state and territory premiers at the recent Premiers Conference on 20 March. There is little doubt that the states and territories have some justification in holding out for increased funding. Since 1993, one million Australians have deserted private health care funds, costing the states and territories an estimated additional $622.5 million per year. That money has to come from somewhere.The states and territories have presented a convincing case for extra funding and there is ample evidence that public health is suffering because of inadequate funding. One only has to turn on the radio or TV to learn that cuts have already been made to the provision of health care services and that many hospitals have had to close wards because there is simply not enough money to keep hospitals running at maximum capacity. I will be talking about that a little later with regard to one of my local hospitals.Hospital administrators are having to continually reshuffle funds from one area to another in order to meet costs. This is just not good enough. If Australians are to have a level of public health care that is second to none then increased Commonwealth funding must be made available to meet changing circumstances, such as an increase in the number of people using the public health system, and to cover the rising costs of providing and operating these services.As a consequence of these cuts and closures, many non-urgent or elective surgical cases have had to be postponed and public hospital waiting lists are growing at an alarming rate. Perhaps most affected by the lengthy waiting lists are the frail and elderly. This is the sector of the population which most often relies on the public health system and is the sector that can least afford to take out private coverage. I cite one example of an elderly couple living in my electorate who, incidentally, have been with MBF for over 35 years. In 1998 they are faced with an annual premium for their private health coverage of $2,261.40. How many pensioners can afford that? Yet they have told me that they will continue to do without life's little luxuries in the twilight of their lives to meet this premium because they are afraid that, when they fall ill, our public health system will be so underfunded that they may have to wait an inordinate amount of time on a hospital waiting list.To relieve the burden on the public health system the Commonwealth government must come up with an incentive that induces large numbers of people, especially large numbers of young and healthy individuals, to again look favourably at private health care coverage. Tax incentives, when they are more or less completely negated by increases in health fund premiums, do little to encourage people to consider private health as a viable alternative to public health. Until this occurs, the pressures on the public health system in this country will be immense, and the states and territories face an uphill and constant battle to make ends meet. The Commonwealth government must increase the offer currently on the table to ensure that all Australians, not just the rich who can afford to pay for private health care, have access to an efficient and adequately funded public health system commensurate with their needs.The major concern I have, however, is with the Commonwealth's attitude to the whole issue of health—an attitude that suggests it has firmly decided, as I make it out, against any major changes to a fast-declining health care system. There is no doubt the present system is crumbling. The only way forward is to look at new funding arrangements and to rule nothing in or out. Sticking to the present system is a recipe for disaster. I believe all Australians expect as a basic right subsidised, private medical services and free public hospital care.I also believe that our fellow Australians are realistic enough to understand that these expectations come at an extremely high cost and, in fact, things may well be at the stage where the continued funding is becoming beyond budget affordability for several reasons, not the least of which are the following three. Australians are living much longer. High tech medicine is increasingly effective in dealing with the ailments of patients, but is also proving to be highly expensive. Thirdly, medical litigation is on a substantially increasing curve. The costs of medical immunity have grown exponentially. These costs are, quite understandably, passed on, resulting in huge increases in fees and charges.The largest group by far that are deserting private health cover are, as I said earlier, the young men and women who see little need to be privately covered until they reach their early fifties. There is no incentive for them to take out private health cover at this stage in their lives. What incentive does the coalition government provide to keep them in or to encourage them to join private health funds? Not a great deal.The less than 32 per cent of Australians who are privately covered are increasingly the sick and the elderly. We are heading for a brick wall at an increasingly fast rate and, unless remedial action is taken now, the crash will come and the poor suffering taxpayers will have to pick up the tab. But I fear that tab may well be beyond the reach of any government, and hence beyond the reach of taxpayers, resulting in an increasingly two-tiered health care system: one for the well-off and rich and the other for the average Australian battler. The clock is fast approaching midnight.As I said earlier, I want to make a passing reference to one hospital in my electorate, Concord Hospital, formerly the Concord Repatriation and General Hospital. It is very close to the Olympic site and is increasingly being referred to as the `Olympics hospital'. The problems at that hospital are very substantial indeed, and I must pay tribute to its administrators for having succeeded in doing a very fine job for the local community under increasingly difficult conditions especially because of the cutback in funding to this hospital, which is one of the finest teaching hospitals anywhere in the state of New South Wales. Frankly, I fear for that hospital because it has proven to be a hospital greatly needed by the local community especially as a result of the closure of the old Western Suburbs hospital on the Croydon Park site.Prior to the 1995 state election a commitment was made by the then state coalition government that a new hospital would be built on the Croydon Park site. On or about 2 February—from memory—just prior to that state election, work had begun on building on that site a new, high-tech hospital, which was absolutely vital and needed. I well recall the work that had commenced. I recall the bulldozers going in to remove the old hospital site buildings that had become virtually useless. The time had come for a new high-tech hospital to be built. The state coalition government at the time had signed an agreement and work had begun on the site. I believe, as I have been informed by the excavators, that one million tonnes of earth was removed from that site after work had begun. The concrete foundations had been laid for the underground car park, and I can still visualise the work that had begun, including the concrete walls that had gone up.Immediately after the state election, the incoming Carr government had the choice of one of two things: either to proceed with the building of that hospital at the Croydon Park site or to update and make more efficient the buildings of the Canterbury Hospital. Because of political reasons—there is no doubt of that in my mind—the fact was that the Carr Labor government decided that they were going to build on the Canterbury Hospital site. There is equally no doubt in my mind that, had they had the money, had it not been a choice of one hospital or the other because of the lack of funding, they would have continued with the building of that high-tech hospital at the Croydon Park site. In fact, here we are now almost four years later and the old Western Suburbs hospital site is a barren block of land. It is fenced off and it is just lying there. That is a great tragedy, but that is the effect of what has occurred in regard to the problems we have in funding in health care.I want to conclude by saying that the coalition government have tried. There is no doubt that they have offered incentives, they have tried, but the system that has been put in place is just not working in modern day Australia. We have to look at alternatives, we have to look at a new way of doing things. There are many proposals that have been put to the government, some of which I find can work, given a chance, provided that there is an open mind that is put to dealing with the problem that we are all going to face increasingly as time goes by.I will not vote in favour of the amendments proposed by the opposition because I want to see what the government is going to do when the budget comes down. I also want to see what new policies are going to be proposed by the coalition government in trying to resolve what is admittedly a very difficult issue but an issue that needs to be grappled with, and grappled with sooner rather than later.18:02:001583Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—The provision and funding of health care services in Australia involve a complex web of arrangements between Commonwealth, state and local governments, hospitals, both public and private, medical practitioners, private health insurance funds, community organisations and, of course, patients. The arrangements are difficult to follow and occasionally they seem to be almost impossible to untangle. They have been woven over a long period of time within quite difficult practical and constitutional constraints and they are put under constant strain by the different objectives and activities of the health care industry's various participants. The arrangements have, however, despite their apparent fragility, delivered for Australia a health system which is amongst the best in the world.The bill before the House today, the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 , deals with one of the most important threads in this complex web of arrangements, namely, the Medicare agreements, now to be called the health care agreements, between the Commonwealth and each of the states and territories.These agreements set out the terms and conditions upon which the states and territories provide public hospital services to the Australian people and upon which the Commonwealth contributes financially to this task. Their origin lies in the Commonwealth's desire to ensure the provision of free public hospital services to all eligible Australians. They are made necessary by the fact that state and territory governments have traditional and constitutional responsibility for the operation of the public hospital system but do not have sufficient revenue of their own with which to provide services as comprehensive as those sought by the Commonwealth. The agreements are an essential component of Australia's Medicare system and make possible the national, universal access, free of charge public hospital system to which Australians have become accustomed.The bill establishes the legislative framework for a new set of five-year agreements to replace those entered into by the former Labor government in 1993 and which will expire on 30 June this year. It confirms absolutely the coalition's commitment to a Medicare system which provides free public hospital services to all eligible Australians on the basis of clinical need. It does very clearly refute the claim made by the opposition, a consistent scare campaign that they have been running for almost a decade, that the coalition is seeking to dismantle Medicare.At its most basic level, the bill grants parliamentary authority to the government:. . . for the payment of financial assistance [to the states and territories] for designated health services and related matters and for projects and programs designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of, or reduce the demand for, designated health services, or to improve patient outcomes in relation to the delivery of such services.It also sets out the minimum conditions for such assistance. There must be an agreement that adheres to these stipulated health care agreement principles:1. Eligible persons are to be given the choice to receive designated health services, free of charge, as public patients.2. Access to designated health services by public patients is to be on the basis of clinical need and within a clinically appropriate period.3. Arrangements are to be in place to ensure equitable access to designated health services for all eligible persons regardless of their geographic location.On their face, these provisions differ little from those in the existing legislation. They do, however, involve an important change in focus which will remove some of the prescriptiveness and inflexibility of the current arrangements, diminish some of the incentives for cost shifting and overcome some of the barriers to appropriate care.Under the current arrangements, the lion's share of Commonwealth financial assistance to the states under the Medicare agreements is made up of base hospital funding grants for the provision of public hospital services and bonus payments linked essentially to the level of public hospital activity. Determination of these grants is essentially linked to hospital admissions rather than outputs or outcomes of the public hospital system. The result of all this has been that state health administrators have had a distinct financial incentive to treat patients in hospital rather than through potentially more desirable, more flexible and more appropriate settings outside the physical confines of a hospital building where this is appropriate and beneficial.This bill will remove the prescriptive `components of financial assistance payable under an agreement' provisions of the existing legislation and replace them with a much more general and flexible authority for the provision of financial assistance. In so doing, it is designed to encourage the negotiation of agreements that reflect the outputs of the system and encourage innovative changes in service provision from acute to other forms of health care provision. The more flexible financial assistance provisions contained in this bill will also enable the provision of funding for system restructuring projects, which aim to achieve better integration and coordination of care between the various health care sectors. One of the key areas identified by the Commonwealth where such funding could be beneficial is the area of improved access to and the use of information technology across the health system, between hospitals, GPs, specialists, diagnostic services and community care services, in a way which promotes integrated care.Another area of system restructuring which the Commonwealth has indicated an interest in pursuing concerns pharmaceutical benefits. At present, hospitals have an incentive to dispense minimal pharmaceuticals—the payment for which they are responsible—to patients who are being discharged from their care. It occasionally happens that they send patients home with a couple of days supply and tell them to see their GPs within that time to get a prescription for a full supply, which will be funded through the Commonwealth's pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Not only does such a system place unnecessary and untimely burdens on patients who have just been discharged from hospital, but it is a distortion which creates, on occasion, friction between state and federal health administrations and adds an unnecessary GP consultation to total care costs. Under the new flexible funding arrangements, the Commonwealth is proposing to take over outpatient and discharge drugs, and this should assist the situation.Pharmaceuticals are, however, only one of the more apparent examples. There are other examples of services being provided inefficiently or inconveniently which, all too often, we know little or nothing about. It is at least partly because of this that the bill proposes the establishment of the Office of the Health Care Information Commissioner. The 1996 report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia's Health 1996, devoted a considerable amount of space to a consideration of the demand for and provision of accurate and useful information on aspects of Australia's health care system. It noted that:In Australia and elsewhere the demand for information and the ability to provide information have increased rapidly in recent years.This phenomenon has been as evident in the health sector as in other areas. The demand for information has resulted in recognition of the need to improve the quality of, and reduce the gaps in, the nation's health information.Amongst the gaps and deficiencies in health statistics which it identified were statistics on health care funding, resources and use, and it observed that:There is almost no information about the health outcomes that result from the $37 billion spent on health services.It is imperative that gaps such as this are addressed. There is nothing more detrimental to the delivery of effective and efficient health services than a lack of information about what services are most needed, what services are currently provided and where the gaps between supply and demand lie. There are few things less sensible than providing health services in an inefficient fashion, and there are few things more frustrating than knowing that such inefficiencies exist but being unable to identify them because of insufficient statistical data.The Office of the Health Care Information Commissioner to be established by this bill will be able to collect and analyse patient level data supplied by the Commonwealth and the states, provide reports to the Commonwealth and the states on health service provision and disseminate other information to the Commonwealth, a state or any other person if the commissioner considers that it is in the public interest to do so. While no-one should anticipate that the new Health Care Information Commissioner will close all of the information gaps the system currently faces, its establishment as a central, specific purpose information collection and collation agency will certainly help.This bill lays the foundation for the achievement of significant improvements in Australia's hospital system over the next five years. It reaffirms the coalition government's strong commitment to the Medicare system and particularly to the principle of free of charge, universal access, public hospital treatment on a clinical needs basis.The legislation is, however, only a framework. It relies on the successful negotiation of agreements between the Commonwealth and the states. It is worth while noting that, at the moment, the negotiation of such agreements is proving difficult. As is occasionally the case, the root source of disagreement lies not in the structure of the agreements or their intent, but in the dollars on offer. It must be stressed, however, that there is a great deal in the health care agreements legislation and the established common ground between the Commonwealth and the states on the agreements themselves that is of value. Foremost amongst this is the continued commitment to Medicare and to open and free access to public hospital treatment for those who need it. The importance of this should not be allowed to be overshadowed by the dispute about funding and, as the Prime Minister has said, `The reality is that the Commonwealth will honour in full, to the last dollar, on time, the offer in regard to health funding that was made to the states'. I commend the bill to the House.18:13:001585Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—In view of things happening in other places, I will first of all declare an interest in this. My wife is a nurse. She works within the Illawarra area health service as a nurse unit manager in charge of the psychiatric unit at Shellharbour Hospital in Wollongong. With that on the public record, I will now go on to make some comments about the legislation before us tonight.As the member for Kooyong (Mr Georgiou) rightly pointed out, the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 is one which should have universal acceptance. It is one that it should have been possible to debate in this place without too much rancour and certainly without too much controversy. Regrettably, the events of a few days ago have, in many senses, meant that is not to be the case.It is not that that controversy has not been without foundation. The words of Premiers Kennett and Borbidge amongst others—not to forget those of the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr—are still reverberating around this place. While the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) might say that was a stunt which was preconceived and was done for other political motives, it is fair to say the Premiers were expressing their genuine concerns at the way in which the Commonwealth-state agreements have now gone, in terms of the discussion as part of trying to stitch up this new Medicare agreement.I will come back and say a little more about that in a moment, but I think it is important that we establish a base from which this discussion proceeds. I refer honourable members to the Information and Research Services Bills Digest No. 163 of 1997-98, produced on this bill by the Department of the Parliamentary Library. In the first section of that document, it talks about Medicare:Medicare was introduced on 1 February 1984 and is Australia's national health care funding system. Medicare provides universal access for all Australian residents to free or subsidised medical care and free hospital treatment in public hospitals, irrespective of age, income or health status.It goes on to say:Benefits are also available on a limited basis to persons covered by ministerial order . . . and to citizens of countries which have reciprocal health care arrangements with Australia. Medicare is funded from general taxation revenue, plus a levy on taxable income payable only by those earning above a certain income level.Australian residents can choose to be Medicare patients in a public hospital, or private patients in public or private hospitals. If they choose to be a Medicare patient, treatment is provided free of charge by doctors nominated by the hospital. State and Territory governments are responsible, under agreements with the Commonwealth Government, for ensuring that services, adequate to meet these entitlements, are available in public hospitals. This component of Medicare is funded jointly by the Commonwealth Government and the State and Territory governments.The document then goes on to talk about funding and the component that is being sought and the way in which some of those discussions which were to be concluded last week at the Premiers Conference were to come about.My reason for reading that background information on Medicare into the record tonight is to remind people of the significance of this vital piece of Australian history that, regrettably, too many people take for granted. If we recall Australia's recent history of social service benefits being paid to Australians and all Australians being covered for medical services, it was with the introduction of Medicare in 1984, after some years spent by a previous conservative government in smashing the remnants of Medibank, that universal coverage for health care benefits was put in place for all Australians. It is very easy for people to forget that around two million Australians were not covered by any form of health insurance prior to the introduction of Medicare, the universal health care system. That severely curtailed the access that these people had to appropriate medical treatment and facilities. With Medicare came a commitment by a Labor government—and I am delighted to hear the member for Kooyong continue that commitment on behalf of the coalition—to a universal health system that covers all Australians.It is also important to dwell on the fact that in Australia since 1984 there has been the development not only of that public health system funded through Medicare but also of a parallel if smaller private health system which provides choice and access for people who perhaps have private health insurance and as a consequence make a choice that a private facility is going to meet their needs much better or who have a notion that in some way they have the choice of some better doctor by being in a private hospital that will also suit their purposes.Judging from my experiences since 1984, the public hospital system in New South Wales—and, specifically, the Illawarra area health service—has served the constituents that I represent in this place well. But it has not been easy, in the light of the fact that the Illawarra health service has had to constantly battle against reductions in budgets imposed on them by state governments of various political persuasions. Those have been imposed on them in turn by shortfalls in what they believe are adequate recompense from the national level.There has been no more acute example of this than in the last couple of years. It is no good the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) or the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) coming in and using statistics and suggesting to the people of Wollongong that in some way the level of funding for hospitals and for medical care in the Illawarra has been increased in the manner people expected it would be. It has been established—and this is an undeniable fact—that, as part of the savings offered up by the minister for health in terms of budgets in the last two years, health was not quarantined. It was not quarantined because it was considered that every portfolio had to make a contribution. In the case of health, that contribution came by cutting back the funding to the states. The subsequent flow-on effect has meant that the states have been expected to pick up the responsibilities.Dental health programs are a case in point. The Commonwealth dental health program stands in tatters. A week or so ago I brought to the attention of this House a constituent of mine whose wife had written to me and said that he had been waiting for a considerable period to get access to the Commonwealth dental health program as a pensioner. In the meantime, his dentures were in such a bad state of repair that he was using superglue, a toxic substance, to keep them together. As his wife wrote to me, it not only was painful for him but also made eating extremely difficult. It is a sad commentary on any government that the quality of the lives of elderly citizens in this country has been impaired to the extent shown in the case of this constituent of mine.I have raised it with the people in Wollongong and they say, `Our hands are tied. That person may get on the priority list at some time in the future; that future could extend to 12 months.' The reason that is the case is that there has been cost shifting in the provision of the dental health facility from the Commonwealth funding to the state. The state of New South Wales is expected to pick up the costs involved in that. Obviously, with the pressures on the medical system—on the health system generally—priorities get changed around, and the government of New South Wales has had to now look around for additional ways in which that might be funded. The expectation is always going to be there.In the case of the Illawarra Area Health Service, we have received a windfall from the Carr government. The Carr government has put funding into improving hospital facilities in the Illawarra. A major construction is presently taking place at the Wollongong campus of the Illawarra Area Health Service. A new cancer clinic has been provided—although the funding for that came out of funding allocated at the time we were in government. Nevertheless, funding has continued to come in honour of commitments given by Bob Carr when he was elected to office three years ago for funding to be directed to the provision of extensions of health care facilities in the Illawarra.We saw that Coledale Hospital was saved, though the previous Liberal administration in New South Wales had intended to close it. We saw that Bulli Hospital was saved, because that was also in danger of being shut down. We saw the Kiama Hospital, closed by a previous administration—and I am not sure whether the present Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) was responsible for that when he was Premier of New South Wales; or perhaps it was his predecessor, Nick Greiner—reopened under a government led by Bob Carr, and we have seen major refurbishment take place at Port Kembla and Shellharbour hospitals.That said, because of the cutbacks that have been involved a number of specific units within each of those hospitals have had to go out just to try to find the wherewithal to furbish the actual wards themselves. In the case of what was the old ward 20 at Wollongong Hospital—the old psychiatric unit—my wife and the other nursing staff there used to have to run barbecues during the course of the day to get money so that they could buy lounges and curtains to put into that unit to make it livable for patients who were coming into the place. In the circumstances of today, I think that is ludicrous; I think it is unbelievable. And in the case of Illawarra, we had a major public appeal to raise funds for the children's ward. I think something like $2 million was raised through the generosity of the people of the Illawarra for the children's ward.Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the community giving a contribution in that way. The number of fundraising activities which a professionally employed fundraiser conducted to find that money for the children's ward was superb. We will get a first-class children's ward with a contribution from the state government and a contribution from the local community which found the money and had the heart to put it into this facility. But one has to ask why it is that, in regions like my own, there is the necessity for that level of funding to be found from the local community when they would argue to me, `We are taxpayers, we have contributed all our lives to the development of those facilities and when we want to go into them we should have access to appropriate levels of care.'I also accept—and it is probably a touch radical to say this these days—that medicine has moved on. There is not the call for people to stay in hospitals for the length of time that they once needed to. As a consequence, attitudes within the community have to change. There are many circumstances, for example, where women now give birth at Wollongong Hospital and then take themselves off to Illawarra private hospital to recuperate. Those sorts of things are significant and, I suppose, play a role in ensuring that the resources and the extremely high costs associated with the provision of first-rate medical care in Australia are kept to a minimum. Nevertheless, there still is a cost on the area health service and the area health service board charged with the responsibility of spending wisely and carefully the funding which flows to them on behalf of the state and Commonwealth governments.In the case of our area, the ability for that money to be spent wisely is impeded simply because cutbacks are imposed as a result of the sorts of squabbling we saw last week when the premiers came here. I do reject the fact that both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Family Services have said, `But they're going to get money anyway.' That may well be the case; we all know it is. We all know that this agreement is going to continue on; we all know that there is going to be funding that is going to go through to them. But, as the premiers have pointed out, the sorts of expectations in the community now in terms of having access to the hospital system have been raised to such levels that they are feeling the heat of the people of Australia at the state level as they are expected to provide a first port of call when it comes to health care provision, and they are saying that they need further funding.Surely, the six premiers and one territory leader cannot all be wrong. For other reasons, Kate Carnell took the dive before the last election in the ACT and has been a bit dudded in what she signed up for. I bet she regrets that now; nevertheless, she has done that. These other people cannot all be wrong, surely, and the Prime Minister and the minister for health right? How is it that these people are charged with the responsibility of having state budgets and trying to provide the health care that people of Australia want and expect, yet the minister for health and the Prime Minister say, `No, you are all wrong; you really do not know what you need, you do not need this funding.'I accept that whoever is in government here in Canberra is going to have a difficult time finding the necessary funding. But this is a government that has had a windfall thanks to the viciousness of the cuts that have been made in other programs, with the dividends that have flowed to it from the sale of Telstra and from other activities of government. It has, as has been projected by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) in his own terms, a reasonable expectation of surplus. I suppose the people out there, the ordinary Australians and those battlers who think that health care is a right, are probably saying to themselves, `If I have to go to hospital, why is it I can't get decent health care?' or, `Why is it that my hospital has shut down?' or, `Why is it that some of the wings at the hospital have had to be closed by the area health service board because it was the only way of cost containment?' They are the sorts of questions that are being asked.I must also say that some of the comments about philosophical beliefs about public and private hospitals must also be treated with a touch of suspicion. I had an opportunity to attend the relaunching of the Illawarra Private Hospital in my electorate the other day. The Alpha Healthcare group have just bought into it; they own another one in my area as well. The facilities that they have now built, the funding that has gone into that with the addition of birthing centres and first-rate facilities for a whole range of different conditions, are second to none. In fact, it is a great facility. But, by the same token, so too is the public hospital system in the Illawarra.As I have said, I have personal experience with the birth of a couple of my kids. There was a need for extra special attention to be given to both of them; one was transferred up to the Prince of Wales Children's Hospital and the other one transferred to the precursor to the Westmead Children's Hospital, the Camperdown Children's Hospital. The care that was necessary to sustain the life of my two kids was provided in this public hospital by the best available paediatricians and the best available obstetricians that were in Wollongong—in the public system. That was absolutely fabulous and my kids are here to tell the tale today, as am I.I think there is a touch of nonsense that gets advanced now and again, and to some extent it is all caught up with this idea of giving subsidies to people to take out private health insurance and so on and that that in some way gives you access to better quality of care. That is not the case. What we are seeking through this amendment to the legislation is further funding, better funding and better targeted funding for the provision of adequate health care facilities in this nation. Australians demand nothing less. It is a mean-spirited government that does not recognise that. It is a mean-spirited minister and a mean-spirited Prime Minister that do not recognise that fact. They should do so. The angling and the wrangling that have occurred between the state leaders and the Prime Minister should be remedied as soon as possible and the health system of this country restored to what most people believe it should be; that is, providing fair and reasonable access at a reasonable price.(Time expired)18:34:001589Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I suppose, in taking the lead of the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin), I need to declare an interest as well. The lady that has been married to me for 25 years is also a nurse. Rather than that creating any conflict, however, I think that that means I am well informed about the health care system.I have not heard all the contributions to the debate this evening, but I was interested to hear the member for Cunningham because he spoke glowingly about the health care system that is delivered in his part of the world. I think it is very sad that in the last few months we have seen outrageous comments about the health care system; that it is in tatters; that it is a mess. In fact, I think I heard the member for Lyons (Mr Adams) in his contribution earlier say it is a mess.The reality is, Australians should look around them, beyond our own borders to other nations. I think they would come to appreciate that the health care system we have is second to none. Sure, there are some immense challenges involved, and to have a good Medicare system and a good health care system requires funding. That is where the debate is focused. It is the debate that the member for Cunningham made reference to, how to fund the best health care system that we can deliver. Many of those Australians he made reference to live in my part of the world. They have been so committed to their health care system that they have done more than the member for Cunningham's communities; they have dug into their own pockets and built in the last 50 years their own community hospitals, bush nursing hospitals, funded entirely by the communities themselves.The sad reality for them over the last 15 years is that their access to funding must come via the health insurance system. With a declining participation in that system, hospitals, particularly those bush nursing hospitals in my part of the world, are struggling. What it means is that the electorate of Mallee has the largest number of private hospitals of any electorate in Australia but it comes because of the commitment of the communities themselves.So there are a great number of challenges, but I just want to debunk this fear that has been created about our health care system being in tatters. If I might just have some indulgence to give you an example. The young charter pilot who flies me around my electorate is the chief pilot for the Mid-Murray Flying Club—I am pretty fussy about my pilots. He tends to fly me pretty well everywhere. He rang early last week and said he had to go into hospital and could not fly me to this particular destination. He asked, `Would a substitute pilot be okay?' I said, `That's fine.'Later on in the week this pilot did fly me around. He shared with me his misgivings about going into hospital for this particular treatment he had to have. His misgivings were driven by this public debate that has occurred over the last few months. He said, `I don't want to go to this terrible place that is such a mess.'I would like to appeal to members of parliament who sit on the opposition benches. They should understand that every time they stand up and speak on a public platform condemning our excellent health care system, that has an impact on other people. He shared his experience with me, saying that his two days in hospital was a delightful experience, which is a strange way to describe a stay in hospital. The quality of care that was provided to him refreshed his view. It was a great credit to the staff and professional people at the Swan Hill and District Hospital that they left this patient with a favourable impression about the quality of health care they deliver.I am very pleased to support the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 . It is timely. It provides once and for all a framework that the parliament can sign off on so that we do not have this regular public bunfight with the states when signing the agreements. I was interested in the member for Cunningham's remarks and his reference to the current negotiation. He has been around this place a lot longer than I have. He would be aware that this negotiation happens every time, and that there have been some equally unfavourable public comments about agreements in the past. He should be mindful of that when he describes the events of last week's premiers conference.This legislation will provide a platform with some tangible commitments to the future and a transparent process so that all of those players out there in the state arena have some predictable future on which to base their commitments to their own health care systems in their states.As chairman of the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, I have been refreshed. In the last 12 months we have had the privilege of tabling some very significant reports in this parliament. The evidence we have collected reinforces the capacity of our health care system to deliver to every Australian, no matter where they are located. Significantly, recently, which demonstrates the innovative character of the professions involved in health care delivery right around Australia, our report on health information was tabled last year and we are currently awaiting a response from the government.When looking at our nation's history, we should remember the Royal Flying Doctor Service and the air ambulance. I have already mentioned the bush nursing hospitals, a particular feature of Victoria's rural health care service delivery. While many challenges and issues still exist, including attracting doctors to rural regions, I would like to place my comments on the public record. Please stop debunking our health care system. This legislation ought to put an end to the constant remarks that I hear from members of the opposition about the current government's commitment to Medicare. We are putting our commitment into legislation. Let us have an end to that debunking. Let us have an end to the history lessons. This legislation confirms the government's commitment, and I am very pleased to be able to support it.The member for Cunningham's comments about the current negotiations with the premiers fails to acknowledge the fact that there are some real concerns from a Commonwealth perspective on the condition of the state based health care system. Cost shifting does occur. The Commonwealth does not want to be caught in the dilemma of funding all of what are state based constitutional responsibilities.There is limited flexibility. If we are going to be embracing the new century and the concepts of telemedicine and health on-line, which is a real opportunity for us as a nation to deliver health care right out there to the rural and remote communities, we need flexibility in the committed arrangements. From my understanding and reading of this particular bill, it allows the minister some flexibility to deliver that very necessary innovation. There are some exciting things happening in that area.The issues revolve around the lack of flexibility and also the lack of patient accountability in terms of where they go. One of the things that our standing committee observed is not so much the lack of information but the lack of a process to coordinate it. So if the Commonwealth or the states fund a particular program with an objective to deliver an outcome, it can be measured. Constantly our committee receives evidence that this does not occur. Sometimes it can be many years later before we receive information which is relevant to making decisions—decisions made with some haste—about what are good programs and what are not and what are therefore worth funding and what are not.The concept of a health information coordinator has to be a good thing. I would like to see members of the opposition support in full the complete and comprehensive aspects that are addressed in this bill. I hope they will. Let us have an end to this political nonsense that goes on about the current government's commitment to Medicare and its failure to deliver a health care system.Members of the opposition should sometimes go home at night, sit back calmly and listen to their remarks. They lack so much credibility, whether it is to do with health care or aged care. I make this appeal to the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), who is present in the chamber. Whilst she is a new member to the parliament, she is not new to the process.The remarks I often hear from members of the opposition lack credibility. The opposition represents a government that was sitting on the left-hand side of the Speaker in this chamber for 13 years, presiding over all of the difficulties that this government is now trying to address, including the difficulty of attracting doctors to rural regions.This government has demonstrated its commitment to tackling this issue and to tackle it seriously. It is tabling, here in the parliament, its commitment to Medicare. It is bold and it is fraught with difficult politics but it is being tabled so that the government's approach to this whole concept is transparent for everybody to see. So let us be rid of the innuendo. I challenge members of the opposition to listen to what you say because the people that sit in the galleries here in this chamber and the people that watch—and many of them do, particularly question time—and see those remarks made from this place on this side of the chamber here just do not see any credibility. I would think that members of the opposition would be more interested in apologising to the Australian people and saying, `We are really sorry. We did not understand the nature of the difficulties you faced, especially those in the rural regions, and we want to support the new government in making up for it.'The offer that has been made by the Commonwealth to the states is generous—$30 billion over five years. It is generous. It is disappointing to see premiers adopting the stance they have, no matter what state they come from. I have always worked cooperatively with my state colleagues. I do not want to brawl with them but I would say to them that this is an extremely generous offer. The government not only has the problem of delivering this high level of expectation that people have out there—they want a Rolls Royce health care system—but it also has to balance the books nationally.We have demonstrated this commitment by making some very difficult political decisions and I think the Australian people understand that. That is the kind of government they want to see. They want to see a government that is prepared to make the hard decisions, to reduce our debt, to reduce our commitment to interest to service that debt and to protect us from the firestorm that is currently gripping those other near neighbours of ours who have not shown a responsible policy of fiscal management. Health care has to fit under that umbrella. What this legislation does is set up a framework under which we can manage the system with the objective of delivering the best. It may not be a Rolls Royce but it will be the jolly best Holden Berlina that we can provide because those Australian people out there deserve it.There are a lot of other things I would like to have the time to say here but I am in deference to a long list of speakers who wish to speak on this bill. I will leave my remarks there by reinforcing the appeal I made to members of the opposition. I commend the bill to all members of the House.18:48:001591Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I would say to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Forrest), who was suggesting that it was only members of the opposition who are claiming that there is a crisis in Australia's health system, that he really needs to look no further than the state premiers, most of whom are of course on his side of politics. I understand that premiers Borbidge, Kennett and Carr are all threatening to run ads against the Howard government because of the offer that has been made to the states in relation to the Medicare agreement. So much for it being only a matter for the opposition.I might also remind the previous speaker of the comments made by the Victorian Premier on Friday on his way up to Canberra. Before he came into the Premiers Conference he made his views very clear on what has been going on in Australia, particularly as far as the elderly are concerned. He said that this Howard government was driving the elderly `witless'. That was the expression used by the Victorian Premier. That is what he thinks this Howard government has done. Of course, what he is concerned about is that, if this Medicare offer remains as it is, it will be the elderly in Victoria who will not just pay through their pockets for essential nursing home care but who will also pay because they will not get the access they need to public hospitals.I would agree with the previous speaker that the services provided by our public hospitals are outstanding. They are of an outstanding quality. That said, however, we do have to recognise that there is a significant increase in demand being created, for good purpose, for public hospital services. I will say a little bit more about that in a minute.I would say, both to the Commonwealth and to the states, that it is time that both sides stopped screaming at each other and saw that their obligation was to make sure that we do have a decent Medicare agreement that can meet what are real needs out there in the community—needs that are created by a variety of forces.The Howard government might not think that there is a crisis in health care but one does not have to go much further than my own electorate to see the seriousness of the situation that many public hospitals are facing in this country. In today's Age we have the details of the problems facing the Austin Repatriation Medical Centre, which, as it happens, is the second largest hospital—a major teaching hospital—in Victoria and a significant hospital for the nation. Just this week a $7 million emergency package had to be paid to prevent the Austin Repat—the second biggest hospital in Melbourne—from closing its doors. That is how serious the funding situation is.They have just received from the state government this $7 million emergency package, which I understand will fund, in part, up to 150 redundancies. I would like to know how many beds will have to be closed at that hospital and how many patients will have to be turned away because that hospital will have 150 fewer staff.Over the last little while there has been a significant reduction in the reserves of the Austin Repat. I understand that in June 1996 they had $25 million net cash on hand; by June 1997, that was down to $17 million; in January this year, it was down to $2.8 million; and they are projecting that they will be well into the negative by the end of this financial year. As I said, they have had to borrow from the health department just to keep the door open. This run-down in cash reserves means that this hospital has had to use money that had been properly set aside in the past for superannuation payments, long service leave payments and annual leave payments. This is a very serious state of affairs.As with the rest of our public hospitals, we cannot continue to have the needs of the public met if the state government and the federal government do not put in the money that is needed to keep the doors open, to keep the doctors and nurses working and to make sure that patients are treated.As the article in today's Age says, the chief executive of the hospital acknowledges that more job losses are inevitable. I understand consultants have been called in to sell off much of the hospital's $10 million property portfolio. More broadly, in terms of Victoria's public hospitals, the state's Auditor-General has said that the collective cash reserves of Victoria's public hospitals have plummeted from $80 million to just $5 million in the past five years. So it is a very serious state of affairs that Victoria's public hospitals find themselves in. I do not think it does either the Commonwealth or the states any good trying to act as if this problem does not exist. It is a serious problem. Fixing it requires leader ship by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the premiers. It will not be fixed without adequate funding.I was involved to some degree in the negotiation of the last Medicare agreement. I am very familiar with the figures that went into the detailed negotiations in the lead-up to the last agreement. The Commonwealth certainly put a lot more money in to ensure that public hospitals would receive increased funding as a result of the last agreement. From the data that has been provided to me from the states—I have also seen the material that the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) has put out—it is very clear that, particularly in the first year of the agreement that is in operation until the end of June this year, some states, particularly Victoria, did reduce their funding to public hospitals very dramatically. However, I gather that since that time the states overall have increased that funding.Whatever the situation has been over the life of the last agreement, however, we do have to recognise that there has been a very significant increase in demand for public hospital services. The reasons for this seem largely to be driven by new techniques, new things that doctors and other health professionals are finding to improve our health, new technology enabling new and better ways to improve our health. These are good reasons, very positive reasons, to be increasing our health funding, because they are about increasing the health of people in this country. It is a good thing. I would have thought every member of parliament would say that it is positive to spend money on ways to make sure that we can remain healthy and participate actively in society.There are also other reasons: we are an ageing community, there is population growth and there is the effect of the reduction in private health insurance. All of these are part of the explanation for the increase in demand for public hospital services. So it is not good enough for the government to say no, as the minister for health has so dramatically said on the front page of today's Age.Interestingly enough, that was not the minister for health's view when he went on the 7.30 Report just a couple of weeks ago. He said then that he recognised the increasing demand for public hospital services. He said:It's happening all around the world. Our population is getting older, we've got new technology, we can do new and better things to keep people alive, and you can't do that just with the rate of inflation.So at some level the minister for health does recognise that there are new and better ways to do things and that it costs money to do them. Why he is now saying no so loudly to our public hospitals has to make us wonder.If we are serious about having a Medicare agreement, it does mean that public hospital care has to be available to those who need it. That is what the Medicare promise is all about: if you need to go into a public hospital, the bed will be available to you when you need it.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—It is!PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—That just is not the case. The second biggest hospital in Melbourne almost had to close its doors. Day after day I get complaints in my electorate office about people waiting all night in the emergency department because there is no bed for them. Victorian hospitals are in a state of crisis and their situation cannot be ignored by this federal minister. He cannot just pass the blame to somebody else. If he is serious about his commitment to Medicare, about the promise of Medicare actually meaning that people can get access to public hospital care when they need it, then it will require a more substantial offer than the one that is on the table at the moment.We on the Labor side of politics are intensely proud of Medicare. We are intensely proud of the promise that we delivered in 1984 that all Australians would have access to public hospital care when they needed it. We do not believe that it is a good thing to go back to a situation where people were, in the main, privately insured, where that was the dominant system. We do not want to go back to that type of health system, because we know what it means. What it means is that there will be millions of Australians without any health insurance. It would mean that there would be millions of Australians who could not get access to public hospital care when they needed it. So it is a very serious matter that we confront here today.What the Commonwealth also has to be honest about is what it has actually done since it has come into government. What this Liberal-National Party has done to public hospitals is very serious. It is not the case that they are just making this $2.9 billion offer on top of the old agreement as if they had done nothing over the last two federal budgets. That is not the case. In the 1996 budget, we saw this federal government take $800 million out of the public hospitals budget. We saw $400 million taken out and the dental program abolished, and the responsibility of that has gone back to the states. The indirect effect on the states, as Premier Kennett has so eloquently—if you would like to put it that way—put it is `driving the elderly witless'. The indirect costs of the aged care changes of this government are $500 million. So the costs are: $800 million, $400 million in hospital and dental, and indirect costs of $500 million as a result of the aged care changes.Where do these elderly people stay if they cannot get into a nursing home because they cannot pay the fees? What is happening around Australia is that they are staying in public hospitals. Once again, the Victorian health minister has made his position very clear to the federal health minister that it is now the states that are bearing the brunt of the aged care changes because people are staying in state public hospitals.So the federal health minister says that he is putting in $2.9 billion, but it does not look like very much once you take into account the cuts to public hospitals, the cuts to dental services and the cuts to aged care. We also hear from the Commonwealth that as part of this $2.9 billion there is, I understand, some $479 million that is going to mental health and palliative care—two very important parts of the Medicare agreement. However, when you look at the detail you find that this is money that is just replacing that which has been there in the past. So that is not an increase at all. No wonder the states knocked the offer back. It is not a sufficient offer. It does not replace adequately the money that has been taken out by this federal govern ment, particularly when looked at in combination with the increase in demand.Of course, the Prime Minister has some form when it comes to negotiating agreements with premiers. We were going back through all the different pieces of paper actually looking for different quotes that the Prime Minister had made at different times on Medicare. We have heard some different comments from previous speakers from the government benches about their new found commitment to Medicare. But when you look at the previous things that have been said, particularly by the Prime Minister, you would understand why we are a little doubtful about the commitment of this government. These statements are not put gently or circuitously. The Prime Minister has said in the past:Medicare has been an unmitigated disaster. Radical surgery would need to be performed on Medicare. We'll pull it—meaning Medicare—right apart.In 1987 he said:The government—he meant Labor—should have taken the knife to Medicare, should have taken the knife to the expensive failed Medicare.That was the current Prime Minister's view about Medicare back in 1987. It has taken him 10 years to get the knife sharpened for Medicare, and he is doing a jolly good job now that he has access to the government benches. He certainly is taking the knife to Medicare and it is Australian patients that are paying the price. As I said, this Prime Minister also has form, as it says in this document, going back to his time as Treasurer. The heading is `The dudding of the premiers'. It says:One of the most bizarre episodes in Australian politics occurred in May 1981 when information was leaked after the Premiers Conference to the effect that the Commonwealth would have been prepared to raise its offer if pushed.This, of course, produced a stinging retort from the Premier of Western Australia of the day, who said:Premiers Conferences are not a game of bluff poker in which the biggest cheat gets the most money. He too, like the current Premier of Victoria, had a good way with words. Mr Howard said:The decision was, in hindsight, an error.I'll say it was. This Prime Minister obviously has form when it comes to Premiers Conferences. He certainly has been unable to negotiate a decent agreement on behalf of the patients of Australia. We cannot have any faith that this government is going to be able to negotiate a decent Medicare agreement. They have been unable to negotiate a decent disability agreement or a decent housing agreement. Now when it comes to the biggest agreement of all we see the premiers walk out. We have seen the premiers walk away from an offer because they do not believe that they would be able to run their public hospitals on the offer that has been made available.Just think how much better it would have been if the $1.7 billion that has been put down the drain by this government into private health insurance had actually gone to patient care, had actually been made available to public hospitals so that patients could be treated. That is what we need to see from this government: a serious commitment to Medicare, not them playing around with private health insurance rebates which anybody who knows anything about health would have known would be a complete waste of money.Everybody in the health sector, except those who are self-interested, knows that private health insurance rebates will not work. Almost everybody predicted that the price of private health insurance would go up; everybody except the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Family Services knew that this would happen. It has been money down the drain. If only that money could now be redirected to the needs of public hospitals, but no doubt this Prime Minister will not do that. We do need a new agreement. We need it very quickly to make sure that we do not continue to have a situation where public hospitals are facing the prospect of having to close their doors or have their emergency departments put on bypass. (Time expired)19:08:001595Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—The Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 provides the basis for future agreements between the Commonwealth and state governments for the provision of acute health care services to public patients—clearly a matter of intrinsic, crucial importance. But, unfortunately, it is also a matter of significant political posturing—as we have seen here this afternoon. In his introduction to his valiant effort we saw the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) nitpicking on the name of the legislation, very upset that the name was not what he wanted it to be. He then proceeded to spend the rest of his time in political point scoring. We saw the ridiculous claim by the member for Lyons (Mr Adams) that 44 Medicare offices were closing in rural areas. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, many rural areas have seen an increase in access to Medicare services. The member for Mallee (Mr Forrest) informed me that in his electorate alone there have been 13 extra Medicare outlets provided—an indication of the commitment of this government to providing further access to Medicare services. Then we have heard the broken record of the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) on supposed funding cuts.What are the essential features of this bill? Firstly, it embodies the government's unequivocal commitment to Medicare. It is imperative that all Australians, regardless of means, regardless of circumstances, can have access to quality acute health care. That is what this bill sets out to guarantee. It is essential that we continue to uphold the principle of treatment according to need, not according to means. This is a feature which places the Australian health system ahead of most of the world. Further, this agreement will provide for enhanced and potential growth funding according to the needs of the public hospital system.Secondly, the legislation provides for greater flexibility in the provision of health care services so that they are more readily able to meet the changing needs of the community. The establishment of a national health development assistance program will assist in re-engineering the acute care system to improve its efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of health services and in improving patient outcomes. The development of a public patients charter will help disseminate information about the health system and provide the means by which complaints about the health system can be made and followed up.Thirdly, and very significantly, this bill shores up the integrity and viability of funding arrangements by tackling the question of cost shifting. For years the state governments have happily taken the funding offered by the federal government and then proceeded to shift the cost of their responsibilities back onto the federal government. I am sad to say that my own state of New South Wales is the master of the process of cost shifting. This really does highlight the hypocrisy of Dr Refshauge—who is already being offered extra Commonwealth funding—who systematically shifts the cost of some of his own government's responsibilities back onto the Commonwealth and then proceeds to complain that they want still more money.Examples abound of the process by which the New South Wales government has shifted onto Medicare—onto taxpayers—the cost of running its hospital system that it has already been funded to run. These include the old trick of reclassifying outpatients to private status and then having them bulk-billed for services such as pathology and radiology as has been reported, for instance, at St George Hospital. Or the advice reportedly being given to outpatients at Port Macquarie Hospital to attend their private doctors rather than outpatient departments, even if they have been previously treated as public inpatients. Or Royal North Shore's system, the `self insurance scheme', whereby patients are treated as private patients for the first two days of their stay. Patients meet the accommodation charge of $213 per day plus doctors' fees—all chargeable against Medicare. Thereafter, the patients revert to public status. Or Milton Ulladulla's proposal for medical staff to lease a section of the hospital and run a privatised service so that selected patients presenting to casualty would be seen by the medical staff in a private capacity and then have their services bulk-billed to Medicare. Or a report that a Fairfield Hospital staff member is given prescriptions for inpatients written by hospital doctors and then instructed to take them to a local pharmacy to be filled—again, so that Medicare and the PBS carry the bill. Or John Hunter Hospital's practice of reclassifying public day only patients—for instance, for gastroscopies and colonoscopies—as private outpatients and, again, bulk-billing Medicare. The practice of cost shifting is endemic in the New South Wales health system.In other words, the state governments want the federal government to again fund the services they have already paid for. They want taxpayers to pay twice. This is not fair to the taxpayer and furthermore it is detrimental to the long-term health of the Medicare system. The proposed health care agreements—by establishing a health care information commissioner as a statutory authority—will provide for the collection, analysis and dissemination of data from the Commonwealth and states so that cost shifting can be identified and overcome. This will enable the government to more accurately target its health care funding.While the New South Wales hospital system has received increased funding in recent years, it has not been used well. For instance, in 1993-94 New South Wales recorded a cost per casemix adjusted separation of approximately one per cent above the national average; by 1995-96, this had risen to almost 14 per cent above the national average. In 1993-94, New South Wales costs were 6.3 per cent above the most efficient state—South Australia—but by 1995-96 this had blown out to 27.2 per cent above the most efficient state.The tragedy is that, in spite of increased Commonwealth government funding, underhanded cost shifting and the enormous workload of the personnel involved in acute health care in New South Wales, the New South Wales health care system still has a long way to go. The health care professionals in New South Wales bring to their tasks a high level of skill, experience and commitment. Yet in spite of their heroic efforts the New South Wales government has failed to adequately meet the health care needs of its citizens.Much has been said about the offer currently on the table to the premiers. The current offer to the state governments made at last week's conference was to be the first under this new arrangement. However, although the federal government made a very fair and worthwhile offer it was clearly rejected in a piece of petulant point scoring by the state premiers. Let us look at the features of the offer. There is a five-year agreement worth $30.17 billion—in cumulative terms an increase of around 15 per cent over the next five years. This includes an increase of $2.9 billion over the forward estimates of current agreements—a cumulative increase in the base funding level of 11 per cent over five years. Furthermore, this base funding level is indexed to include the major factors affecting health care costs, that is, the growth and ageing of the population, the increasing costs of providing hospital services, the increases in underlying demand and the reductions in private health insurance levels. It also includes $500 million for mental health and palliative care, representing a much needed increase of $100 million in spending on mental health.In addition to the increased base level funding, the offer includes some other extras—an extra $750 million over five years to provide services for veterans at full cost and an extra $500 million for projects to improve the health care system. Furthermore, an important feature of the agreement is a commitment to increase funding to the state public health system for declining levels of private health membership—in fact, $83 million for each drop of one per cent in private health insurance levels. As everyone knows, one of the greatest causes of strain on the public hospital system has been the decline in private health insurance levels, pushing more and more patients onto the public system.When Labor came to office in 1983, 63.6 per cent of Australian citizens had private health insurance. It fell over their period in office to a low 32 per cent. This has been one of the greatest areas of neglect by the former Labor government. The rate of decline has fallen in the last year and has certainly slowed, although it has not stopped. The ideological obsession of the opposition caused them when they were in government to happily sit on their hands and watch the decline in private health insurance, despite the warnings of many, including their own one-time health minister Graham Richardson. What did they do? They stuck their heads in the sand while the resulting pressure mounted on the public health system. They are still no better. The member for Dobell repeatedly criticises this government's measures to try to stem the decline in private health membership. Perhaps he could listen to his Labor colleague the New South Wales health minister, who is at least right on this issue when he blames the decline in health fund membership for the growing pressure on the public system. It is all right for the member for Dobell to continue posturing but he offers no answer to the decline in private health insurance and he therefore offers no answer to the increasing pressure on the public health care system.The states' rejection of this very reasonable offer by the Commonwealth government is ridiculous in the extreme. Their request for an extra $1.1 billion a year on top of the increase already made is purely and simply an ambit claim. Much of this ambit claim is back pay for inadequacies under the former agreement. For instance, they are claiming $400 million for inadequacies in the indexation arrangements in their agreement with the Keating government. Given this there is a strong chance that much of the $1.1 billion they are claiming would be siphoned off into general revenue instead of going into health care. This is exactly what happened in 1992. As a result of an increase of 12.6 per cent in Commonwealth funding for health care in the 1992 agreement, in the first two years of the agreement the states decreased their funding by 12.9 per cent. In the first two years they collectively withdrew $831 million from health care spending—simply using federal funding to prop up their own budgets.The real reason for their ambit claim now is so that state treasurers such as Michael Egan can use Commonwealth health spending to correct their own budget disasters. There is every likelihood that it would not be Dr Refshauge who would receive the extra $262 million the New South Wales government wants; it would be Michael Egan.By their petulant stunt, their inability to act reasonably and their refusal to accept the Commonwealth's very reasonable offer, the states have further penalised their own constituents. It is time the state governments got on with the job of managing their health care systems and addressing their own problems instead of blaming the Commonwealth government for their own failure, shifting costs to the Commonwealth government and putting out their hands for more.In spite of its problems Australia has by any standards one of the best health care systems in the world. The coalition government is committed to maintaining and improving the quality of health care services available to all in Australia. The health care offer recently made to the states is evidence of this commitment. If given cooperation at all levels of government, the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 provides the basis for restructuring health care funding arrangements to enhance their ability to meet the needs of our community into the twenty first century. I commend the bill to the House.19:22:001598Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—In the few moments remaining in the time before the adjournment debate, I want to make a couple of comments in relation to the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 . Firstly, I think the matter that has attracted the most interest recently has been the fiasco with the Premiers Conference last week. I would think that, when they go back to their home states, most of the Liberal members—with the exception of the member who has just spoken, the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Bartlett), who is from New South Wales and who does not have this problem—would keep very quiet when they appear perhaps at their state councils or their various Liberal Party organisational bodies in taking on their local premiers over that particular walk-out, which to many people represented the crisis that is not only affecting the Medicare system and the hospital system but also the whole process of Commonwealth-state fiscal relations.I just want to touch on the area of cost shifting, a matter that took some time in the speech of the previous speaker, because obviously, as the Bills Digest explains, this bill introduces amendments dealing with a new health care agreement between the Commonwealth, the states and territories—to apply from 1 July 1998; provides that financial assistance will be conditional on adherence to the health care agreement principles and the development of a public patients charter; and establishes the position of a health care commissioner.Health care agreements are a longstanding method of negotiating the arrangements for funding the health program for delivery in the states and the territories. They rely on the Commonwealth providing financial assistance to the states and territories for public hospitals and other health services, and payment in the past has been predicated on each state and territory entering into agreement if it wants to receive assistance.In this country we have, despite its faults, one of the finest public health systems in the world. I suppose one could then argue that its main failing is that costs are skyrocketing, and that is quite clearly the principal complaint of the premiers. There would be hardly a person in Australia today who does not know that the state premiers felt that they had to walk out of the latest Premiers Conference over the issue of health sector funding. Equally, few would not have heard the response of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that the premiers were acting like kindergarten children and that the Commonwealth would stick to its promises. What they may not have heard or may not know of is the term `vertical fiscal imbalance'. Many people probably do not understand it or do not have much of an idea what it is all about.The Commonwealth and state governments, however, not only know what vertical fiscal imbalance is but know what the effects are and what has to be done to overcome them. I remember that in 1991, when the member for Mayo (Mr Downer) was trying to pressure Mr Hawke, the then Prime Minister, Mr Hawke defined reducing vertical fiscal imbalance as:. . . trying to get a closer equation between the responsibility that a particular level of government has for raising revenue and the proportion it has to spend.At that time he rejected the concept, much to the chagrin of coalition members, many of whom are now ministers in this government.In fact, in an MPI on the next day, the current Treasurer, the member for Higgins (Mr Costello), lambasted former Treasurer Keating for his reluctance to give the premiers a fair share of tax revenue and for the potential breakdown of the 1991 Premiers Conference dealing specifically with vertical fiscal imbalance and unemployment. In his support of a resolution over the imbalance in financial relations for the states and the Commonwealth, the current Treasurer said:The longer it carries on, the longer they jeopardise action on the economy and the longer they jeopardise Commonwealth-State relations . . . and we ought to do everything we can to take firm and hard decisions on Commonwealth-State relations. The longer these two titans—meaning the states and the Commonwealth—fight it out, the worse it will be for Australia.That was in 1991 and here we are, seven years down the track, with exactly the same set of circumstances facing the country, and the people looking at that on television watching these events take place in front of their eyes must honestly think, `What on earth is going on?' This is almost a pantomime-type situation: everybody troops to Canberra; the premiers—admittedly, out of habit these days—come in with a claim that they know is likely to be rejected; however, they are looking for some sort of compromise position with the Commonwealth government but, faced with an implacable Prime Minister, they decide, `There is no point in our staying and we are going.'The area of cost shifting was mentioned by previous speakers. Cost shifting is a serious problem, but it is not only a problem in the case of hospitals; it is a problem in a whole range of community services. One of the reasons for cost shifting is that the states are getting a disproportionately smaller share of economic growth in revenue from the Commonwealth. This is a serious problem. In the case of Western Australia, it has been estimated that over the past five years alone Western Australia has lost about $778 million in shortfalls in what that state considers to be the share that it should have enjoyed in states grants to its budget revenue and expenditure.That means, in essence, that the sorts of services delivered by state governments that people rely upon, including hospital care, end up suffering as a consequence. I asked a question of the Prime Minister because I was concerned that there had been reports in the West Australian newspaper that there had been little to no criticism by the WA Liberal MPs—senators and members of this House—of the federal government's reluctance to reform vertical fiscal imbalance between the Commonwealth and the states. In fact, there was some comment in the West Australian that they had spent some time `chewing the ear' of the Prime Minister and other senior ministers to try and overcome this particular problem.When I asked the Prime Minister what I ought to tell constituents in my electorate about the effects of vertical fiscal imbalance on the delivery of what they consider to be obviously important services from the government, he made the statement that he did not think there was a problem. That was at complete odds with Premier Court's comments and at odds with the comments of WA Liberal members who had said they had been spending some time in the backrooms trying to convince their own government of the necessity to reform vertical fiscal imbalance. Obviously, either the senior members of the government were not listening to them or they were not shouting loud enough or they ought to perhaps resort to coming into this place and representing their constituents' interest and making it absolutely clear to their own government that there is a dire necessity to reform the fiscal relations between the Commonwealth and the states.The whole area of taxation, government revenue, expenditure and states grants is very much in need of reform. I urge the Treasurer, as part of the process of tax reform, to urgently examine the question of vertical fiscal imbalance between the Commonwealth and the states. It is clear that, if this serious issue is not redressed in any tax reform process, we are going to see—no matter who is in government—future occurrences of the ilk of last week's premiers walk-out from the Premiers Conference, an event that would have caused utter perplexity and consternation in many instances in the loungerooms of citizens around Australia as they saw what were the otherwise serious, sensible leaders of their various states doing what people would consider to be taking their bat and walking home because they were being told, in essence, by the Commonwealth that they were not going to get any money, no matter what they said.I would imagine that the representatives of the various state Liberal parties going home to their various branches are going to be given a fair old serve by their premiers and by their own party organisations to try and do something about this. As I said earlier, this whole process—this bill and the rest of it—is part of a dire need for a thoroughgoing reform of Commonwealth-state fiscal relations.Adjournment160010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.160019:30:001600Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—I am indebted for these remarks to a constituent, Mr Russell Leith, DFC. It has only recently been brought to my attention by him that an Australian ground based operational unit took part in the World War II invasion of Nazi occupied Normandy as an integral part of Operation Overlord. Hitherto, I was totally unaware of this fact. So too were virtually all of my contemporaries in post-World War II Australia. This is probably because of the sheer dimension of the land, sea and air resources brought to bear in Overlord under the command of General Eisenhower.For my own satisfaction, I want to record in the annals of this House the presence of a discrete Australian fighting unit in what is undoubtedly, at least in terms of sheer dimension, the greatest military operation of all time. In June of 1944 Royal Australian Air Force No. 453 Spitfire Squadron was moved from southern England to the second tactical air force strip known as B11 in Normandy. B11 was sited near the village of Longues-sur-mer. The airstrip was between Port-en-Bessin and Arromanches, just inland from Gold Beach, which was beforehand assaulted by British troops. Operations, both offensive and defensive, were conducted from B11 until about mid-August, when the squadron's operational base was advanced to airstrip B19. B19 was located at Tilly-sur-Seulles, which is west of Caen. After the break-out from Normandy by the Allies, No. 453 Spitfire Squadron operated from several other places before reaching Antwerp. From there, it took part in flying operations in support of the Arnhem campaign until it returned to England in September 1944.It should also be acknowledged that other RAAF squadrons and RAAF personnel in other squadrons took part in Overlord. They flew out of Britain, however. Some Royal Australian Navy people who were attached to the Royal Navy also participated, as well, no doubt, as AIF personnel. But what distinguishes No. 453 Squadron's contribution to the Normandy and Arnhem campaigns is that it was the only discrete ground based Australian fighting unit.This Australian presence has only recently been acknowledged in France. A large and sophisticated historical museum, dedicated as a memorial to peace, has been built at Caen. The battle for Normandy is a major feature in its displays. In the forecourt of this museum 13 flags of the nations that took part in the Normandy landing were flown from the museum's very inception. Only in May of this year is the Australian flag to be added. Belated as it is, this recognition of Australia's small but not insignificant contribution to the Allies' victory in World War II in Europe is well earned, principally by the men of No. 453 RAAF Spitfire Squadron.A secondary purpose in my rising to mention this tonight is that I understand the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has been invited to go to France to unveil the Australian Corps Memorial Park at Le Hamel. I am informed that the Prime Minister has that under active consideration. I would urge him, through the gentleman at the table, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Cadman), to consider taking time off, if he is at first able to go to Le Hamel, and to also visit Caen, given this latest recognition, and to reinforce the fact that Australian troops in the form of 453 Squadron served on the ground in Normandy.160119:35:001601Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I rise tonight to comment on the careless treatment of the facts by many opposite over the last week or so in talking about supposed budget cuts. We have seen the almost hypnotic recitation, with religious fervour, of the mantra regarding supposed budget cuts and forward estimates. Labor's credibility on this has been shot to pieces. Let us look at the facts for a moment. In relation to aged care, for instance, in 1995-96, $2.3 billion was spent, in 1996-97, $2.44 billion and in 1997-98, $2.636 billion. That is an increase of 5.3 per cent and then another increase of 6.1 per cent. Even the members opposite would understand that if it goes up it is an increase, not a decrease. The same applies to child-care funding. In 1995-96 the spending was $990 million, in 1996-97 an increase of 15 per cent to $1,086 million, and again an increase of 4.3 per cent the next year to $1,133 million.Two things need to be pointed out here. Labor's constant referral to supposed budget cuts is in relation to their own forward estimates, not in relation to what has been spent in the past. In other words, they are comparing it to what Labor would have spent if they had been given a go. They could not honour their commitment about l-a-w tax cuts, they could not honour their commitment about a concrete promise never to sell the Commonwealth Bank, and they could not honour their commitment that the 1996 budget was in surplus, then for it to be revealed that it was a $10 billion deficit. How could we expect them to stick to their forward guestimates of what they might have spent in two, three or four years time if they by some chance had got elected? This is as mythological as anything the Labor Party has ever said. If the things that they have supposedly set in con crete, if the things that they have supposedly established in l-a-w, if the things that they had supposedly written in their blood were not able to be kept, how in the world could we expect them to keep to their forward guestimates?Secondly, there was no way in the world they had any chance of funding those forward estimates. The only two options for funding those forward estimates were, firstly, to increase taxes—and we know they were good at that—or, secondly, to continue to live on the bankcard—and we know they were good at that. Where in the world were they going to get the money for their forward estimates? We have already seen their process of increasing taxes. In spite of his promises at his last successful election in 1993, Paul Keating promised that there would be no rises in taxes; in fact, there would be cuts in taxes. He immediately raised an extra $10 billion in indirect taxes during that term of government.We also saw their record on the issue of living on the bankcard. In their last five years they trebled Commonwealth government debt from $32 billion to $97 billion. Where does this hit the road? The fact is, in their last five years, the former government increased annual interest payments on servicing Commonwealth debt from $6 billion to $10 billion—that is because of the profligacy and the lack of responsibility of the former government, living on the never-never. They have now spent $4 billion a year extra in interest payments—year after year after year—that would have been better spent on health, education, infrastructure and welfare, but it is going to pay interest payments to service Labor's past extravagance and waste.Labor's approach is to beggar the future of our children for the sake of short-term gratification. Labor's approach is to beggar the future of the nation for short-term political gain. Ultimately, if you live on the bankcard, the chickens will have to come home to roost. The reason we now spend $10 billion every year in interest in servicing past accumulated debt is because of the extravagance of the former government. They had no way of fulfilling their forward estimates. It was either Labor's old trick of raising taxes or Labor's other old trick of raising debt. It was the old Labor twostep: high taxes and high debt.160219:40:001602Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The member for Macquarie (Mr Bartlett) has just given new meaning to the phrase, `There are lies, damned lies and statistics.'10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will address whatever remarks he wishes within the standing orders but not outside them.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I will say this, Mr Speaker. The member for Macquarie cannot have a bob each way. He wants to rely on our forward estimates and claim they are a bit dodgy, but they are the same forward estimates that the Treasurer relied upon to create his so-called $10 billion black hole. You cannot have it both ways, but I take my hat off to the member for Macquarie—SD4CADMANMr Cadman—He's a good bloke. You've got to say he's a good bloke.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Yes, he is a good bloke—a little bit marginal. I take my hat off to him because I heard the last 10 minutes or so of his speech on the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill, and I have to say that he is a very brave man indeed. What he has not got in common with most of the other government members like the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson), the member for Kooyong (Mr Georgiou) and the member for Mallee (Mr Forrest) who spoke on that bill, is that his margin is probably less than the margin in Casey. Dr Wooldridge is okay; he is running off to Casey. But people like the member for Macquarie are left to carry the can. So I take my hat off to him for being brave enough—notwithstanding the fact that he has a margin less than that in Casey—to come in here and defend the indefensible.I note with great interest that the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin) is on the list for tomorrow. I do not often do it, but I take my hat off to the member for Paterson because I am sure—he is very marginal too, of course—he is going to come in here and criticise this government, as he should, because of the impact this government is having in the Hunter in terms of the health budget and health spending. He needs to come in here tomorrow, criticise his government and stand up for his electors for the first time since coming into this place.What the member for Paterson wants to do is to set the record straight about the outrageous claim of the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) that only 12 of the Hunter's 680 doctors do not bulk-bill at all. How crazy! There are at least that many in the member for Paterson's electorate who do not bulk-bill. Dr Wooldridge's criteria is this: if one doctor, out of sympathy, bulk-bills one person in a given period, then he bulk-bills. If, in a 12-month period, a doctor bulk-bills one family desperately in need—cold as he might be, he cannot help himself; he has to bulk-bill this family—then he goes into Dr Wooldridge's list of doctors who bulk-bill. How outrageous!The issue I want to raise tonight concerns regional airlines. Of course, being from the Hunter, I have a strong interest in it. The Federal Airports Corporation recently foreshadowed its intention in two areas which are going to adversely impact upon regional airlines. It proposes to dramatically increase landing charges for regional airlines at Kingsford Smith Airport, and it proposes to introduce new slot management arrangements which are going to make it increasingly difficult for regional operators to gain access to Kingsford Smith Airport. But now we know why, thanks to the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey). There are two ministers for finance: there is the minister for finance and there is John Fahey, member for Macarthur. Back in Macarthur, like many other members, he is under pressure over Sydney's second airport. His constituents do not want the planes flying over their homes. So what does he do? He does his own little newsletter, titled Airport News for Macarthur, by your local member, John Fahey, MP. He says in the newsletter:Of about 270,000 aircraft movements at Sydney Airport in 1996/97, 44% were regional and non-scheduled flights . . .If regional and other smaller flights such as these can be diverted to another airport, perhaps Bankstown, it may be that a second airport is not re quired for decades for come—it's a possibility that would require detailed investigation.So here is the plan: you jack up the prices at Kingsford Smith for regional airlines. You don't have the guts to regulate to exclude them. You force them out to Bankstown—no need then for a second airport—and you save the minister for finance's bacon. I will tell you that people in rural and regional Australia will not take this latest attack. Rural and regional consumers are so dependent on these critical air services that the minister wants to exclude them to save his bacon in Macarthur. (Time expired)160319:45:001603Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Tonight I would like to speak about the Labor Party's scare campaign on aged care reforms, but firstly I would like to convey to the House a few facts in relation to long day child care and out of school hours care in my electorate of Makin. I have been meeting with providers of child care in my electorate, and they have been saying to me that their fees are actually lower now than they were before the changes. I have also been informed that the community based child-care centre has also lowered its fees in some cases.They are also saying to me that they are really angry with the scare campaign run by the Labor Party, because some parents, responding to this scare campaign, have made alternative arrangements for their children. So, while care providers have been lowering their fees in some cases, parents have withdrawn their children, which means higher vacancy rates and stress on management. The same case scenario applies for some of my out of school hours care providers, who are also really angry with the Labor Party for its scare campaign. The Labor Party has succeeded in frightening families enough that they are making alternative arrangements, with the families not taking time out to investigate the true situation and being worried that, if the fees are not increasing at the moment, they will soon because of the changes.In relation to aged care, members from both sides of the House have highlighted the fact that there are now empty beds in our nursing homes, when there were waiting lists before the Labor Party scare campaign. Where families have been frightened by the scare campaign mounted by the Labor Party, they are caring for their elderly relatives or spouse for a longer time at home. That impacts on HACC services and domiciliary care.It is very interesting that rumours that both the state and federal Liberal governments had cut funding completely to HACC services and domiciliary care were being put about in my electorate of Makin by various people. The truth of the matter is that domiciliary care services received an overall increase in budget allocation in 1997-98 in South Australia. The allocation rose from $24,220,000 to $25,855,000. The Northern Domiciliary Care service received an 8.6 per cent increase in funding. That was coupled with the one-off allocation of $1.76 million to the South Australian health commission. It is anticipated that a proportion of that funding will be allocated to the Northern Domiciliary Care service for the provision of basic equipment.Although Northern Domiciliary Care, which covers my electorate, received an 8.6 per cent increase in funding—the greatest increase in the whole state of South Australia—demand for services has increased to an extent where services cannot keep up with demand. Guess why: the demand on services helping to keep those needing care at home has risen to extraordinary heights because of the Labor Party's scare campaign, directed at the elderly and at the families of those needing nursing home care. The Labor Party should be ashamed of the most ruthless, arrogant and unprincipled acts of campaigning in the history of Australia.If that is not enough, we also had the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) coming into this House in an attempt to initiate yet another scare campaign in relation to the PBS system. This campaign was directed at elderly residents already in nursing homes. On 22 October 1997, the member for Dobell, who has shadow responsibility for health, did not even know that it is the role of trained and dedicated nurses to supervise and dispense the medication requirements of residents in nursing homes. To further reiterate his complete lack of understanding of his portfolio, it is worth pointing out that residents of nursing homes are just that. They are not patients, as he called them. The member for Dobell thought it was expedient and politically astute to expand the Labor scare campaign to residents already living in nursing homes.Attempts by the Labor Party to scare elderly Australians and their families, those who have built this country and who rely on their members of parliament to make decisions in the best interests of the nation, can only be described as cowardly acts of political grandstanding at its worst. We need to remember that for the fee of $21.10 per day those residents in care in nursing homes who are full pensioners—which is 67 per cent of the nursing home resident population—receive three meals a day, laundry services, linen services, entertainment, electricity, water and 24-hour-a-day nursing. (Time expired).160419:50:001604Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I wish to speak on the winding up of army recruitment training at Brighton Barracks—the Brighton Army Camp—in southern Tasmania. The camp is in my electorate and has been a central training area for troops from all over Tasmania. It is situated 27 kilometres north of Hobart and occupies about 68 hectares of land just off the main highway. Its location makes it an ideal venue for centralised training.The current course of recruits will be the last to be trained at Brighton, as the army has decided to transfer training to the mainland states and to introduce a longer induction period. This course will now be common for both full-time and part-time army recruits. The last recruit course will march out on a graduation parade next Sunday. These 38 recruits have been trained in occupational health and safety and workplace first aid, as well as traditional army skills such as navigation, bushcraft, rifle firing and the traditions of the Australian army. These recruits will join others in local units of the army reserve right around Tasmania.This is a sad time because Brighton has been the centre for recruit training since the turn of the century. Groups for the Boer War and the First World War mustered near this camp. Many of the current camp buildings were constructed in World War II, and it is from this camp that all the soldiers from Tasmania were congregated before being sent to the mainland and overseas to join colleagues in theatres of war all over the world.The Tasmanian 2/12 Battalion AIF, which served with distinction in the Middle East and the Pacific, underwent recruit training at the camp. Brighton was also the spot for the 18th National Service Battalion in the early 1950s. Since 1975, it has been the home of the 6th Training Group. The unit was responsible for recruit training, promotion courses and driving courses for the Tasmanian army reserve training. In the past, over 300 soldiers were trained there each year, with training conducted over a series of camps spread throughout this period. Now promotion courses and recruit training will no longer be available in Tasmania.The army at Brighton has been a source of employment for locals, and generates income for suppliers and service businesses in the district and Hobart. Its closure will be a significant loss to the suburb and the region of Brighton. With this, and the loss of recruiting staff around Tasmania, it will mean many Tasmanians are likely to miss out on training or will feel constrained to offer their services as reservists. It is disappointing that yet another federal government service is being closed in Tasmania.There will be many memories tied up in the Brighton camp, and I hope that they are treated with respect whatever the future holds for this site because, as I said, most Tasmanians who served overseas in the AIF have been through this camp. I pay tribute to all those who have been involved in the camp during its operations and hope that their contributions will be recognised as being of a great value to the state of Tasmania.160419:54:001604Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—Last night we had a very pleasant function with Doug Anthony, which you, Mr Speaker, attended, and it brought to my mind the very great achievements of the government of that period. I was recently at the gulf towns of Normanton and Karumba, and the wonderful beef road that was built from Cloncurry up to the Port of Normanton and then on to the more modern port of Karumba has been a boon that has enabled that little port to now put through $1,000 million worth of product every year, starting the year after next. It is already doing about $200 million or $300 million worth of product now. It gives me no joy to recount that, whilst the airstrip at Normanton was sealed by the then government, the airstrip at Karumba has not been sealed, and these responsibilities are now the responsibilities of local government. Fifteen years of Labor governments has shown a total neglect of all regional areas of Australia, and it is something that this government must take cognisance of and reverse.We also built the massive Snowy Mountains Authority projects mostly affecting New South Wales cities, and little tiny townships such as Deniliquin, Griffith and Hay became flourishing inland cities of which every person in this country can be very proud. The Ord Scheme at the top of Western Australia is now turning a very handsome profit for this nation in spite of a number of years of difficulty. I am very proud to say that in Queensland where we had a National Party government as well as a federal National Party which was very active and aggressive in the federal government of the day, we built the Bundaberg Dam, the Kinchant Dam, the Bjelke-Petersen Dam, the Burdekin Falls Dam, the Emerald Dam and the Proserpine Dam. They were massive achievements, and I deeply regret that the representative of the Labor Party here thinks this is funny.Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—HX4Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTER—Those achievements created 100,000 jobs in Queensland, and those dams are responsible for bringing well over $1,000 million per year into the economy of Queensland. Maybe closer to $2,000 million per year has been created by the building of those dams. In those 20 glorious years that we, if not reigned supreme, most certainly had a very substantial say in the government of Australia, we were able to achieve great things, and it is with deep regret that, in the 15 years since the waning of the National Party's powers, there has not been a single, solitary dam undertaken in Queensland—not one.As I have pointed out in the House previously and I will do so again this evening, you can get in an aeroplane and fly from Townsville all the way to Broome, look out either side of that aircraft and not see a single sign of human habitation, and yet you have just flown over three-quarters of this nation's water assets and more than half of the nation's arable land. There is nothing down there at all. I would urge, in the strongest possible manner, this House to look at what should be the next dam scheme in Australia, which is the Hell Gates dam on the Burdekin River—the third biggest river in Australia. That scheme, according to the economic analysts—outside economic analysts, I might add, as well as from the Queensland government—will produce $720 million of revenue a year for the Australian nation for an outlay of $420 million. We do not even need $420 million. All we need is somewhere between $50 million and $75 million out of a federation fund or some other government instrumentality or department and we can proceed to return to this country $720 million a year of which, in all probability, $240 million will come to this government every single year by way of taxation. If any business person had a proposition put to them that, for an outlay of some, let us say, $60 million, you can show an annual return of $240 million, that would be a magnificent return on invested capital. I urge in the strongest possible way that this House consider what is genuine job creation and progress for this nation.Question resolved in the affirmative.19:59:001605House adjourned at 7.59 p.m.Notices1605The following notices were given:Mrs Bailey to move:That this House:(1) expresses its concern at the number of bank branches which have been closed in both rural and outer suburban areas; (2) calls on the major banks to honour their responsibility to provide services to their customers and the community as well as delivering dividends to their shareholders;(3) further calls on the major banks to adopt a moratorium on any further planned branch closures until such time that alternative services are made available to their customers and that their customers are educated in electronic banking practices;(4) endorses the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration's investigation into the feasibility of the major banks providing a combined banking kiosk or agency capable of delivering full banking facilities in areas where no bank exists because of branch closure;(5) urges the Government to ensure that departments and agencies are able to utilise alternative banking arrangements such as regional banks, building societies or credit unions where applicable; and(6) notes and supports the Government's financial support of the Credit Care program in rural areas which has provided the means to re-establish financial services through regional banks, credit co-ops and building societies in areas where the major banks have withdrawn services.Dr Lawrence to move:That the House:(1) notes the visit of Pope John Paul II to Nigeria between 21 and 23 March 1998 and his call to Nigerians to rid their society of everything that offends the dignity of the human person or violates human rights;(2) notes reports from Amnesty International that arrests and beatings of human rights activists have shamelessly continued right up until the Pope's visit including the arrests and beatings of two defence lawyers who defended Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders before their execution in November 1995;(3) further notes that Amnesty International has reported that since 1983, when the military overthrew the elected civilian government, nearly 90 persons have been executed following grossly unfair and politically motivated trials;(4) expresses serious concern at the grossly unfair and secret treason trial by Special Military Tribunal of 26 persons including the Deputy Head of State to Nigeria, General Oladipo Diya, who all face possible execution;(5) calls on the Australian Government to urgently meet with representatives of the Nigerian Government to (a) press the Nigerian Government to release immediately and unconditionally all prisoners of conscience and put an immediate end to repeated human rights violations and (b) urge the Nigerian Government not to impose death sentences in the trial beginning on 14 February 1998 of General Oladipo Diya and 25 others.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to establish the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, and for related purposes.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to amend laws, and to deal with transitional matters, in connection with the reform of the financial sector, and for other purposes.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to provide for the regulation of payment systems and purchased payment facilities, and for related purposes.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act relating to shareholdings in certain financial sector companies, and for related purposes.Mr Ruddock to present a bill for an act to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, and for other purposes.Mr Warrick Smith to present a bill for an act to enact transitional provisions relating to the corporatisation of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, and for related purposes.Documents1606The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 25 March 1998:Public Service Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. LES 9, LES 10, LES 11.Radiocommunications Act—Declaration 1998 Spectrum Re-allocation No. 1.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Remuneration Tribunal—Determinations 1998 Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.Statements (2).Sydney Airport Demand Management Act—Determination 1998 Slot Management Scheme.1998-03-25Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.Bills1607r3291607Debate resumed from 1 October 1997, on motion by Ms Worth:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:001607Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—The Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 amends various aspects of the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953. Both these acts are of major concern to us. It is important to be quite clear: Labor is absolutely determined to have universal access to publicly funded health services through Medicare. Labor is committed to maintaining the effective integrity of Medicare as a system of universal health insurance that will finance the delivery of high quality medical and public hospital services to all Australians. This includes a commitment to maintaining affordable access through bulk-billing and opposition to compulsory co-payments.Looking at the bill in toto, the bill allows the Health Insurance Commission, the HIC, to enter into various kinds of hedging contracts without ministerial approval but within ministerial guidelines, as was originally intended.The bill allows for electronic lodgment direct from the doctors' surgeries and the electronic payment of all Medicare claims, not just bulk-billed items. This does not mean that doctors can be electronically paid where they elect not to bulk-bill. That would herald the end of bulk-billing and the introduction of co-payments. We are encouraged that the government acknowledges this is not a backdoor attempt at either doing away with bulk-billing or introducing co-payments. We will continue to monitor this situation. Any continuation in the drop in the bulk-billing rate amongst doctors, as has already occurred under this government, would be regrettable.It also affects fees chargeable by optometrists. Some patients elect to have their eyes tested more than once per 24 months because they wish to change their glasses as a matter of fashion rather than of need. Currently, optometrists can receive only a reduced benefit in these circumstances. The change here allows optometrists to receive the full benefit provided they inform the patient prior to the consultation—that is, the patient will bear the out-of-pocket expenses in these matters.Medicare benefits in respect of services rendered outside Australia have been extended to cover a domestic journey beyond the 12-kilometre territorial limit. This includes, for example, a Melbourne to Hobart flight. It also includes overseas journeys where the patient, through ill health, is required to return to Australia before arrival at the intended overseas destination.Elsewhere, the bill amends section 61 of the Health Insurance Act and will eliminate unnecessary consideration by a Specialist Recognition Advisory Committee of questions relating to the recognition of a specialist or consultant physician where recognition was intended to be short term for the purposes of a locum tenens or where the specialist or consultant physician applies to have the status ended.Amendments to the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register will permit the HIC to release de-identified data for research purposes. This provision was inadvertently omitted from the original amending legislation.The provision of pharmaceuticals by private hospitals and residential aged care services is to be amended to allow pharmacists to be reimbursed in certain circumstances by the Commonwealth for the supply in bulk of certain drugs—that is, pain-killers. Currently, individual scripts must be written for each patient. Savings are expected to flow from less wastage of these drugs. We note the error in the second reading speech which states `private hospital or residential care facility' instead of `approved supplier'—maybe something can be done about that.The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, the PBAC, is to be extended by one to include a consumer representative. Hopefully, this may improve the antennae of this particular committee to the individual human effect when it gets decisions wrong, as it did with Neocate at $1,300 per month for older than two-year-olds. Finally, after we expressed concern over a provision that would allow the HIC to extract penalties unilaterally from doctors it had decided had rorted the system, the government has decided to drop this provision. We welcome that decision. While supporting the need for government to be vigilant in detecting and prosecuting fraud, we are pleased the government has stepped back from a system that was going to be so unilateral.The bill makes for a number of changes to the health legislation and we are supportive of it. We are pleased to work with the government to improve our health system. We remind the House that we are committed to maintaining the effective integrity of Medicare as a system of universal health insurance. We will support provisions which maintain that. We will oppose provisions which, in our opinion, are such that they undermine the Medicare system.10:06:001608Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I wish to briefly address two areas that the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 touches on. The bill amends the Health Insurance Act and allows for the claiming and payment of Medicare benefits by means of electronic transmissions. One of the problems with the processing of Medicare claims is that, until now, the Medicare claims have only been available for practitioners who directly bill their patients. Items 1 to 5 of the bill will amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 to allow for the electronic transmission of Medicare claims directly from doctors' surgeries, and payments directly to accounts of patients and also medical practitioners.Under these new amendments, the Health Insurance Commission will be able to issue a cheque to the patients where the bill has already been paid or a cheque to the doctor where the bill has not been paid. That electronic lodgment of Medicare forms will reduce the payment delays from electronic claiming. The Health Insurance Commission informed the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, in its study of telemedicine and other things, that the commission is able to process claims overnight. However, at present, there is a minimum waiting period of 10 days between the Health Insurance Commission receiving the claim and the cheque being sent to the doctor. This is a sensible amendment which should provide an incentive for GPs to computerise.Where it is most significant is in the need for Medicare offices. If general practitioners are able to electronically lodge Medicare forms, the need for a Medicare office does decline. Over the last two years, there have been closures of Medicare offices in various electorates and that has been a difficult decision in the community. But this amendment allows for electronic lodgment by the doctor which reduces the need for people to go to a Medicare office. For example, when someone is bulk-billed, the patient signs over their right to the Medicare rebate, their doctor electronically lodges the Medicare form and the Medicare rebate cheque can be posted to the doctor or it can be electronically transferred to a bank cheque account or whatever. If the doctor is charging above the schedule fee, what will happen is that, if the patient pays it at that time, the Health Insurance Commission will be able to either issue a cheque or transfer the funds direct to the patient.Closing Medicare offices is always a delicate decision and we do need to be fair and reasonable in striking a balance across Australia between providing reasonable access to Medicare and the efficient use of taxpayers' funds. The closures of Medicare offices were decided on broad criteria of minimum disruption to the public, claiming patterns, leasing and property issues, proximity to other branch offices and the capacity to redeploy staff. The government aimed to ensure that the Medicare office network was more responsive to the needs of Australians. Changes in claiming patterns have had an impact on the branch office network. There has been a reduction in patient cash claims as the incidence of direct billing has increased. The Health Insurance Commission, which administers Medicare, was able to advise that many of the Medicare offices which have closed had very high direct billing rates which obviated the need for people to visit a Medicare office.As I have mentioned, with electronic data interchange, we will have more efficient ways of claiming. That initiative, which was announced in the 1997 budget, is being developed and will now require claims to be directly lodged in the doctor's surgery. Not all doctors have computerised, so this is not available yet, but we are hoping that more and more doctors will computerise so you can have electronic lodgment.But, if people do not have availability for electronic lodgment, there are alternative ways that they can claim. They can receive payment by cheque or they can receive it directly in their bank account when they lodge their claims by mail, without the need to visit a Medicare office. Alternatively, they can post an unpaid account to Medicare and a benefit cheque in favour of the doctor will then be sent to the patient who adds any outstanding amount before forwarding it on to the doctor. Claiming in that fashion ensures the patients are not out of pocket for the total expense of the medical service.In my own electorate, we have had the closure of one Medicare office in Blackwood. There is another, closer Medicare office within 10 kilometres down at Westfield Marion, but that has been a decision which I have received an amount of correspondence on.The second matter that I would like to briefly touch on is the release of de-identified data for research purposes from the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register. The initiatives that this government has had in relation to childhood immunisation are some of the most significant public health measures that we have seen from a Commonwealth government. The Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) announced the seven-point plan in February 1997 and I understand at present he is just next door announcing an initiative with regard to measles.As some members will be aware, in 1989-90 the ABS survey showed that 53 per cent of children were fully immunised and, while the levels for people at 18 months were much higher, it was still only 70 per cent, which was not full coverage. If you compare it with countries like China or Vietnam, those developing countries actually have levels above 90 per cent. One of the problems has been the great success of the vaccination programs. Most parents today have not seen cases of measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough and so on. I might reflect that it is quite unusual to see a case of rubella. When I was doing my paediatrics attachment at the Adelaide Children's Hospital, I actually caught rubella myself. I do not know where I caught it from but, as some people would be aware, it used to be the habit to immunise 13- and 14-year-old women against rubella; of course men were not. Now what happens is that all infants at one year are immunised against measles, mumps and rubella, if we get to them.In 1996 there were 4,000 children who caught whooping cough, 500 children who caught measles and 2,500 who caught german measles. Whooping cough is a very debilitating illness; it can cause convulsions and it can even lead to permanent brain damage. Regarding measles, one in 25 patients with measles can develop pneumonia; they can also get something called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which causes brain damage.While rubella itself is a self-limiting mild condition, if it is contracted by women in the first trimester of pregnancy, it can lead to congenital rubella which involves babies being born with cataracts and mental retardation and so on. That condition, I might remind the House, was actually discovered by an Australian ophthalmologist in 1939. Norman Gregg discovered that the condition of congenital rubella was contracted by pregnant women. They are the two areas I would like to touch on.I do commend the government for its initiatives on childhood immunisation. We still have a long way to go. It looks like only 75 per cent of children of 18 months are immunised. The level overall for children has only increased about three per cent. We would like to see it increase a lot more because, without that, you will continue to see the epidemics that we are starting to see at the moment and which we have not really seen for 20 or 30 years.The electronic lodgment of Medicare claims is a very important initiative because it in some ways means that Medicare offices are now no longer as necessary as they have been in the past. It also enables payments to be made much quicker.10:16:001610Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—As we await the honourable member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly), I thought I would outline a couple of matters concerning the electronic lodgment of Medicare claims through medical practitioners' surgeries. There has been much speculation in the media, most of it misinformed, which suggests that the government, by closing certain Medicare offices, is determined to reduce the level of service to below that which was previously available.The government, on the other hand, takes the view that one has to look at the closure of Medicare offices in conjunction with the additional opportunities for electronic lodgment through medical practitioners' surgeries. When one looks at the totality of the government's reforms, it is very obvious that the government is indeed providing an increased rather than a reduced service to patients.In the future, right across the nation, doctors will be able to lodge the claims electronically directly from the surgeries. We get away from a situation where people who went to non-bulk-billing doctors had to pay the medical fee initially and then deal with one of the Medicare offices. The Medicare offices will remain in those areas where they are needed, but increasingly more people will access this new provision through medical practitioners' surgeries.I was very pleased that in the electorate of Fisher we were able to retain the Medicare offices at Caloundra and Kingaroy. There was a community campaign which was successful because the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) and the government were convinced that Medicare offices in these areas were necessary. In other areas where the amount of work being processed by Medicare offices has diminished to a stage where the Medicare office is no longer financially viable, with this change we will still be able to provide good local service to people while obviating the need to have Medicare offices which are no longer financially viable. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be as pleased as I am to see the honourable member for Lindsay in the chamber and I will now defer to her.10:19:001611Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—The Health Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to make private health insurance better value for money, a core plank of our government's reform of the health industry. It is a key issue in my electorate. Whenever I do any surveys of my electorate, health, unemployment and crime are the three major issues that keep recurring. Health is an issue that is very important in my electorate, an electorate which has a large number of women of child-bearing age and many young families. Health is very important for their peace of mind.This bill seeks to stem the flow of people away from private health insurance, something which occurred throughout the period of the previous government. Before the previous government came to power, the percentage of people covered by private health insurance in Australia was 60 per cent. It has now dropped to 31 per cent and indications are that it is continuing to fall. It is very important that we staunch the flow of people away from private health insurance.There are a number of initiatives that this government has put in place to do that. At the recent Premiers Conference, where a number of state premiers sought to deflect their own inadequacies in managing their state budget onto the federal government, it was shown that for every one per cent drop in the numbers of people leaving private health insurance it would cost the public sector an extra $83 million to cover that percentage drop.Also, by the middle of this year we will be seeing the effects of the penalty on high income earners who do not take out private health insurance. By the end of the year we are hoping to see high income earners re-entering the private health insurance market because the tax penalty will make it worth their while. We will see either a levelling out of the rate of decline of people leaving private health insurance, or an increase in the rate for those joining private health insurance.This is absolutely vital because, with 70 per cent of the population totally abdicating their responsibility for their own health care and saying they will take what government has to offer, waiting lists have grown. In New South Wales the waiting list for minor operations such as knee joints and varicose veins has increased. For things that are not urgent, the waiting lists extend for three or four years.We are now up to date with technology in terms of allowing Medicare claims to be electronically lodged. That is a great improvement. It is keeping up with technology. It is important that government departments can collate all this paperwork from a doctor's surgery with Medicare records and so provide better service to the patient. A patient no longer has to travel between the doctor, the Medicare office and the post office in order to make a claim. This bill will enable continuous improvement to occur by using technology to keep the administrative costs of Medicare down.It is important to note that, of the 7,000 people employed by the federal Department of Health and Family Services, not one of them touches a patient. Keeping administration costs down in the health department is the sort of thing that this government is looking to address.We are also looking at various ways of closing the insurance gap. If you are privately insured you can get treatment in a private hospital but not all your bills are paid by private health insurance. That is one of the major complaints that my constituents make to me; that they have to pay the Medicare levy and then, if they accept that they are responsible for their own health care and pay for private health insurance, they are asked to pay the gap when they seek to make a claim. That is one thing that really upsets those who would seek to take responsibility for themselves and give themselves a choice in the timing, style and doctor they choose to use.It is a move in the right direction. It has been very slow, given the tragic circumstances of the bleed away from private health cover that occurred under the previous government. That has certainly left us with a crisis at the moment. Looking at the figures from 1985 for the rough estimates of costs for education, health and defence, we were spending relatively the same amount, about $10 billion, on those three departments. Today, we spend $20 billion on health and we are still spending about $10 billion on defence and education. The costs in health are exponential. They are continuing to rise.Recently in my electorate we were trialling telemedicine in a new way whereby, via an Internet line, you can actually operate with robotics on people at a remote site. We are actually looking at where someone in a car accident, or some other condition not of their choosing, needs to be repaired by a specialist. If it is out in the country, a specialist is not readily available. Once the instruments are set up, a Macquarie Street specialist can operate remotely, via telephone lines and Internet providers, to get someone back to full health. Although it is leading edge and worth exploring further, it is expensive.The costs for health will continue to increase as our capabilities and the style and quality of through-life care that we demand increase. Previously when you got sick, if penicillin would not cure it, that was it. Today we have drugs costing enormous amounts of money over considerable periods of time to give people the very best that modern science can offer them. Health care is expensive and it will continue to be so, and I see it as increasing in expense.It is therefore important that the demand or the call on government does not get to such a stage that it is to the detriment of our other departments, such as defence, education and social security. It is incredibly important that we encourage the majority of Australians who can afford to do so to take responsibility for their own health care. To do that, we must convince them that insurance is very real, very helpful and very easy.The bill goes a long way to remedying some of the disastrous decisions of the previous government, which made an all-out concerted attack on the private health system and quite openly declared that a government hospital system as sole provider was the way to go. It is good to see that this legislation has got to this stage. We are hoping to see some cooperation from the opposition in supporting a number of the measures taken in this bill and to see a return to the levels of health insurance that were enjoyed in my parents' era. I commend the bill to the House.10:28:001612Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—in reply—Before thanking my colleagues for taking part in this debate and before summing up the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 , I will table the supplementary explanatory memorandum and also the corrigendum to the explanatory memorandum. The bill is about good government, and the fact we are debating this legislation in the Main Committee of course is a clear signal that the opposition are supporting this legislation. I thank them for their cooperation in this matter, because there are a number of important aspects to it.The bill is about good government. It is about regulating effectively, not regulating where there is no need to do so, and ensuring that government has a sensible, flexible approach to governing. The bill contains provisions allowing for the electronic claiming of Medicare benefits and enabling an institution to more easily use pharmaceutical stock at hand to allow for sensible customer service. The bill contains provisions to correct anomalies in the current secrecy provisions, to extend Medicare coverage to offshore domestic flights and to correct silly bureaucratic rulings that have disadvantaged government customers in the past.The bill contains provisions allowing for consumer protection, providing a penalty for charging public patients for provision of public hospital services in prescribed circumstances, and adding a consumer representative on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee—which I think is a good thing. But, of course, that committee must remain independent from government in all the decisions that it makes.We have heard comments here this morning about the issue about Neocate. In defence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, they made a decision based on the information that was provided to them by the manufacturer of that product. However, I am pleased to say that the government was able to very quickly rectify that situation and I am pleased to have taken a hand in that. I would not want to see any child disadvantaged from a decision made by such a committee.This bill works to assist research through authorising the release of de-identified immunisation data for research purposes. That is very important. Research is always important if we are to look at good health outcomes in the future. All in all, this bill, while minor in nature, contains important reforms to make government more sensible and responsive, and better protect patients. I commend this bill to the House, but before I sit down I would like to speak briefly about the foreshadowed amendments.The amendments the government is moving to the bill continue the theme of sensible government. We are removing one provision from the original bill and adding two new provisions. By removing item 23 from the original bill, a provision allowing the Health Insurance Commission to reclaim payments, we are protecting the clients of the commission. It was thought that item 23 would not achieve the desired result.The first new provision allows for the minister to appoint members to the specialist recognition committees in the absence of the required number of nominations from the groups specified in the act. The second allows for all medical practitioners to provide assistance at operations that attract a Medicare benefit. This will allow newly graduating doctors the ability to assist a principal surgeon and attract a benefit for that service. I know from practical experience that that doctor will gain very valuable experience in doing so.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.1614Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.Amendments (by Ms Worth)—by leave—agreed to:(1) Schedule 2, page 6 (after line 3), insert:5A Subsection 48(2) Omit "50", substitute "50A or 50B".5B Subsection 49(1) Omit "50", substitute "50A or 50B".5C Section 50 Repeal the section, substitute:50 Panels for appointments to Committees (1) Before making appointments to a Committee, the Minister must ask each of the following bodies to nominate a panel of at least 3 medical practitioners for the Minister's consideration for appointment to the Committee: (a) the Australian Medical Association; (b) the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons; (c) the Royal Australasian College of Physicians; (d) the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; (e) the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. (2) The request must: (a) be in writing; and (b) specify the date by which the body must nominate a panel.50A Compliance with request (1) If each body nominates a panel for a Committee in accordance with the request by the date specified in the request, the Minister must appoint to the Committee one medical practitioner from each panel. (2) If at least one body, but not each body, nominates a panel for a Committee in accordance with the request by the date specified in the request, the Minister must appoint to the Committee one medical practitioner from each of those panels. Note: For the date of effect of an appointment under subsection (2), see section 50C.50B Consequences of failure to comply with request If: (a) the Minister makes a request to a body for a panel for a Committee; and (b) the body does not nominate a panel in accordance with the request by the date specified in the request; the Minister may appoint one medical practitioner to the Committee. Note: For the date of effect of an appointment under this section, see section 50C.50C Date of effect of certain appointments An appointment made to a particular Committee under subsection 50A(2) or section 50B does not take effect before all of the appointments to that Committee under those provisions have been made.5D Subsection 53(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) If a body nominated the panel from which the absent member was appointed, the Minister must consult the body before making an appointment under subsection (1).5E Section 56 Repeal the section, substitute:56 Appointment to vacant office (1) If a vacancy occurs in the office of a member who was appointed by the Minister from a panel nominated by a body, the Minister must request the body to nominate a panel of at least 3 medical practitioners for the Minister's consideration for appointment to the vacant office. (2) The request must: (a) be in writing; and (b) specify the date by which the body must nominate a panel. (3) If the body nominates a panel for the vacant office in accordance with the request by the date specified in the request, the Minister must appoint to the office one medical practitioner from the panel. (4) If the body does not comply with the request for a panel for a vacant office, the Minister may appoint one medical practitioner to the vacant office.5F Section 57 Omit "section 50 or 56", substitute "this Division".5G Saving provision The amendments of the Health Insurance Act 1973 made by items 5A to 5F do not affect the validity of any appointments made under Part V of that Act as in force before the commencement of this Part.(2) Schedule 2, page 8 (after line 25), after item 15, insert:15A Subsection 19AA(5) (definition of professional service ) Repeal the definition, substitute: professional service does not include: (a) a service of a kind referred to in paragraph (b), (ba) or (c) of the definition of professional service in subsection 3(1); or (b) a professional service (as defined in subsection 3(1)) that is constituted by assistance at an operation.(3) Schedule 2, item 23, page 10 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bills1615r4231615Debate resumed from 3 December 1997, on motion by Ms Worth:That the bill be now read a second time.10:33:001615Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—At the outset, I want to say that the opposition will be supporting the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 1997 . This bill basically emanates from consultations with ATSIC—there are some technical amendments being proposed to the ATSIC Act. The opposition totally supports what the government is doing here and will expedite the matter, if asked, in the Senate. We do not see any need for this amendment bill to be delayed in the Senate.In terms of the outline of the bill, it is best if, for the record, I read into the Hansard what is in the explanatory memorandum, which basically gives the detail of the bill. It says:The Bill makes provision for the following amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Commission Act 1989 :. The Bill allows the Commission to attach conditions to its consent to the disposal of an interest in ATSIC funded property;. it enables the Commission to delegate to a Regional Council powers incidental to its funding powers under sections 14, 15 and 16;. it allows the Commission to delegate its power to approve the disposal of residential property;. it provides that the section 20 remedy for breaches of grant or loan conditions does not affect the availability to the Commission of other remedies for such breaches;. it makes amendments of a minor drafting nature.What this shows is that ATSIC and the ATSIC board are basically responsible in the way they conduct the act. They can do it in a way which, if it is handled properly and sensitively by this government, does not bring it into partisan politics or does not see ATSIC unduly and unfairly criticised.It is important that I refer to events of the last 24 hours, because they are disturbing. They are disturbing because, for the first time in the history of ATSIC, we have a unanimous resolution of the board passing no confidence in the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) and calling on the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to sack him.The significance of that no confidence motion is this. There are 19 commissioners—17 elected and two appointed. Of the 17 elected commissioners, only four are continuing commissioners. So we have 15 out of 19 new members. We have a distinguished chairman of ATSIC who was appointed by this minister. The minister took great pride in his appointment, and his appointment was welcomed by all political parties and all members of the community. Indeed, the Prime Minister, in a answer to a dorothy dixer in the parliament, had this to say on 12 December 1996:I think the appointment of Mr Djerrkura is one of the more important appointments that has been made by the government.Further on, he also said:I think something like 13 of the 19 are newly elected.Well, as it is, it is 15 of the 19, because two were appointed. He continued:There are under the legislation two appointments made by the government—the chairman and Mr Dillon, who is a well-known and well respected member of the Queensland Police Force and who has risen to a very high rank in that police force. I believe both men will bring very great talents and particular capacities to the work of ATSIC.Mr Djerrkura is extremely well qualified for the job. He is a senior tribal man of the Wangurri people in the north-east of Arnhem Land. He is very aware of the importance of traditional indigenous culture and also the problems facing indigenous people in remote areas of Australia.The Prime Minister said—and this was on 12 December 1996:I pointed out the desire of the government to work in a very constructive fashion with the ATSIC board and that, naturally, when there is a change of government goals are sometimes pursued in different ways . . . Further down, he said:I assured Mr Djerrkura and the ATSIC board of the goodwill of the government towards the indigenous people of Australia.He finished by saying:I very warmly welcome Mr Djerrkura to the board of ATSIC. I wish him and the other members of the ATSIC board well.In reply to a dorothy dixer on 10 December in the Senate, this is what the minister, Senator Herron, said:I consulted widely before making that appointment and found that Mr Djerrkura enjoys enormous respect. He is an outstanding Australian.Further on, he said:Senators may also be interested to learn that there has been a substantial change to the board of ATSIC as a result of the recent ATSIC elections. Only four of the 19 commissioners from that last board have been returned. I have personally spoken to all of the commissioners and I look forward to a productive and constructive relationship over the next three years.And finishing up his dorothy dixer, he repeated:I look forward to working with the board cooperatively as well.Relations between this government and the ATSIC board are at an all time low because the ATSIC board and indigenous people feel betrayed by this government. The government continues to play a political game.I think this history is important and it is important that it is said now, because this is not the way the opposition wants to see the debate progress. We believe this area is too important for a political game to be played with it. The opposition supports accountability and benchmarking. These issues can be worked on in a constructive fashion with the current ATSIC board and with responsible representatives of the indigenous community.But, from the outset, the first cabinet decision was to appoint a special auditor. That was an illegal appointment and the Federal Court rejected that appointment three to nil as outside the law, ultra vires the ATSIC Act. So the first decision of cabinet was found to be an illegal decision by the government. A million and a half spent on a special auditor, after some quite sensational allegations—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—Order!4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—It is relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the sense that what we are talking about is the bill before the parliament; it is a bill that has the support of the opposition; it is aimed at improving the ATSIC Act; it has been done in a cooperative fashion, in consultation with the ATSIC board, and that is the way it should be. In light of recent—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The bill itself is very narrow in its constraints in respect of ATSIC funded property in order to ensure that replacement Aboriginal housing stock remains subject to restrictions.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—Exactly, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—It has very narrow confines.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—It is very narrow, but the principle is the same.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have given the member for Banks a fair degree of leniency. I would ask him to speak to the bill.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—It has very narrow constraints, and what it shows is that ATSIC can act responsibly. They are acting responsibly. These amendments emanated from the ATSIC board. What they are doing is basically ensuring that they are acting properly; they have done it in full consultation with the government and the opposition supports that. But what we have had in recent times is, in effect, and indeed from day one, that the government has not acted in accordance with the ATSIC Act. The ATSIC board are trying here to make sure that they are acting legally, and that is why they came here.The government, in its first decision, acted outside the ATSIC Act. We get $450 million worth of budget cuts announced on the kerbside before the budget; that is not the way to do it. We get a situation where, three weeks ago, the ATSIC board gave a confidential report to the minister's office—and the government, it is suggested, then leaked that report. That is why the government cannot dismiss what has happened in the last 24 hours. Mr Djerrkura is the government's hand-picked appointment.We say, `We do not want to play politics with this. Sit up and take notice.' The ATSIC board are responsible. There are 15 out of the 19 commissioners who are new, two of them appointed by this government. Enough is enough. The signals yesterday are not the signals of what is coming forward in this bill. What is coming forward in this bill is a responsible organisation saying, `There need to be amendments to the act so that we are all acting properly. We do not want to act in a delinquent way. We want to attach conditions to the consent for disposal of property.' What you have is a responsible board, but there is a sense of despair at the moment because what is happening is that confidential briefings with the minister are subsequently leaked by the government for political advantage. That is the problem.We say that the way that we, the opposition, will deal with this bill and with indigenous matters is that we are prepared to give the government support. Where they can justify their actions, we will be out there backing them. We will not play politics with this amendment bill; this improves the ATSIC Act. In terms of the Native Title Act, another example, many of those amendments have cross-party support. They are aimed at improving the act. They are aimed at improving the workings of native title. But what we get is the ATSIC board giving a confidential report to the minister's office and the government then leaking it; that was three weeks ago.PK6RANDALLMr Randall—That's not correct.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—That is the situation, and it has not been denied by sections of the government. I do not blame this minister for leaking that report, or his office.PK6RANDALLMr Randall—He said he didn't.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—That is right, and I accept his word in relation to that. But there is something he did not do. He did not say that he did not pass it on to other ministers in the government who have responsibility for the Native Title Act. The thing is that the walls have ears. I do not blame this minister for leaking that particular report, but what I do say is that his office was given that report and it was passed on to another minister and another minister's office, and games were played. A confidential briefing was held earlier this week, and that started to emanate from government.What is happening is incitement. When the ATSIC board responds, government says, `Oh, they are playing politics.' We do not want to play politics. In the end, this government, this Prime Minister and all of us are not above the law and not above the constitution. This issue is too important.I have enormous respect for Gatjil Djerrkura, the current chairman, and the ATSIC board. I have had only one opportunity since the appointment of the new board to go and talk to them. The protocol generally, prior to the last term of elections, was that the minister was given an opportunity at every board meeting and the invitation was also extended to me as the shadow spokesperson. My invitation to the minister is well known. We think we can sort out these types of issues in a constructive fashion. This matter is relevant to this bill before the House. This is not a contentious bill. It does not have to be contentious and it should not be contentious.If the government makes out a case, the opposition is prepared to support it. If the government has a case in certain areas, subject the material to scrutiny; do not go out and do it by press release. That is not the way to conduct indigenous affairs. It is good short-term politics but, in the end, the government will be held accountable. Those opposite can run around saying that we had 13 years—and we did, and we made mistakes in those 13 years. We have to learn from the mistakes.The minister is well intentioned but it is a remarkable situation that in the time that this board have been in office—they took office in December 1996—there has been an unprecedented unanimous vote of no confidence in the minister. I do not think that is a political stunt. The government might dismiss it. They can dismiss it. I say take heed of it. Let us pull back a bit. Let us all count to 10 and get on with improving the situation. I want to talk about health, education, employment and training. I am not running around asking for a fistful of dollars for indigenous affairs. It does not need it. We need to properly spend the money. We need to learn from the mistakes, from the comprehensive reports that have said that, if we spend a dollar here, we will save $8 later on.We just had a debate on a health bill and prevention is better than cure. I know there are other speakers from the government. I did not intend to speak for long but I am disturbed as to the events in the last 24 hours. As far as this bill is concerned, it has the total support of the opposition. We will support it in the House of Representatives and expedite its passage in the Senate. This bill puts beyond doubt ATSIC's authority to attach conditions to the disposal of property and other things. That is a good thing.I commend the bill to the parliament and I repeat my private and public call to the government that the opposition stands ready, in a constructive fashion, to work with the government in this portfolio. The time for playing politics with indigenous people is over. It is good short-term politics but it is very dangerous in terms of the nation. By that I do not mean that we are going to defend people who misuse money. People should be accountable, but let us not have a double standard.I was informed the other day that the Department of Defence has had a $700 million over-run in the space of a year. They say, `Oh, we're sorry' but there is not the outcry in the community for the same level of accountability in the Department of Defence. I think that is a double standard and I use this debate as a signal, once again, to the government. I think there have been signs in some areas in recent times of constructive behind the scenes discussions from the government. I place that on record. There are people of goodwill on both sides of parliament in relation to this issue.The worst portfolio in government and in opposition—history will show this—is to be the Aboriginal affairs minister or the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs. In the end, wherever I go, people are talking about it. It is a mainstream issue. People acknowledge that mistakes were made—genuinely made—in the past but they do not want the mistakes to be repeated. They want acceptable solutions. They do not want to see the parliament bickering and fighting. This bill is an example of cooperation.I am not saying we are going to agree on everything or that we are not going to agree to disagree or that the government are not entitled to pursue their priorities. We will not always agree in this area but I think if there is goodwill we have the potential to agree on a lot of things. What is happening at the moment is that even things we agree on are being badly handled and not by this minister. This minister unfortunately is a prisoner of his ministry and his government and his cabinet. I know what ministerial solidarity and cabinet solidarity are all about. Sometimes you have to go out and argue stuff that you do not necessarily agree with. I know that and I respect it. I understand it. But the buck stops at the top. My appeal is to the Prime Minister: enough is enough. Use this bill as an example to show that there can be cross-party support in this area and that is what we should strive for. I commend the bill to the House.10:51:001620Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—I also wish to speak on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 1997. I also hope that in talking generally to this bill you will give me the same latitude as you gave to the member for Banks (Mr Melham) regarding ATSIC and some of its operations and the wider perception. The content of this bill, as the member for Banks said, is uncontentious and quite narrow. However, there are some matters regarding the operation of ATSIC that I would like to speak about as they affect my electorate and my state. I will proceed initially on the matters of the bill. The substance of this bill, as we know, is essentially technical amendments to effect the disposal of ATSIC interests in land and over certain other property.The amendments contained in this bill also affect delegation of powers to effect such disposals. Also contained in this bill are amendments addressing grants, loans and guarantees. These are important amendments. Without impugning the integrity of ATSIC or its commissioners, it is important that regulations are reviewed within this body, as they are elsewhere, to ensure their accountability and also to ensure the public's good perception of ATSIC and their accountability, including those issues mentioned before—delegation of powers, disposal of property, et cetera. As the member for Banks has said, this is a non-contentious bill and we appreciate the support of the opposition to expedite the technical amendments of it.But I must say that ATSIC is a body which has grown out of proportion. My information is that it is a huge monolithic bureaucracy somewhere out in Woden here in Canberra that employs well over 400 people just to administer that particular body. The member for Banks talked about Mr Gatjil Djerrkura and I wish to endorse his comments. Mr Djerrkura is a marvellous leader of ATSIC, somebody who represents his people in a very professional manner and somebody who has the authority of his people to speak for them. But to me the ATSIC body, or the ATSIC bureaucracy, which is camped or lumped out in Woden, is an anomaly. It is something that eats up a huge amount of funds when the reality is that the Aboriginal people themselves would like to see moneys placed out into the regions and into their local communities. This great body in Canberra is eating up an enormous amount of those funds which could go out to the communities themselves.The term for the administration of the ATSIC body here in Canberra is bottom-up funding rather than top-down funding, which could be achieved in a number of ways through local councils being the administrative bodies. I have spoken to Gatjil Djerrkura myself in a social setting and his words to me, when we mentioned bottom-up funding, were, `Now you are speaking my language, mate.' I think there is a great deal of cooperation to see this bottom-up funding matter addressed. I believe that some of the recommendations that will come out of the review of the ATSIC Act, which is currently being undertaken, will be towards this bottom-up funding for local communities.As the member for Banks did say, in our first year of this government we did address some cuts towards ATSIC. We know it is a very well-funded body. It has well over a billion dollars a year. This money was not taken away as such but was directed towards other programs such as Aboriginal housing, education and health. There is more specific tied funding rather than a large grab of funds just being put within this large administration called ATSIC in Canberra. I think that that is probably the preferable way of doing things.The public had been demonstrating for some time, as indeed had a large section of the Aboriginal community, that they wanted to see more results in terms of improving living conditions for a large section of the Aboriginal community than they were while ATSIC was responsible for the great majority of funds. Again, the Aboriginal people themselves want to have a greater determination of their funds, not just the hierarchy which is involved in this bureaucracy here.This bill contains provisions which relate to the commissioners and regional chairs of ATSIC. Specifically, a person will be disqualified from standing for election as a commissioner or regional councillor if they have been removed from office within the previous three years for misbehaviour. That also clears up another perception problem. Commissioners and regional council chairpersons must also seek ministerial consent if they are to engage in outside employment. This, again, is addressing a conflict. This will have the effect of avoiding any improper or incorrect accusations of conflict of interest on the part of those office holders.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 1997 will enable ATSIC to better meet the needs of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders which, naturally, is what this bill should focus on. The bill will also give ATSIC more options when handling the disposal of ATSIC funded property and will allow ATSIC to delegate power to ATSIC staff, not only the board of commissioners of ATSIC, to approve the disposal of residential property. This will have the effect of making this aspect of the ATSIC administration more efficient and expeditious.This bill makes provision for amendments relating to the Indigenous Land Corporation and these will be advantageous to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I wish to expand on this point of the Indigenous Land Corporation in the latter part of the time that I have left. Powers will be widened to allow the Indigenous Land Corporation to grant land to trusts, partnerships and individuals as well as corporations. The Indigenous Land Corporation, when performing ILC functions, will be required to take into account the needs of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders suffering most disadvantage in access to land.This bill will also empower the minister, in consultation with the Indigenous Land Council board, to appoint such additional members as he or she considers appropriate from time to time. We know that under the previous government the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, created the billion dollar land fund. The essence of this billion dollar land fund was that those who could not gain any material or monetary gain from the native title process would be able to do so through the land fund. It is an enormous amount of money and we have seen the operation of this land fund already.The process of native title, unfortunately, has been hijacked—and hijacked quite disproportionately. I just wish to relate an account in my electorate, for example. The Perth airport is entirely in my electorate. There are six native title claims on the Perth airport and three are specific claims. One is by Robert Bropho and his Nyungah group. Then there is a competing specific title over the airport by a gentleman called Corrie Bodney. Just recently, another native title claim has been placed over the airport by the Warrall family, who do not live anywhere near the airport. They live outside of my electorate. The three specific claims which border the Perth airport have put three families competing with each other. They really do not like each other very much. They have a lot of problems—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—Order! I did draw the House's attention to the fact that this is a very narrow constraint. I extended a certain amount of latitude to the member for Banks. If the member could try to address his remarks to the bill, that would be helpful.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—This bill does make provision for the Indigenous Land Corporation. I am drawing a comparison between this land corporation and the funds being sought by competing Aboriginal interests through the native title process as it competes with the Indigenous Land Corporation. But I will be a bit more specific. I just wanted to make the point that ATSIC administers the Indigenous Land Corporation but that competition from native title claims is confusing the whole issue. That is what I am talking about. This whole matter has to be addressed in relation to that.The ATSIC Act was amended in 1995 to provide funding for land to Aborigines who were unsuccessful. There is an enormous number of cases where this unworkability of the Native Title Act is affecting the operation of ATSIC. I believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should be given the opportunity to make those comparisons.What I am also drawing attention to is the fact that this bill has to be attended to. I am hoping that the Labor Party and the minor parties in the Senate will understand this because the Aboriginal people themselves, through their representative body ATSIC, are at each other's throats over these matters. All I am saying is that for the benefit of the Aboriginal people, this matter has to be determined. It is very nice, in this bill, to be giving powers to ATSIC to tighten up certain provisions in terms of disposal of land, et cetera, but Aboriginals also need to be given the workability of a decent native title regime.We all know, and Aboriginals themselves will tell you, that the native title regime is not working at all. For example, here is an article from the Sunday Times dated 22 February 1998 which points out the number of claims. This is causing contention, that 82 per cent of Western Australia is subject to native title claims. It is just not good. There have been many reports, particularly in Western Australia, of the annoyance of Aborigines over these ambit claims and—QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Earlier on you raised a point of order in respect to the honourable member for Swan going way beyond the bill by discussing native title and the Native Title Act. The honourable member is now going into detail on his views about the Native Title Act and what its consequences are. This is not about the Native Title Act; this is about ATSIC, and it is about programs for Aboriginal people delivered through ATSIC—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I did draw the honourable member's attention to that. However, I did extend a certain amount of latitude to the member for Banks to make some comments and so I allowed the same amount of latitude to the member for Swan. However, I ask the member for Swan to continue with this debate and contain his remarks to the bill.UT4NUGENTMr Nugent—Could I speak briefly on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker? I understand totally your position, of course, but I would make the point that the member for Banks not only strayed from the bill but also talked about issues that were way outside the bill. He talked about leaking documents and about protest to the minister, and we—and you—allowed him that latitude. When at the beginning of his speech the member for Swan sought similar latitude, the member for Banks, as the opposition's lead spokesman on this matter, indicated very clearly that he thought that was very appropriate. So I would ask that you give my colleague very generous treatment in that respect.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have already ruled on that matter. The honourable member for Swan may continue with his remarks and try and address them to the terms of the bill.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take your point. The matter that I raised here, though, is the wider ramifications of ATSIC, which the bill alludes to. I have pointed out one problem in my electorate, and I am being electorate-specific. It is not that it causes me, in particular, a problem—even though there is a native title claim over my backyard. I live on the edge of the Swan River and there is a native title claim over my backyard, a 15-metre setback from the river. They could not put a sewerage line on to my property, because they could not negotiate the native title claim on my backyard; so I am being specific.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member has already put his interest on the record. I thank him for that, but I now ask him to return to the bill.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—That is right. I am quite happy, in terms of the point from the member for Calwell, to declare my interest—and I do have an interest. They put the sewerage line down the middle of the road, because there was not a claim there.In fact, I would like to draw this to a close. All I am pointing out is that, in terms of ATSIC and the perception of ATSIC, we would like to see its workability, and the bill helps such workability. The public perception is that ATSIC is not delivering outcomes for Aboriginal people. I believe that the bill, which is supported by the opposition, will help the workability of ATSIC as it now stands. I hope that under the review of ATSIC, as I have said earlier, the delivery of services from ATSIC will come from the administration of bottom-up funding.My final comments are these. I appreciate the support of the opposition on delivering this clarification on a technical amendment to the bill, as it is a matter that needs to be sorted out as soon as possible. I am pleased to hear from the member for Banks that the opposition will also expedite it through the Senate with their support.11:08:001623Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I hope I will also be given some leeway in the debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment (TSRA) Bill 1997 , because we have obviously now gone into a generalised debate on ATSIC, at least, and also on Aboriginal affairs. I want to begin by referring to some of the matters raised by the member for Swan (Mr Randall) when he made his criticisms about ATSIC's performance and whether it is able to achieve its role. He justified the cuts made to ATSIC by the current government. At the time these cuts were made, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) said that these were justified because there was a need to emphasise the importance of programs in education, health, welfare, et cetera.These programs, of course, have been emphasised by the Labor government through its access and equity policies. But I guess a number of people, myself included, thought, `Okay. The minister wants to have a go at a different approach. We don't like the cuts to ATSIC. We don't like the downgrading of ATSIC and we certainly do not like the smearing of ATSIC that the minister and members of the government carried out.' All we thought was, `All right, we'll see. Let's have a look; let's see whether in fact diversion of resources to these other programs is going to have some net effect.' So the minister was able to get some credit for himself for wanting to try an alternative approach.As the member for Banks (Mr Melham) has pointed out, the minister's attempts have been a total, complete and utter failure—an absolute and total failure. Of course, you do not have to take our word for it. You have to take the word of ATSIC itself. As is known, yesterday the ATSIC board, including the chairman appointed by the government, unanimously carried a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.SK6SMITHMr Tony Smith—Absolutely disgraceful.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—`Absolutely disgraceful'—is that right? If your people were suffering the way the Aboriginal people are suffering, you might be concerned as well.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—Order! The honourable member for Calwell will direct his remarks through the chair and will ignore any interjections.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The gentleman interjected, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will say this: Mr Gatjil Djerrkura's comments, as chairman of ATSIC, in relation to the actions of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs clearly show that there is, to say the least, a problem in relation to the approach adopted by the minister. It is understating the matter completely to say there is a problem.I was involved, when I was parliamentary secretary, with the access and equity program and the reports of the access and equity program, including the program reports on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. We were concerned about the underachievement of targets in relation to health, education and these other areas. But the minister's so-called new strategy has totally failed. We have got to ask ourselves: why has it failed? Has it failed simply because there was not enough money? Maybe that is part of it. But it has also failed because we as a society are failing in relation to this issue. And we as a society are failing because we have not come to grips with the reasons the problems are there.I have spoken on this matter before in the House. It seems to me that we still have not come to grips with the importance of the cultural aspect in relation to Aboriginal affairs.PK6RANDALLMr Randall—What has that got to do with this bill though?QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—It has got a lot to do with the programs of ATSIC, I have to tell you.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Calwell, I have given you a fair amount of latitude and I now ask that you make your point and return to the bill.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am talking about the works of ATSIC. That is what this bill is about. And the minister is the minister in relation to the works of ATSIC. I am saying that when we are talking about programs to be administered through ATSIC, or, indeed, programs that have been taken from ATSIC to be administered in other ways—a very relevant issue, I might say—we need to get something very clear in relation to these programs. That is this: we need to understand the cultural basis of these programs; we need to understand the importance of culture in Aboriginal issues.This is not just a problem for Australia, actually. It is a problem for other countries which have had indigenous cultures and where those cultures are disappearing or have been destroyed through actions of the people coming in. What has happened—UT4NUGENTMr Nugent—I raise a point of order. It is with some regret that I raise the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I understand the sincerity of the gentleman who is speaking, but it is a narrow bill and I do think the issues that are being canvassed are going way beyond the bill. There are other opportunities to canvass these issues and I ask you to bring the speaker back to the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! There is no point of order. I am listening very closely to the member for Calwell and I understand he is trying to develop an analogy. I am listening closely, but I do ask that he bring his analogy back to the content of the bill.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Mr Deputy Speaker, what I am talking about is, in fact, the content of the bill. The bill attempts to ensure that ATSIC more efficiently achieves outcomes in relation to Aboriginal people. I am now talking about what some of the problems have been in this area. I could not imagine anything more relevant than that. This is unlike the previous member, who was allowed to speak for 10 minutes on native title. This matter involves Aboriginal affairs, but it is not a matter concerning the issues that ATSIC and related programs deal with. Nevertheless, I will try to ensure that my comments remain relevant.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If the member for Calwell looks at the bill, he will find that it is mainly related to the disposal of interest in property and that it has a very narrow constraint.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—With respect, you have already accepted, from two other speakers, a very broad discussion about—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—As with your colleague the member for Banks, I have allowed you a certain amount of latitude. I now ask that you bring your remarks back to the bill.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—I am speaking about the bill and its importance on the actions of ATSIC and its future performance. I ask you to have another look, if you are concerned with that, Mr Deputy Speaker. In talking about ATSIC, it is very important that we support ATSIC in its endeavours not only to put programs into place but also to put them in place in a way which makes sense in a cultural way to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Some people, from what might be termed a Western European perspective, have decided to criticise ATSIC. The previous member talked at some length about that. Whatever its shortcomings, you cannot replace a body like ATSIC. It is a body that is determined on the basis of representation from Aboriginal people themselves.There may be some imperfections but the reality is that it is the attempt by Aboriginal people themselves to have a voice in the programs and in the direction of the programs of government so those programs actually achieve results, especially in the key areas of the minister's concern—notably, education and health.It is sad that the minister was criticised by the ATSIC board. It is clear that there needs to be much more communication between the government, including the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), and the board, on the issues which ATSIC deals with. For a process of reconciliation between ourselves and the Aboriginal people, we need to ensure that there is greater communication and understanding by the government of ATSIC's approach and the framework which Aboriginal people bring to their affairs. That is not what has been happening and that is why we have the sorts of problems which the member for Banks referred to at some length in his contribution.I want to suggest a constructive way through this, if that is possible. We need to encourage ATSIC to put in place programs that are going to help restore lost elements of Aboriginal culture. It seems to me that very often young Aboriginal people grow up in circumstances where so much of their culture has already been lost. Unfortunately, there are often not sufficient details available from the previous generation for that culture to be transmitted.We have a responsibility to use government resources, especially in education, through libraries, through materials that we have collected, through bringing people together, to try to restore lost elements of Aboriginal culture. ATSIC can play a significant role in relation to that.I want to say something about land, since you raised the issue, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Swan talked about the native title bill, claiming that there is a contradiction between ATSIC's work in relation to language use and that of the native title bill. There is no contradiction. What is important here is that, although some people of indigenous background are going to benefit from the native title situation, other people are going to need assistance in another way to get access to land. This is where ATSIC has an important role to play.You cannot say that, simply, the rights of those people who have claims under native title are going to be sufficient to meet the land requirements of the Aboriginal people. That is why we have the land fund; that is why we have the corporation. What is needed is some way in which we can help reconnect the Aboriginal people to the land.As I have said in other places, land is of enormous importance to the Aboriginal people. It is not just a question of the Western idea of ownership; the very belief system, the whole culture of the Aboriginal people is tied up with this association with the land. There is virtually what we would call in philosophy a metaphysical connection with the land. It is not a simple physical connection. That is why sacred sites are so dramatically important to Aboriginal people. I believe that what is required here is a much greater understanding of and sensitivity to the cultural needs of the Aboriginal people, their ideas of the land and the general idea that we should restore, or help to restore, the cultural traditions which have been taken away.ATSIC is a very important body. I totally disagree with the member for Swan when he wants to say that ATSIC somehow has overstepped the mark and so on. ATSIC is a very important body, and the measures in this bill are going to strengthen ATSIC. That is why we support them. We support the measures in this bill. We feel that the measures here will help achieve a better situation for ATSIC. But, if ATSIC is strengthened in this way, then the government has to take the next step. It has to start talking, especially, to the leadership of ATSIC and make sure that we get a new, more sensitive direction in this area of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs.11:24:001626Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonLP10—This measure, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 1997 , basically has demonstrated the government's confidence, and anticipation of confidence, in the functioning of ATSIC. In particular, the government, by making these amendments, is going to facilitate the better undertaking and course of business of ATSIC by granting to ATSIC the power to attach conditions to its consent to the disposal of an interest in ATSIC funded property.Currently, ATSIC may only grant or refuse consent to the disposal of ATSIC funded property. The amendment would give ATSIC more options when handling disposals. It would also allow ATSIC to delegate power to ATSIC staff to approve the disposal of residential property. It is not considered necessary for the board of commissioners to approve each disposal of residential property. It will remove doubt about whether ATSIC may delegate certain ancillary powers concerning grants, loans and guarantees to a regional council.While the government is perhaps living in hope and anticipation that, by demonstrating confidence in ATSIC, ATSIC will show a bit of respect, understanding and confidence in the government, by contrast we get the tantrum that was thrown yesterday by ATSIC when it censured the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. There is also the contrast between the confidence being demonstrated by the government in ATSIC and the politicking of ATSIC in response.That is very disappointing because, at the end of the day, through that little interaction the people of Australia may come to regard the process as very unfortunate and lose more and more of the respect that they may have had for ATSIC. Some, in fact, may not have ever had much respect for it. But it is a great pity that the more this goes on the greater is the contrast between the confidence and hope shown by the government—that ATSIC will get its house in order and will be able to function better—and this sit down stunt, this tantrum, this criticism of Senator Herron, this `censure' of Senator Herron. It really does make you wonder.I am sure I can speak reasonably authoritatively for my electorate of Dickson when I say that many of my constituents are wondering why we need ATSIC at all. Why do we need a body that is funded in this way turning around and biting the hand which feeds it? Why do we need this body in the first place if it is going to carry on like this?This body was given $70 million extra from 1996-97 to 1997-98, yet because the government is looking at a report on a new deal for Torres Strait Islanders—as I am sure it has done—criticism is directed at the minister because he is trying to give Torres Strait Islanders more autonomy as was recommended in the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are not one people; they are very much separate peoples. When the committee visited North Queensland, Torres Strait Islanders very firmly reminded the committee—and certainly told me in discussions I had with many Torres Strait Islanders—that they were sick of ATSIC. They were prepared to go along with ATSIC, they were prepared to go along with changes that—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—The honourable member for Dickson is straying a fair way from the bill. I have granted you a similar amount of leave to make some general comments, but I ask that the member for Dickson now return to the bill.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, what I am saying is highly relevant. I am drawing a contrast between what the government is doing in terms of demonstrating its confidence in ATSIC and what the ATSIC board is doing to the government in response. That is highly relevant because, in terms of this particular measure, the government is facilitating the operation of the ATSIC board in a greater way than has been done before, and at the same time the ATSIC board is demonstrating that it does not want to cooperate and that it does not want to facilitate the sorts of changes that the government is trying to bring in.With the greatest respect, that is a relevant point to make—much more relevant, with respect, than some of the claims made by the member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) and the member for Banks (Mr Melham) which did not touch on the bill at all. This is highly relevant to the bill. I would respectfully say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that these matters are relevant in terms of the debate that has been permitted to range over a number of areas.I think it is important, when considering the functioning of ATSIC, to remind oneself that ATSIC was set up with the best of intentions by the previous government. No-one doubts that. But over time—notwithstanding that this government is trying to work with ATSIC, that it has appointed a distinguished leader of the Aboriginal community to chair ATSIC—we have had ATSIC saying, `We do not mind what you do to facilitate the better operation of our board; we are going to slap you in the face at every opportunity. We are going to engage in cheap political point scoring, in politicking, in attempting to undermine the relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.'Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would know, the current inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs into indigenous businesses is yet another example of the government attempting to examine the better functioning of those businesses, and ultimately this will make for the better functioning of ATSIC. It all comes back to a government that is determined to produce outcomes. This bill relates to producing better outcomes.The measures that the government is attempting to adopt are to try to produce better outcomes, but the ATSIC politicians do not want outcomes. They want to preserve their positions forever. That is why we have this unnecessary politicking that is being perpetuated by letters between Father Brennan and the honourable member for Banks, and others, in relation to muzzling Father Brennan. We know about the politicking that has been going on, Daryl. We know about what has been happening, and Alan Ramsey might want to have a chat to you about that later.At the end of the day, we are trying to facilitate the better operation of ATSIC, and that means that we are trying to get a better outcome. That is the end result. We can argue across the table day in and day out about what has happened in the past—$16 billion was spent by the previous government in 13 years—but where are the outcomes?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Tell us about the $700 million the defence department overspent in the last few months. There are double standards. That's the problem. It is a disgrace.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—The problem is that we sit here and we go back and forth across the table but we are not producing the outcomes. We are not producing the outcomes because there is so much patronisation going on. Instead of allowing Aboriginals—in particular, Torres Strait Islanders—to have a greater level of autonomy, the bureaucrats and the politicians in ATSIC do not want that to happen. They do not want the Torres Strait Islanders to get away—UT4NUGENTMr Nugent—I rise on a point of order. I ask that the member for Banks be asked to be quiet. This debate throughout, started by the member for Banks, has been wide ranging. The previous deputy chair allowed a large degree of latitude and there have been almost no interjections from this side. I would ask that my colleague the member for Dickson be allowed to speak without this constant barrage of interjections.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I remind the honourable member for Banks of standing order 55.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—I thank the member for Aston (Mr Nugent). I do not expect the member for Banks to be quiet all of the time because it would not be in his nature. I will try not to offend him in case he fires one back at me. Having said that, it is important to note that everybody in this room is trying to strive for outcomes. I know the honourable member for Aston is very committed to Aboriginal affairs and is very sincere about it, as is the honourable member for Banks. I know how committed you are, Mr Deputy Speaker, having sat with you on these committees. I know you are wanting to see a reasoned and responsible approach, an approach that will guarantee improvements for Aboriginal people. This bill is designed to facilitate that. But, in general, in the policy sense, we all are striving for that. Unfortunately, along the way, we can get sidetracked by allegations and political shenanigans which, in my view, derail the process.So let us get on with the process. Let us get on with ensuring that the situation works, because if it does not, there are real questions being asked in the community and in my electorate as to how on earth an organisation like ATSIC can continue to justify the sort of spending that it has—the spending that it takes in relation to itself, the 50 per cent more that it spends than a comparably sized department in relation to travel matters.All of these things have caused the focus of attention of the Australian community to be on the proper functioning of ATSIC. In fact, they have caused this government to respond with inquiries in relation to that funding, with audits and so forth, but at the same time, looking at various aspects of the bill, showing that sort of confidence that I indicated at the outset and expecting ATSIC to reciprocate and to show good faith and to demonstrate that it is accountable in this process.At the end of the day, I commend the bill to the House. I would ask that honourable members look at the operation of ATSIC in a justifiable way. Finally, in response to the member for Calwell, I think it is important to remember that the high moral ground is frequently alleged to be on that side of the House. Really, that argument is quite unfortunate. I think from time to time you get references to the fact that if we disagree with ATSIC or if we question the very fundamentals of ATSIC, then somehow or other we are against Aboriginal advancement. That is not the case. Members on this side of the House have a commitment to improving the living standards and the basic things that we all take for granted. I think that members of the opposition should give the members of this House some credit for doing that instead of raising the terrible `r' word whenever anything is done to try to make things more efficient in ATSIC and to try to adopt a process which will ultimately lead to better outcomes. With those few remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.11:37:001629Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—in reply—I have sat here and listened to a number of very wide ranging speeches, some of which really do not require comment. In his opening remarks, the member for Banks (Mr Melham) said that this legislation had the full support of the opposition and for that I thank the opposition.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 1997 legislation is not contentious; it is technical. The bill allows ATSIC to attach conditions to its consent to the disposal of an interest in ATSIC funded property but I think we have perhaps heard very little of that this morning. Instead, we have heard a lot of politics being played. My staff during this debate have brought me everything I have said on Aboriginal affairs in the five years that I have been in this place. It is significant. A number of people in this chamber have also made significant contributions.As I have said at other times, Aboriginal and other Australian reconciliation is far too important to be playing politics about, but that is what we have heard happen today. While the member for Banks and I would have some things to agree about, and have agreed in the past, I cannot support his remarks this morning when he made an attack on a very fine senator, Senator John Herron, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, who has done so much in the last two years.I attended a seminar within Parliament House only a couple of months ago on reproductive health. There were people here from various parts of the world. There was an Aboriginal woman speaking at that seminar and she spoke about the fact that more had been done for Aboriginal health in recent times than in the preceding very many years. I think it has been poor form to refer to Senator Herron the way he has been referred to today and I staunchly defend him. He has said that there were rumours of this walkout and this resolution from the board of ATSIC in the preceding two weeks, timed impeccably to just precede debate on the Wik legislation. And unfortunately there has been far too much politics about this situation.I say again and again and again—and cannot say more emphatically—that reconciliation is far too important to have politics played. Father Brennan's name has been mentioned this morning. That has been widely talked about in the main chamber. Father Brennan is somebody who cares a great deal about reconciliation and working with Aboriginal people but because he took a different view from the National Indigenous Working Group means that politics is once again being played there. I repudiate all of that but, at the same time, do thank those who have supported this legislation today because it certainly is important. I commend the bill to the House and look forward, in a moment, to moving another amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.1630Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:41:001630Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 2), after item 8, insert:8A Paragraph 94(1)(f)After "by", insert "or under".I would just like to make a very brief explanation. Item 8A will clarify the ability of the regional councils which are established under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 to exercise delegations under that act.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bills1630s154Consideration resumed from 5 March163111:42:001631Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to bring forward the commencement of provisions which relate to the proof of an offence where the person accused is intoxicated. The relevant provisions, subsections 4.2(6) and (7), and division 8 of the criminal code, provide that self-induced intoxication cannot be considered in determining intent or voluntariness in relation to basic offences like assault. Without the amendment those provisions would not commence until March 2000.Currently the common law applies in relation to Commonwealth offences and the accused can raise the argument that he or she was so grossly intoxicated that the offending conduct was not voluntary or intended. While the common law rule is rarely used, and then usually in relation to the state offence of assault, the government wishes to provide a lead to those states which have not enacted the model criminal code provisions on this topic.In 1995 all parties and Independents in the Commonwealth parliament supported the enactment of the criminal code rules in relation to intoxication. The Commonwealth has had these principles on intoxication in its statute since then. At the time, no doubt because the common law rules were not expected to be used in relation to Commonwealth offences, the parliament did not give priority to commencing the criminal code provisions early.The government favours commencing them now because the common law rules are inconsistent with its commitment to stamp out domestic violence. While in practice it is a state and territory issue, I want to encourage those jurisdictions which still have the common law rule to bring their law in line with the model criminal code provisions which were endorsed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in November 1993. I believe the common law rules are unacceptable to most Australians. I commend the bill to the House.11:44:001631Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The opposition supports the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] . There is no objection whatsoever to this bill on our side of the House and we support all of the remarks of the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) in his second reading speech.However, for completeness, so that the record is totally accurate, I should point out that this was the view when we were in government. It was not my personal view. I was rolled when we were in government because I am an O'Connor man, as against a Majewski man from England, but I accept that. I just want to put on the record that the former Labor government's view on this bill was the same as this government's view. We are just bringing it forward.My concern back then was a legal argument. We had a very detailed discussion in the caucus committee. Back then I found myself basically one out. I think that a lot of what has been said is exaggerated, as is acknowledged in the second reading speech. The defence has rarely been successful. I do not want to second-guess what the magistrate did in a recent case in the ACT, but I would have thought that the very fact that the person charged was able to recall the number of drinks that that person had would have precluded the defence being successful, yet it was.As I say, I do not seek to second-guess the magistrate but I just thought it appropriate that I put on the record my personal view. I am an O'Connor man and not a Majewski man. I did not have the numbers when we were in government, and I certainly do not have the numbers now. For the record, I do not want it said that I am being inconsistent. I am not; I am comfortable with the government's position. That is the policy position that we adopt. It was the policy position that we adopted back then.We need to continue to have these honest and frank discussions both within government and within our own party rooms. As practitioners we need to be able to come forward in our caucus committees, in our party caucus and in our shadow ministries, and to bring to bear our professional background and our knowledge in the area. We continue to offer the government support in some areas where we think the reform is quite justified.What I am worried about, and that is why I will speak a little bit longer than I intended to, is that I do not want us to get to the stage where what we do as a parliament is to react to the exception and to make the exception the rule. I think our criminal justice system works quite well. I believe very strongly in the presumption of innocence. I believe very strongly that the onus is on the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in terms of each and every element, and that we need to be very careful that as politicians we do not react to the lowest common denominator.I am not saying we are doing that here. I think there is a legitimate argument as to whether we should follow the Majewski approach or the O'Connor approach. O'Connor now has been consigned to the dustbin of history, maybe. We will see how this applies in terms of the directions that judges will give to juries. However, we do commend the government. We think it is appropriate that it be brought forward. It does send a signal.As I say, there has been a gross over-reaction to the ACT case. From a personal point of view, I think the ACT case could have been distinguished. It would have been interesting to see what happened if there was a stated case in relation to that, but that is another matter. We support the bill, but let no-one say that I did not fight the fight until the very end. However, I got rolled comprehensively. And that process is the way it should be.This was one of only two areas where in the end, after wide consultation, there was some difference of opinion around the country on the model criminal code. I think the other one had to do with what constituted a conspiracy to defraud. There has been widespread consultation on this. The view of all the jurisdictions and the attorneys-general is well known. I commend the bill to the House.11:49:001632Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Let me say at the outset in the debate on the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 that I am not a lawyer. Perhaps that could account for my generally clear eyes and straightforward logic on many matters. I do, however, declare a vested interest in the matter relating to criminal law, and that is that I was a member of the founding executive, and still am a member, of the Victims of Crime Association in Queensland.That has not been because I have personally been directly hurt by a criminal act—although people around me have been. It has been because I have taken a great deal of interest since, firstly, 10 years ago—as I guess it would be now—as a journalist with Channel 7, I met Shari Davies, the soul and inspiration behind the Victims of Crime Association in Queensland. Her father is still the president of that body. Secondly, I am interested because, as a citizen of Australia, I read too often about how victims are dealt with in the legal process.The bill before us today is all about redressing some of the failures of the legal system and some of the things that the legal system continues to throw up. In the case of the ACT, they are now dealing with the matter; but certainly in the case of Victoria and South Australia, the common law application of the drunk's defence has continued to be used as a cute way of getting people off a charge: acceptable under the legal process but, nevertheless, on the basis of common values that I think all of us in this place share, a cute process.It is important to know, as I am sure you do, that safety and security are really some of the core responsibilities that people look to the government to provide. People want a sense of safety and a sense of security so that they can go about their lives. They are participants in society by choice, because they believe society will provide them with a set of rules so that they can conduct themselves properly as individuals. By the same token, people are also feeling very let down by basic institutions. We here in parliament certainly cop a deal of criticism from people in our constituencies—more than from time to time and perhaps quite often—because they feel that we have let them down on getting some of the basic things done.Likewise, the law courts of this country are bringing themselves into some questionable repute. Anything that happens in a law court on a daily basis really does reflect upon us as legislators, because we come up with the laws and we rightly—by the separation of powers doctrine, which I am sure we all support—leave it to the courts to judge and to sentence. The fact that people have a declining faith in the legal process is a matter which should concern us all as legislators.I believe, and I am sure all in this place believe, that people should be dealt with consistently, regardless of their race, their creed, their gender, their income or their political beliefs. I cite a couple of recent examples of my concern: the North Sydney magistrate who decided that Greenpeace protesters should be congratulated for climbing on the roof of the Prime Minister's house to unfurl a banner. If that particular magistrate had had on the roof of his house some people protesting about some matter, I wonder how that would be judged.I heard this morning a radio commentator complaining that the Director of Public Prosecutions in the ACT said that Aboriginal elders who lit fires out of necessity outside Old Parliament House should be not charged despite the fact that there is a well-broadcast fact that, because of high fire danger problems at the moment, people within the ACT will face prosecution if they light a fire. That particular matter, if it is true, certainly sends the signals to others—and unfortunately to some in this place—to ignite all sorts of racial overtones that none of us wants.The most celebrated recent use of the drunk's defence—which is at the heart of the bill before us—was the case of footballer Noa Nadruku. I know that Minister Moylan, who is Minister for the Status of Women, said quite clearly to the House of Representatives in October last year that it is `totally unacceptable to have such a defence at a time when alcohol and drug abuse is causing so much human pain and suffering in our communities, and that a person who voluntarily gets drunk and assaults someone should be held responsible'.I am certain that there would be very few people in this place today who would disagree with that notion. Let us have a look at some of the crimes that those who get drunk might commit. In fact, research by the Australian Institute of Criminology shows that alcohol is an important factor in homicide: 34 per cent of all offenders and 31 per cent of all victims of homicide were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident.Would the drunk's defence extend to the case of homicide? I presume not. Yet in a particular case that was tried last year in the ACT, two women and a man who were apparently unknown to the perpetrator were assaulted and the perpetrator was let off because of the `drunk's defence'. Is it any wonder people have a declining faith in the basic institutions in our society? All too often, criminals are given the benefits of many doubts.Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, because of the person that I have gathered you are, I know that you understand that a lot of criminals are themselves victims of crimes in the past. But if we in this place are going to stand idly by and allow another cycle of offenders to be born out of the victims of today, then we are letting down today's generations as well as the future generations. That is why the signal that this bill sends to other jurisdictions, to states in this country who are still maintaining the common law defence and not using the model criminal code, needs to be sent.I applaud the approach taken by the Queensland coalition government and my good friend and colleague the Attorney-General in Queensland. They have increased and toughened a wide range of penalties for criminals, including juvenile offenders. There are many people in Queensland wondering if, as a result of a state election to come, the Australian Labor Party opposition will make true their claims of being against those particular tough new codes and whether or not, if a Labor government were elected, they would reverse that. There were only two groups in the community who were upset when the criminal code was toughened in Queensland by the coalition government. One was the criminals. The other group was the Australian Labor Party. We certainly will be maintaining pressure on the ALP, if they happen by some twist of fate to be elected in Queensland, not to give benefits back to criminals as far as laws of the state of Queensland are concerned.It is very important that we do break the cycle of recidivism to make sure that today's victims do not become offenders tomorrow. Also, it is very important that we send clear signals to the young of this country, because there are so many young people involved in criminal activities. That is certainly not to say that young people are all criminals, by any stretch of the imagination. But what is important when we have basic institutions breaking down—families, and uncertainty about how the courts and the parliaments are asserting themselves and delivering for society—is that young people are not getting a clear signal about what is right and what is wrong.The facts speak for themselves. For most types of crime, the majority of offenders are males aged between 15 and 25. Approximately 50 per cent of motor vehicle thefts in Queensland are committed by males aged 15 to 19. People aged between 10 and 14 years—that is 23 per cent of the population—are responsible for 83 per cent of all break and enters. That is a Police Statistics Review fact, from the 1995-96 review.We all have to stop and take stock of the laws we make. We also have to ensure that we arm the courts—the judiciary have to be fully armed with a wide range of sentencing possibilities, depending on the type of crime. We need to send a clear signal to offenders and to all citizens that, if you do the crime, you should do the time.The taxpayers expect results from us, as they expect them from the law courts. The basic fabric of society is certainly under challenge. If we cannot ensure that key institutions are effective and are held in high regard, more and more people are going to opt out of the basic standards of society. More and more people are going to turn their backs on key institutions. They are going to challenge authority, in all sorts of everyday ways. Perhaps they might do it by committing a criminal act to draw attention to themselves; perhaps they might do it by protesting in the halls of parliament, but essentially breaching the conventions a society demands of its citizens.Younger Australians certainly want a sense of direction. They want a sense of discipline. They need to know there are clear-cut rules to follow and they need to know that there are sanctions there if they do not. They need to know that the drunk's defence—where, if you are under the influence of some grog, you can go and beat the living daylights out of somebody and get off—just is no longer good enough in Australian society. That is what this bill is about. It is time we made the criminals pay, not just the taxpayer. It is an important bill. I am pleased the opposition are supporting it. I commend it to the House.NaN:00:001635Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—With the Criminal Code Act of 1995, the Commonwealth enacted that part of the model criminal code that deals with the general principles of criminal responsibility, which includes the excuse of gross intoxication. The model code was to be progressively applied to Commonwealth law by the year 2000. If passed, this Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] will bring forward the provisions of the 1995 act relating to self-induced intoxication so that they are implemented as soon as the bill becomes law. To understand why the government wishes to bring forward by two years the commencement date of legislation that has already been enacted, it is necessary to consider the so-called drunk's defence and its current place in our legal system.In Australia, criminal law has generally been a state matter with the Commonwealth enacting criminal laws only under its specific constitutional heads of power. Historically, two systems of state and territory criminal law have developed in Australia. New South Wales, Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia are regarded as common law jurisdictions. Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory are known as the so-called code states and are subject to a criminal statute code.There are some significant differences in both principle and effect between these two systems. These differences are generally believed to be unnecessary. In addition, prior to recent reforms, the application of Commonwealth criminal law arising under a statute other than the Crimes Act had to be decided according to the law of the particular state or territory in which the case was heard. Accordingly, a defendant charged under a Commonwealth law could be dealt with differently in a code state from a defendant charged with the same Commonwealth offence in a common law jurisdiction.In 1987, the then Commonwealth Attorney-General established a committee chaired by the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Harry Gibbs, to review all the Commonwealth criminal law. At this time, most of the Australian states and territories were also reviewing their own criminal laws. In 1989, the Gibbs committee issued a discussion paper dealing with the principles of criminal responsibility and inviting submissions. In 1990, the commission released a report into the subject. That same year, the standing committee of Attorneys-General agreed to put the question of the development of a uniform Australia wide criminal code on its agenda and established an interjurisdictional committee of criminal law experts to advise on the development of a code.With the passing of the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Commonwealth parliament established rules of criminal responsibility in relation to Commonwealth criminal law with the intention that they stand as model legislation for adoption at state and territory level in due course. One of the issues of criminal responsibility that was addressed in the 1995 act was the availability of the excuse of intoxication where the intoxication was voluntary.At law, the issue of voluntary intoxication has raised difficult questions. Since gross intoxication may affect a person's ability to form an intent at the time of the offence, evidence of intoxication can be raised in some circumstances to deny liability. The excuse of intoxication is that a person was so intoxicated that he or she did not know what they were doing and could not have formed an intent to commit the offence.Where the accused person's intoxication is self-induced, the defence is sometimes known as the drunk's defence. This can be fatal to the prosecutor's case in circumstances where the prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt that both the physical act and the mental element, or guilty mind, were present. In practice, very few intoxicated offenders have been able to rely on this excuse. Only the most grossly intoxicated are likely to successfully show that they were incapable of intending the consequences of their actions.The law with respect to the drunk's defence was different in the code states and the common law states. At common law, the High Court of Australia noted in the 1980 O'Connor case, it is a fundamental legal principle of establishing criminal liability that an accused must be shown to have formed the necessary intent to commit the offence for which he or she is being tried.Some offences require proof only that the accused intended to commit the prohibited act. This is a general or `basic' intent. Other offences involve an additional purposive intent, or an intention to achieve a particular purpose or result. For example, in the O'Connor case the offence of unlawful wounding by stabbing required proof only that the accused intended to insert the knife. In contrast, murder is an example of a `specific intent' offence, because it involves an awareness beyond the physical act. For the offence of murder by stabbing, the so-called basic intent is the intention to insert a knife into the victim's body. The additional, specific intent that must be proven to establish the offence of murder is the intent to kill or commit grievous bodily harm.In O'Connor, the High Court said that intoxication was a relevant factor in determining whether or not the accused had formed even the basic intent, even if the intoxication was self-induced. In contrast, in the code states, the position was that intoxication cannot be taken into account in offences of basic intent, but can be relevant in specific intent offences. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General preferred to follow the position of the code states on this issue, and the 1995 Criminal Code Act of the Commonwealth adopted that preferred position as one of the model provisions for criminal law in Australia.As I said at the beginning, the provisions to which this bill relates are not due to commence until 2000, in order to allow for a period of transition while the many Commonwealth offences under a variety of statutes are reviewed and consequently amended to make them referrable to the new code before it applies to them.That brings us to October 1997, when an assault case heard by an Australian Capital Territory magistrate brought the issue of self-induced intoxication to the forefront again. In that case it was proven that, in February 1997, Canberra Raiders rugby player Noa Nadruku consumed 28 schooners of beer, six stubbies and half a bottle of wine, and then allegedly assaulted his wife and two other women. Since the common law rule in O'Connor's case applied in the ACT, it was open to Nadruku to argue that he was so drunk that he could not have formed the basic intent to commit the offences. Nadruku was acquitted of the two assault charges, provoking community outrage around the nation.The community response across Australia was not surprising. It affirmed the lead that had been taken by the Commonwealth in 1995 when the parliament passed the Criminal Code Act and in so doing rejected the approach taken by the High Court in the O'Connor decision. Following the Nadruku case, the ACT government moved quickly to legislate to remove the excuse of gross intoxication. New South Wales had already legislated in 1996 to remove the drunk's defence in offences of specific intent. In February this year, the South Australian Attorney-General announced that the South Australian government would draft legislation to abolished the so-called drunk's defence.Victoria is now the only state or territory to have made no move to change its criminal law to prevent offenders from using the intoxication defence. A spokeswoman for the Victorian Attorney-General, Mrs Jan Wade, was reported on 6 March 1998 as saying that Victoria was unlikely to move to change the law, despite action by the Commonwealth and the other states and territories. The spokesman was quoted as saying that the drunk's defence was rarely raised in Victoria. I suggest that, in view of the important issues of principle involved, that comment misses the point.Until the relevant chapter of the Criminal Code Act commences in the year 2000, the drunk's defence will remain available to defendants charged under Commonwealth criminal law. This continuing state of law appears at odds with the civilised view that alcohol is no excuse for violent behaviour.The parliament canvassed the arguments for and against the retention of the drunk's defence when the Criminal Code Act was debated in 1994 and 1995. The multipartisan view then was that the defence should be removed. Although the solution to the problem of defendants who commit offences while grossly intoxicated is by no means clear cut, this is not the occasion to re-argue the matter. However there is a hint of knee jerk in the government's reaction to the Nadruku case and for that reason I raise several points that may otherwise be overlooked in these debates.Clearly, there are powerful policy considerations in support of the view that evidence of gross intoxication should not be admissible to negative basic intent. People should not be entitled to rely by way of defence on an automatistic state brought about by their own voluntary acts. Lord Elwyn-Jones, in the English Majewski case in 1977, said:If a man of his own volition takes a substance which causes him to cast off the restraints of reason and conscience, no wrong is done to him by holding him answerable criminally for any injury he may do while in that condition.A second public policy consideration is that of community protection. In the same case, Lord Simon of Glaisdale stated:To accede to the argument on behalf of [the accused] would leave the citizen legally unprotected from unprovoked violence where such violence was the consequence of drink or drugs having obliterated the capacity of the perpetrator to know what he was doing or what were its consequences.A third public policy consideration against allowing a defendant to rely on his or her own self-induced intoxication as a general excuse at law is the general notion of justice. Lord Salmon's view in the Majewski case was expressed succinctly as follows:If there were to be no penal sanction for any injury unlawfully inflicted under the complete mastery of drink or drugs, voluntarily taken, the social consequence could be appalling.I believe the majority of Australians believe it is unjust for a person to rely on a self-induced state to escape criminal responsibility, even if, in practice, cases of gross intoxication like the Nadruku case rarely occur. But the parliament should exercise care when it proposes legislating to impose criminal liability on an accused who acted without the necessary guilty intent for an unwilled act. As the High Court said in O'Connor, guilty intent is a fundamental requirement for criminal liability.An alternative to the position enacted in the Criminal Code Act on one hand, and the O'Connor position which prevailed in the ACT at the time of the Nadruku case on the other is to create a statutory offence of dangerous or criminal intoxication. This would mean that an accused could be acquitted of the principal offence if it were found that he or she by reason of gross intoxication, whether self-induced or not, acted unintentionally. Instead, the defendant could be convicted of the lesser offence of committing a dangerous act while grossly intoxicated. The arguments for and against this suggestion were thoroughly canvassed by the Victorian Law Reform Commission in its November 1986 report, Criminal responsibility: intention and gross intoxication. I do not propose to go over those arguments now, other than to observe that a serious alternative does exist.While the division of the Victorian Law Reform Commission which worked on the reference unanimously endorsed the O'Connor approach to this issue of gross self-induced intoxication, half of the members of the division urged that a new statutory offence should be created which would consist of committing a dangerous act while grossly intoxicated. I remind honourable members that anyone interested in considering the alternative should read the report.Intoxication in the context that we are discussing refers not just to alcohol but also to drugs. Clearly, alcohol and drug consumption are present in the commission of many crimes. The Victorian Law Reform Commissioner, in 1983, instigated research by Dr Allen Bartholomew, then consultant psychiatrist at Pentridge prison. Dr Bartholomew undertook a study of 274 prisoners who were charged with offences of various types and degrees of seriousness, from murder, rape and burglary to minor traffic offences. All the prisoners were males and were classified by Dr Bartholomew as either `chronic alcoholics', `under the influence of alcohol' or as `drinking near the time'.Dr Bartholomew found that 63.5 per cent of the sample group were chronic alcoholics or under the influence at the time of the offence. He found that 81.4 per cent of the total group had been drinking before the offence and that 48.2 per cent of the total group had taken other drugs before committing the offence, including 18.9 per cent of the total sample who had taken hard drugs. The alcohol or drug involvement in the whole sample was 258 out of 274 or 94 per cent. These results show fairly clearly a correlation between alcohol and other drugs and criminal activity.The concern that has prompted the government to act quickly to bring forward the commencement of the relevant chapter of the Criminal Code Act lies more specifically in the context of domestic violence. In his press release in October 1997, the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) said that the approach taken in the Nadruku case was a blow for anyone concerned about the effect of alcohol related violence in the home and on the street. The Attorney said in his statement that women, in particular, have expressed concern at the use of the drunk's defence and that he shared that concern. The Attorney went on to say that nobody should be subjected to violence and that it must be especially disconcerting for women, as the most frequent victims of domestic violence, to have any such trauma exacerbated by what he called `outmoded legal considerations'. I share the Attorney's concerns about the need to combat violence in the home.While I have drawn the House's attention to the thin end of the wedge argument about criminal responsibility and warned against the knee-jerk reaction to the Nadruku decision, I also note that the reforms to the law in relation to this issue were examined by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and passed with multipartisan support when the Criminal Code Act was being considered in 1994 and 1995. On balance, I commend the government for having acted promptly on this matter and commend the bill.12:19:001639Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonLP10—The Criminal Code Act 1995 deals with principles of criminal responsibility, originating as it did in the model criminal code project which had its genesis in the 1990 recommendations of the review of the Commonwealth criminal law headed by Sir Harry Gibbs. The recommendation was that there be uniform principles of criminal responsibility throughout Australia.Sir Harry Gibbs, a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, a judge of the Federal Court and a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland, was probably Australia's greatest authority on criminal law. He had an incredible understanding of the Queensland criminal code and I am pleased to see that his expertise was utilised in the drafting of the model criminal code and the recommendations that surrounded it.In the case of O'Connor, His Honour was in the minority. A majority of the High Court in that case were Barwick CJ, Mr Justice Stephen Murphy and Mr Justice Aitken, while the minority judges were Gibbs J as he then was, Mason J as he then was, and Mr Justice Wilson dissenting.It is important to reflect a little on the practical reality of intoxication matters. In my 13 or so years of legal practice, never once was I successful for an accused in arguing an intoxication defence. Frequently in legal argument, when His Honour would be making rulings, the comment would be made that, `Mr Smith was finally driven to submit intoxication.' It is virtually the last bastion of defences in Queensland under the code. There is a specific provision, which from memory I think is section 28 of the criminal code in Queensland, but it is very limited in operation.That reflects to a degree the common law position because Mr Justice Starke said in relation to his experience the following:. . . over nearly forty years' of experience in this State I have found juries to be very slow to accept a defence based on intoxication. I do not share the fear held by many in England that if intoxication is accepted as a defence as far as general intent is concerned the floodgates will open and hordes of guilty men will descend on the community.That citation appears in the 1980 Victorian Reports 635 at page 647.However, in his masterly dissent in O'Connor's case, Sir Harry Gibbs at pages 93 and 94 of the judgment in the Commonwealth Law Reports made the following remarks:I agree with the statement of Lord Salmon in Reg. v. Majewski (79), that: `If there were to be no penal sanction for any injury unlawfully inflicted under the complete mastery of drink or drugs, voluntarily taken, the social consequence could be appalling.'His Honour goes on:Crimes of violence committed by persons while intoxicated have never been uncommon, and the increase of drug-taking in the community today has made the problem even more serious. The law would afford quite inadequate protection to the individual, and would rightly be held in contempt, if persons completely under the influence of drink or drugs could commit crimes with impunity. There are therefore strong reasons of policy which support the rule of substantive law for which Reg. v. Majewski is authority, namely that in crimes which are not crimes of special intent, self-induced intoxication does not relieve the accused of criminal responsibility. His Honour then basically states the ratio of the decision in his judgment, which appears at page 94, when he says:Speaking generally, it seems to me in no way unjust to punish a person who commits a crime while in a state of self-induced intoxication. To do so would not, I think, offend the conscience of society or be contrary to ethical principles. Cases may be suggested in which it might appear harsh to punish a person for actions committed while in a state of advanced intoxication—for example, the case of an inexperienced child who became drunk or drugged to such a degree that he lost control of his actions—but those are the exceptions, and in general there would seem little merit in a rule that allowed a person to place himself beyond the law (deliberately or otherwise) by becoming intoxicated.It does not follow from the decision in Reg. v. Majewski that evidence of the intoxicated condition of the accused must be rejected as irrelevant. That would be absurd; the evidence is admissible as one of the surrounding circumstances, and in some cases it will be relevant to other questions in issue.Might I add the caveat that in Queensland, at least, more and more, even in relation to sentencing, while intoxication can be a matter of some submission, it does not necessarily go to reducing the penalty on sentencing.I am very pleased to support these measures. In large respect I echo some of the remarks of the previous speaker, the member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), in his very well reasoned and thorough approach to this matter.I note in the second reading speech that reference was made to the government's commitment to stamp out domestic violence. I know that the context of the speech would necessarily be referring to where there is physical violence, or threats to commit same, because one of the difficulties that has emerged in this debate, particularly in recent times, has been the problem of definition.The word `violence' is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as:The exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury on or damage to persons or property.It is an emphatic word implying great force, severity or vehemence. It is a misuse of the English language to describe lack of physical contact as violence for that word involves dreadful connotations. There is a widespread belief in the community that domestic violence does mean actual physical violence when in fact, having regard to the legislation, certainly in Queensland, it does not necessarily mean that at all.I refer here to an extremely insightful comment by Senator the Honourable Anne Cools in her paper given on 27 April 1995 entitled Diversity and domestic violence. Senator Cools sits in the Canadian Senate and is a member of the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. She has been a leader and innovator in creating services to assist battered women and families troubled by domestic violence. She said in this paper:Until the 1970s family violence has been a neglected subject matter. The treatment of wife abuse however is now accompanied by literature, social services, law enforcement response and coercive actions which largely view the wife as a passive innocent victim, beaten by an aggressive guilty husband. Spouse abuse and wife abuse have become synonymous, and wife battering has dominated the definition of domestic violence. Here the concept of inherent moral inferiority is buttressed by the male as the innate progenitor of all malice, violence and aggression. These two concepts are supported by aggressive feminist ideologies, by the terrorism of political correctness, and are consistently seeking dominance in the discussion of domestic violence.In a recent paper that I provided to the Domestic Violence Legislation Working Group within the Attorney-General's Department, I made these observations, which I think are timely.In relation to the issue of domestic violence, where there is actual violence or threatened violence, which is a crime in Queensland under the criminal code, it ought to be a crime in terms of drafting new domestic violence laws. This will serve a very useful purpose. It will signal to those minded to commit actual violence or threaten violence that the community regards it as a criminal offence and the perpetrators will be punished according to the criminal law.However, it also means that those who are so charged will be judged by their peers. That is, charges will proceed according to the normal standards of proof, being proof beyond reasonable doubt, with the onus being on the Crown. The effect of such a charge will follow the normal criminal pattern with the person charged being entitled to apply for bail. Bail might ordinarily be granted depending on the seriousness of the offence and subject to conditions and that would effect, in the case of a married couple or a couple in a de facto relationship, an immediate separation and a non-contact order, breach of which would involve arrest and incarceration rather than what the present system entails under the current domestic violence laws.Moreover, the granting of a fair trial will remove the degree of unfairness that surrounds the current situation, while at the same time ensuring that women who have been beaten will be able to feel secure that the criminal justice system has the case in hand and that the punishment will fit the crime. It is no good saying that domestic violence is a crime, when it is not a crime as far as the law is concerned. We ought to make it a crime and, accordingly, I suggest that path.At the same time, we need to complement these changes with a conciliation system for where there is, between the parties, significant disputation but no violence or threatened violence. The present system permits the granting of a domestic violence order in those circumstances. In those cases, in my view, the words `domestic violence' should not be used but rather the term `conciliation order'. Under this procedure, a party so affected could apply to the court for a conciliation order, which would be an interim order to obtaining a separation order.Under this order, the respondent and the applicant would be ordered to have counselling with a qualified counsellor within a stated period of, say, seven days. If the respondent failed to attend counselling in that way, a separation order could be issued in terms similar to the current domestic violence order provisions, but not for a period of two years as is presently the norm. I would suggest an order would subsist for a period of six months or until further order. This would effect a cooling-off period with some counselling, which in the majority of cases resolves these matters. My professional experience as a barrister suggests that this is the way ahead.In the case that has been most celebrated in relation to this particular issue of intoxication as a defence, the Nadruku case, it should be remembered by all honourable members that that was a decision of, as I understand it, a junior magistrate of the ACT Court. I would doubt very much that it could be said—in fact, I say this authoritatively—that that case would provide any precedent whatsoever. What is curious and difficult to understand—although, as I was not in court, I should be very careful of what I say about this—is why it was that the Crown did not appeal that decision.Again I am only judging by what I read; but, in relation to the factual issues and particularly to the fact that this individual could walk up stairs—or, in other words, had had sufficient intent to put one foot in front of the other to go up stairs—the idea that he had not had sufficient intent to bash three individuals is to me preposterous, both as a matter of law and as a matter of fact and commonsense. I am surprised, but I understand that there may be some reason that I am not aware of for an appeal not to have been lodged. It most certainly would have been, from what I have seen of the case, a successful appeal, but there may be other factors involved which may have caused a different exercise of discretion: we do not know. Perhaps it would be nice to understand some reasons, but only the Attorney-General in the ACT would be able to disclose those reasons, I would think.It was a bad case, it was arguably a wrong case and, in my view, it was a case where the people who have been injured by the individual concerned ought to be encouraged to seek out civil remedies and pursue the individual concerned with the utmost ability that the law provides. At the end of the day, that is a one-off case. I know of no comparable case where that has occurred. Quite clearly, the Gibbs view, the minority view in the High Court, has now become accepted in relation to the common law jurisdictions and as a path for the Model Criminal Code to follow, and this legislation picks up on that and sends an important message to the community at the same time. I support the bill.12:34:001642Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I thank the members who participated in this debate on the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 [1998], the member for Banks (Mr Melham), the member for Moreton (Mr Hardgrave), the member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) and the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith). There seems to be unanimous support for the bill and I thank the Labor Party for their support.I only want to comment, by way of reply, on one issue. Some speakers have pointed out that the so-called drunk's defence is rarely used. But, of course, one has to ask why it should be allowed to happen, even if it is rare. The Victorian Law Reform Commission, in a report in 1986, defended the O'Connor rules. They pointed out that, while it is statistically rare, they were able to identify 30 authentic cases in which it had been discovered that the accused was totally acquitted, apparently due to lack of voluntariness or intention by reason of gross intoxication. Most of these cases were in the magistrates courts and many, but not all, were minor. That research may or may not have been complete. The likelihood is, in fact, that there were more acquittals which could not be identified.The Nadruku case, to which the member for Dickson has just referred and to which other speakers referred, is a clear example of the sort of case that comes before magistrates courts. Even if the case is dealt with in the magistrates courts rather than in a higher court, the victims of those sorts of cases can still feel the pain of the assault—the pain of the punch or the kick—and the humiliation. It has an impact on their capacity to go out at night without the fear of being harassed or terrified by drunken people who act violently.If there were 30 cases in Victoria during the period between 1980 and 1986, as the Victorian Law Reform Commission has identified, that is 30 too many. The speakers have all supported the bill. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1643r3991643Debate resumed from 27 November 1997, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.12:37:001643Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—I am not the lead speaker for the opposition in respect of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 . That role will be taken by my colleague the honourable member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson), who is the shadow parliamentary secretary for superannuation matters. However, I would like to raise a number of issues with the Main Committee and I hope that some of them will possibly be addressed by the government when they respond at the committee stage of this bill.The bill is not one which we oppose. The majority of matters are non-controversial and the opposition will generally be supporting the legislation. But, as I said, there are some particular matters which are worthy of further comment and, indeed, potentially even of amendment in another place. This legislation amends the superannuation legislation, the Bankruptcy Act, the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act and the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act. It has a number of principal areas which I will touch on briefly.Firstly—and this is an area which I will return to—the bill seeks to permit fund members to make a binding nomination of those persons to whom their superannuation benefits should be paid in the event of their death prior to retirement. But there are a number of restrictions on that nomination, and it is those nominations and the restrictions on the nomination to which I would like to return and which I suggest are potential areas for amendment of this legislation.The bill also seeks to limit the ability of companies to borrow from their own superannuation fund. That has the potential, in the event that the company is unable to repay the loans due to some financial difficulties in the future, to put members' superannuation benefits at risk. We have all seen the difficulties which have flowed recently from companies that have gone out of business, that have gone into liquidation, who are not able to pay even such basic worker benefits as wages, long service leave and recreation leave, and there are cases where superannuation funds have not been paid into the fund but have still been on the company's books. Therefore, the workers have suffered a substantial financial loss as a result of those problems.Although this does not tackle many of the broader issues which we would all want to see addressed as a matter of urgency with respect to wages, long service leave and the like, it does seek to limit the ability of companies to borrow from their own in-house fund and, therefore, ensures to some degree at least that the workers' assets in that superannuation fund are better protected as a result.The legislation also seeks to make possible the use by superannuation funds of tax file numbers which were collected prior—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.41 to 12.53 p.m.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—You will forgive me if there is a slight discontinuity in my speech—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—You were just getting into your stride.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—That is right. The break for a division is quite substantial. However, as I recall, I was discussing the issue of tax file numbers and the fact that this legislation will make it possible for superannuation funds that have collected tax file numbers for other purposes prior to 5 June 1997 to use them now for surcharge tax purposes which will, of course, be a lot more efficient for the superannuation funds.The government is constrained to make this kind of amendment to allow tax file numbers to be used for a purpose for which they were not originally intended. This is something which the parliament would not normally do, because a tax file number is a particularly important and private number which was intended to be used only for specific nominated purposes. The fact that we are now extending that to the superannuation fund tax surcharge highlights the problems which the government has with that surcharge and the way in which the surcharge has the potential to reach to income levels well below the $70,000 threshold which the government had established for it. Obviously, if lower and middle income earners who would not normally be subject to the surcharge failed to lodge their tax file number with the superannuation fund, then of course the government's legislation makes them liable for the surcharge, notwithstanding that their income is below the threshold. It has always been the opposition contention that many low and middle income earners will be caught by the superannuation surcharge legislation and will therefore have many thousands of dollars of their superannuation fund inappropriately and improperly taxed by the government.That is a serious problem. This legislation is just a further indication of the difficulties with the superannuation surcharge legislation and the way in which it does reach down into other income groups. I think it is an issue which the parliament will have to return to over time, because of the failure of that legislation, the inequity in that legislation and the way in which the government was forced to construct it in such an artificial way because of their promise not to increase taxation, but their then desire to do so. The mechanism that they chose became the superannuation surcharge tax levy.Although we do not actually oppose that provision, it certainly does highlight the way in which the government's legislation on the tax aspect of this is inadequately drafted. This legislation will also expand the Insurance and Superannuation Commission's monitoring and investigation powers and increase penalties for non-compliance and also change the way in which the tribunal itself is structured. These changes are not particularly fundamental of themselves, but when you look at them in relation to the recent decision by the Federal Court to prevent the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal from clothing itself with what were quasi-judicial powers, obviously this raises a lot more serious questions and ones which this legislation does not adequately address. The opposition is still waiting for the government to actually address the matter of the recent Federal Court decision, which has taken away much of the intended purpose of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. It has limited its activities very severely, because obviously it can no longer pursue any judicial or quasi-judicial outcomes to its investigations. That really has deprived people of a very convenient, reasonable and cheap means of gaining some degree of justice in the superannuation industry, where they feel they have been harshly or improperly dealt with by their superannuation fund.I know my colleague, the member for Wills, will want to return to that because, on so many occasions, members of the work force who have only modest superannuation investments are not in a position to take their superannuation fund to court or to seek redress through the courts in the usual way because of the massive costs which are associated with that. The Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, which was established by the previous Labor government, did provide them with a very cost-effective means of resolving their complaints against their superannuation fund in a way which did not constrain them to incur heavy costs in court actions. These, of course, the super fund could defend with very deep pockets indeed, but the average member of the work force was in no position to compete with them in respect of their legal funding or their access to legal advice. They would have been very much disadvantaged in that kind of fight.However, the main aspect that I want to draw the committee's attention to, in the hope that the government will address some of my concerns in its response to the Main Committee debate, is this issue of allowing members of the work force to nominate those to whom their benefits should be paid in the event of their untimely death prior to actually obtaining their superannuation benefit.Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it can reasonably be said that death is the ultimate bona fide retirement. There is no doubt, on the death of the worker, that they have retired, if I can use that expression, from the work force. They are no longer in the work force. It is not an issue of doubt or dispute and there can be no question that upon the death of a worker, it is very much for that worker to determine, for that member of a superannuation fund to determine, where their benefit should flow, given their death.If a worker or member of a super fund had retired in the normal course of events, then their benefit would have been paid to them, if it was an accumulation fund, in the form of cash. They would have retired with that cheque and their subsequent death would have ensured that the funds were treated in accordance with that person's will or, if they had no will, in accordance with the normal laws of intestacy. Alternatively, that person could have given away or spent those funds in any way they saw fit.Contrast that with the case of what happens at the moment if a member of a superannuation fund happens to die while they are at work. The superannuation fund is under no obligation to pay the member's benefits in any way in accordance with that member's direction. They have an absolute discretion as to how they treat the member's benefit upon his death and even if the member has filed with the fund a nominated beneficiary form—nominating people to whom the benefits should be paid—unfortunately the trustees, at the moment, are under absolutely no obligation to pay the benefit in accordance with that member's instructions.I would seek leave to continue my remarks in view of the hour, Mr Deputy Speaker.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 1.01 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing1646The following answers to questions were circulated:1646(Question No. 2316)23161646Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 October 1997:Further to his answer to question No. 479 (Hansard , 4 November 1996, page 6486) concerning the purchase of shares in Guangdong Corporation by Mrs F. Kennett, will he ask the Australian Securities Commission to investigate whether the manner in which shares were allocated to Mrs Kennett represented a breach of the corporations law by (a) the Victorian Premier, (b) Mr R. Li or (c) any member of the Victorian Premier's staff.1646Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As the same considerations apply in relation to this question as apply in relation to Question 2317, I refer the honourable member to my answer to Question 2317.1646(Question No. 2317)23171646Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 October 1997:(1) Has his attention been drawn to allegations aired on the ABC Four Corners program of 22 September 1997 that in 1993 the Victorian Premier had personally called Mr L. Cox, Chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, about acquiring shares in Yates Garden Supplies, at a time when the general public was no longer able to obtain shares in the float.(2) Will he ask the Australian Securities Commission to investigate whether the manner in which shares were allocated to Mrs Kennett represented a breach of the corporations law by (a) the Victorian Premier, (b) Mr Cox or (c) any member of the Victorian Premier's staff.(3) Will he ask the Australian Securities Commission to investigate the Yates Gardens Supplies prospectus to determine whether the company reserved the right to be extremely flexible in making allocations for shares.1646Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. (2) and (3) The ASC is an independent statutory authority. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Minister to direct the ASC to undertake an investigation where the ASC has already made its own inquiries.1646(Question No. 2318)23181646Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 October 1997:Will he instruct the Australian Securities Commission to conduct a thorough investigation of share acquisitions by Mrs F. Kennett since 1992 to ensure that the corporations law has not been breached.1646Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As the same considerations apply in relation to this question as apply in relation to Question 2317, I refer the honourable member to my answer to Question 2317.1646(Question No. 2612)26121646McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2506, has the Government directly or through servants or agents received representations from foreign Governments, instrumentalities or agencies requesting it to reverse its decision not to participate in Expo 98 in Lisbon; if so, what was the nature of each representation.1646Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No.1646(Question No. 2613)26131646McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2507, why did the Government reverse its original decision not to participate in Expo 2000 in Hanover.1647Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The original decision was taken at a time when the Government's priority was to repair the fiscal situation it inherited. In December 1997 the Premier of Queensland offered to arrange a State/ Territory contribution of $8.5 million towards participation. The Government agreed to match this contribution.1647(Question No. 2623)26231647McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Family Services, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) What is the federal Government's responsibility with respect to the administration of accommodation and other support services for persons with disabilities including the provision of alternative services for younger persons residing in residential aged care.(2) Is there an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States regarding the matter referred to in part (1); if so, (a) when was it entered into, (b) what is its duration and (c) what is the nature of the agreement.1647Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) None. The State and Territory Governments have full responsibility for the administration of accommodation and other support services for people with disabilities. The Commonwealth has responsibility for the administration of employment services, while responsibility for advocacy services is shared. Young people who meet the criteria can enter Commonwealth aged care nursing homes, but only as a last resort when no other option exists.(2) Yes, the Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement.(a) 30 July 1991.(b) Five years from 1 July 1992. From 30 June 1997, the funding arrangements have continued on a month by month basis while negotiations on a new multilateral agreement continue.(c) The first Agreement provided for:- the rationalisation of government responsibility for the provision of disability support services, so that it is clear which level of Government is responsible for particular types of services. - establishment of a national legislative framework, with each State and Territory passing legislation for the provision of disability services in accordance with the principles and objectives pursuant to the Commonwealth Disability Services Act 1986; and- the level of funding to be provided by the Commonwealth to State and Territory Governments.1648(Question No. 2649)26491648Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, 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 the 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).1648Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) None.(3) Not applicable.1648(Question No. 2706)27061648Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 March 1998:How many days has he spent in residence at (a) Kirribilli House and (b) The Lodge since 2 March 1996.1648Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:From 2 March 1996 to and including 14 March 1998 I spent 320 nights at Kirribilli House, 246 nights at The Lodge and 177 nights at other locations.