1998-11-253911REPS56701998-11-25Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills567r650567Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.56709:31:00567Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 amends the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 consequent upon the proposed enactment of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 . Among other matters, the amendment bill contains administrative provisions relating to the collection of charges for classification and other services imposed by the classification charges bill.The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 is part of a Commonwealth, state and territory cooperative legislative scheme for the classification of publications, films and computer games and enforcement of classification decisions made under it. That act establishes the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board and provides the procedures for the classification of material. Complementary state and territory enforcement legislation contains offences relating to the exhibition, sale or hire of publications, films and computer games, both classified and unclassified, in the respective jurisdictions.At present, fees for applications for classification and other services under the act are prescribed in regulations made under that act. From 1 November 1997 the fees so prescribed are set at 100 per cent cost recovery for the provision of those services.In the May 1997 budget context, the government decided that from 1 July 1998 full cost recovery would be introduced for the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) by changes to the charging structure for those using its services. The office services the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board. This timetable was not met as the former bills did not secure passage through the Senate prior to 1 July 1998. Those bills lapsed following the calling of the recent federal election.The government's decision means that revenue from classification and other services provided by the OFLC must also cover activities ancillary to the provision of classification services. These include certain research, policy development, ministerial support and payments to the states and territories for enforcement and related purposes.These activities are related to an efficient and effective cooperative classification and enforcement scheme. They assist in ensuring that the classification decisions are acceptable to applicants and the public generally and in maintaining the integrity of the Australia-wide scheme. However, their cost cannot, for constitutional reasons, be included in the fee for the provision of classification services.Implementation of the government's decision therefore requires that charges for classification and related services be imposed as a tax. This decision ensures that those who benefit directly, and indirectly, from the work of the OFLC pay the full cost of its operations.The amendment bill proposes the removal of references to prescribed fees in the principal act and their replacement with references to charges prescribed under the classification charges bill.An exception applies to applications by the Commonwealth, states and territories for use in the investigation and prosecution of an offence. The efficacy of the cooperative censorship scheme depends on effective enforcement. Under the intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories the fees for applications for classification for enforcement purposes will not exceed the cost of providing the services and these fees will continue to be prescribed by regulations under the act.The amendment bill also removes some of the formal requirements in making applications for classification of material for the investigation and prosecution of an offence. This is to overcome the failure of two prosecutions in 1997 due to a lack of compliance with all the formal requirements of an application for classification of the material concerned.The charges are set out in the schedules to the classification charges bill. They have been set at an amount calculated to meet the estimated revenue needed to fully fund the OFLC's operations for the first full financial year in which they take effect. The structure of the charges set out in the schedules reflect the approach, which was agreed to with the industry, in the current fees regulations which came into effect on 1 November 1997.The classification charges bill makes provision for amending the schedules by regulations made under that bill. There is no real alternative to such a provision, as the revenue needed to meet full cost recovery for the OFLC will vary over time and the charges set out in the schedule will need to be revised accordingly. Parliament will, however, retain ultimate control over the level of charges to be imposed.The government is aware that increases in the cost of classification and other services are of concern to some of the users of OFLC services. In particular, concern has been expressed about the effect of cost increases on the classification of material that has a limited market appeal in Australia.As foreshadowed in my second reading speech last year on the former bill, I appointed an independent body to review the charges structure with a view to seeing whether greater equity can be provided to applicants who submit material for classification that has a more limited market appeal.That review was undertaken by Ernst and Young in Melbourne, and a copy of their Review of Statutory Charges for the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games was made available to representatives of the opposition parties and Independents in the Senate and, more recently, to the spokesman opposite on Attorney-General's matters.The review's conclusion was that there is no single compelling argument supporting continuation of the proposed charging structure or, alternatively, changing the charging structure to provide concessions based on limited market appeal. In light of the factors set out in the review, the government does not support limited market appeal mechanisms of the kind canvassed in the review.However, the government considers that there is a case to enable certain material, where limited distribution is involved, to be classified at reduced rates. This should encourage diversity of specialised product availability by making it more economic to release such product onto the Australian market. It should also aid compliance by distributors of such material with Australia's classification system.The bill therefore allows the Director of the Classification Board to waive, in whole or in part, classification charges for limited distribution special interest material which comprises a documentary record of an event or which is of a cultural or like nature if it is in the public interest to do so. This discretion is to be exercised in accordance with principles issued by the director with the agreement of the Commonwealth Attorney-General after consultation with state and territory censorship ministers.Examples of special interest material for limited distribution that could be covered by the expanded waiver power are set out in the explanatory memorandum.The government has been advised that the impact of the expanded waiver power on the Office of Film and Literature Classification's budget will not be significant—a loss of revenue of about $54,000 per year—although it is expected that up to 100 publications, films or computer games may be classified at reduced rates per annum.Under the principal act, films for business, accounting, professional, scientific or educational purposes are exempt from classification, as is computer software falling within those categories that contains a computer game. It may be that, in the medium term, the extent and the structure of the current exemption scheme needs to be reviewed to see whether it should be extended to include some of the material that the government proposes be included in the waiver of charges provision. However, this requires negotiation with state and territory censorship ministers and amendment of complementary state and territory legislation. I raised this matter at the last censorship ministers' meeting and further work on the proposal is being undertaken.Implementation of full cost recovery for the OFLC means that the industry should expect that the OFLC will be efficient and effective in delivering high quality and impartial services on behalf of the Australian community which represent value for money to its clients. To this end, a statutory time limit will be introduced to apply to classification decisions, requiring that such decisions be made within 20 business days following receipt of a valid application or such shorter period as is prescribed in the regulations. Failure to comply with this requirement must be reported upon in the OFLC's annual report.Furthermore, in order to ensure appropriate industry input into the operations of the OFLC, it is proposed to establish formal consultative mechanisms. This will give the industry opportunities for providing input into charges scales and appropriate performance standards for the office. The imposition of charges by the classification charges bill is estimated to generate an additional $2.15 million per annum in savings to the budget in the first full financial year of its operation.I present the explanatory memorandum to the Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 and the Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned. Bills569r643569Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.56909:41:00569Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill and the complementary Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 reintroduce into the House two bills that lapsed in the Senate upon the calling of the recent federal election. The previous bills were passed by the House on 4 December last year.The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 imposes charges for applications for classification of publications, films and computer games and for related services provided for under the Classification (Publications Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.This bill and the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 give effect to the government's decision that full cost recovery will be introduced for the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Further details of this and other measures are contained in the second reading speech for the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills569r648569Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.56909:44:00569Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill reflects the continuing commitment of this government to securing legitimate title to traditional lands on behalf of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 provides a mechanism whereby traditional Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory referred to in schedule 1 of that act may be granted to Aboriginal land trusts to hold title on behalf of Aboriginal people. Since the act came into operation in 1977, a total of 59 separate parcels of land have been scheduled under the act. This amendment will bring the total to 61.The effect of this bill would be to bring within the schedule to the land rights act those areas of land which are subject to the Innesvale Land Claim and the Urrpantyenye (Repeat) Land Claim. The Northern Territory government, the Northern Land Council and the claimants have entered into an agreement which settles the Innesvale Land Claim. A similar agreement which settles the Urrpantyenye Land Claim was entered into between the Northern Territory government, the Central Land Council, the Todd River Pastoral Company and the claimants.As part of both agreements, the Northern Territory government requested the Commonwealth to exercise its powers under the land rights act to grant the claim areas to the traditional owners by scheduling the respective areas under the land rights act. In the case of both land claims, the result of such scheduling would be that no further hearing or report by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner would then be necessary in order for the Aboriginal people concerned to be able to have the full rights of enjoyment of their traditional lands in fee simple.The government has the assurance of all parties to the negotiations that representative views of all Aboriginal people concerned have been obtained and their wishes taken into account. The bill will also correct the anomaly which presently requires Aboriginal land commissioners, who are required to be judges under the act, to retire at age 65. They will now be able to perform the duties of office until the age of 70, as are all Supreme Court and Federal Court judges. There are no financial implications arising from this bill. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned. Bills570r649570Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.57009:47:00570Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 is a key element of the government's strategy for the deregulation of the petroleum products industry. All sectors of the community benefit from the deregulation package, from the small service station operator who benefits from the real protections of the strengthened Oilcode, to the consumer who benefits through greater competition at the pump, to the refinery worker whose oil company is better able to meet the competitive threat of imports.Repeal of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980 will remove the artificial barriers to competition created by government regulation. By removing the impediments to competition, downward pressure will be placed on petrol prices, particularly in country areas. Greater competition should, over time, reduce the disparity in petrol prices between the city and the country, benefiting consumers, farmers and rural businesses alike.In removing the barriers to competition, the government has taken heed of the issues that saw the acts introduced in the first place and addressed them with meaningful measures that preserve the full force of competition. In pursuing those necessary reforms, the government has been mindful of its commitment to maintaining small business protection in the sector and has strengthened it, providing real and meaningful protections for small service station operators.Since coming into office, we have strengthened small business protections against unconscionable conduct, redrawing the relationship between large and small firms so that it is more fair and equitable. Placing the strengthened Oilcode in regulation under part IVB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 means that smaller participants in the industry will have legally enforceable protection from exploitation by larger firms.The new Oilcode will ensure that operators have a thorough understanding of their rights and obligations to their suppliers. It will also provide a mechanism where disputes can be settled expeditiously at low cost and to all parties' mutual satisfaction. The principles of the new Oilcode were developed through many months of hard negotiation by industry participants, facilitated by the government through the appointment of the Hon. Andrew Rogers QC to chair negotiations.In light of our commitment to regulatory efficiency, we have given the industry players the opportunity to determine the regulatory framework within which they operate. Clearly, a negotiated outcome would serve the industry best and create an environment of cooperation within retail networks. While some issues could not be resolved by mutual agreement of the industry participants, the government welcomed the debate on these issues and drew upon the negotiations in resolving the outstanding matters.The result is a set of draft principles that cover the major issues impacting on petroleum retailing, addressing them in a way that recognises the needs of all industry participants. Apart from the very real progress that was made on finalising the Oilcode, the government was heartened by the cooperation and good spirit shown during the negotiations and by the recognition of all the parties that some agreement must be reached for the petroleum retail sector to be sustainable.To further facilitate agreement amongst the industry, the government intends to release a draft Oilcode in mid-December for consideration by interested parties. The government will also refer this bill to a Senate legislation committee. Issues of concern to smaller operators, such as open access to terminals, can be considered by the Senate committee. The deregulation of the petroleum products market is but one element of a strategy to address the issues facing the downstream petroleum products sector in Australia.The government has already implemented a number of reforms to make the petroleum market more competitive. Prices surveillance and the setting of a maximum wholesale price have been discontinued, as they had the perverse effect of discouraging permanent discounting below the maximum. In return, all four oil majors now provide open access to their terminals. This means customers for bulk fuel supply are able to directly access terminals for supply, permitting independent operators, large customers and groups such as farmers cooperatives to access cheaper fuel. Mediation and arbitration is available to resolve disputes.The oil majors are committed to support an independent price monitoring system for 100 country towns, which will be monitored by the Australian Automobile Association. A cooperative effort is needed from all of those with an interest in the industry's future, to work together to better enable this important sector of the economy to meet the challenges of the 21st century.The government is playing its part in this, having announced that an industry action agenda will be developed to address the issues facing the downstream petroleum products sector in a holistic way. The deregulation package, of which the repeal of the sites and franchise acts is but a part, is a down payment on the government commitment to all participants in this industry, that the government will respond to the issues the industry faces.The cooperation within the industry that has led to the finalisation of the principles of the strengthened Oilcode reinforces the government's belief that participants can look beyond their own interest and towards the future and an improved operating environment for all. The industry action agenda builds upon this and will deliver Australia an efficient and sustainable petroleum products sector for many years to come. It is further demonstration that the Liberal and National parties are the only groups with the commitment to deliver real reforms in the petroleum sector. Over the last 30 years, there have been a number of inquiries into the petroleum industry. The only two governments which have implemented measures in response to those inquiries are the Fraser government, which in 1980 introduced the Fife reforms, and the Howard government, which has delivered this package of reforms.On the other hand, the Australian Labor Party, over 13 years in government, comprehensively failed to do anything to introduce similar reforms—reforms which are about making the Australian petroleum products industry work for all Australians, be they producers, retailers or consumers of petroleum products; reforms which repeal legislation that has outlived its usefulness, while still addressing the issues that made the legislation necessary in the first place; reforms which deliver upon the government's election commitment to reform the petroleum market, but do so in a way that remains sensitive to the needs of smaller players in the industry, who often are not in a position to adequately protect themselves.This bill, and the other aspects of the deregulation package, are about fairness—fairness to the oil companies to be able to meet the challenges of the market, fairness to the small service station operator when dealing with their oil company, and fairness to the consumer, who will reap the dividends of greater competition.I commend this bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills572r640572Debate resumed from 24 November, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Ms Macklin moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for: (1) increased funding for the public hospital system;(2) measures to promote efficiency in private hospitals and control costs; and(3) measures to make health insurance more attractive by providing private patients a single hospital bill and insurance to cover the cost of hospital and medical services so that patients don't face large out-of-pocket costs."09:56:00572Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—The debate so far on the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 has been rather disappointing, especially contributions from the other side. This has been a discussion about a very narrow aspect of a very narrow policy solution. This should be a debate about the wider question of health economics in Australia. It should be a wider debate about what the community expects from its health care system. It should be a debate about what are the real problems. It should be a debate about what are the possible solutions.We have this very narrow proposal to give a 30 per cent free kick to those who already have private insurance. If the problem is that there are declining numbers with private health insurance, why is it that this proposal gives the largest quantum of the benefit to those who are not part of the way in which this `problem' has developed? Why has the government not done a broader analysis of the reasons for those deserting the private health insurance system? Why is it that they believe the price signal, the cost of the premiums, is the only problem?Why is it that government members do not listen to the same sorts of people who come and visit electorate offices of opposition members, who say that the real problem is that after paying many years for private health insurance when they unfortunately have the opportunity to use that private health insurance they have to dip into their pockets yet again. Why is it that those opposite, in entering in this debate, will not go into a deeper discussion about the types of products, for want of a better word, that private health insurance funds are offering? Why is it that they will not be honest and acknowledge that under Labor governments attempts were made to ensure that private health funds put to gether packages that were attractive to those who were paying the premiums.Even more disappointing is the fact that members opposite have tended to shy away from the substance of the argument and, in fact, directly politicise it. The parliamentary secretary might laugh, but the thread that is running through the contributions from those opposite is to rattle off the number of people with private health insurance in marginal seats, to rattle off the margins. Obviously the department or the minister's office has been beavering away to supply government backbenchers these figures.But, on an only slightly unrelated matter, it is strange that either the department or the minister's office can find the resources to do that and supply that sort of information to government backbenchers but they cannot even provide to the chamber a copy of the minister's second reading speech. Why do they want to hide it? Perhaps because it does not really tell us much about the proposal.Just to dwell on that point: when you go to the Bills and Papers Office and you get the usual swag related to the legislation, traditionally you are provided with a copy of the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech. But in this instance no second reading speech was provided by the department. We may then query why—and, as I have said, perhaps it is because of the lack of detail.The former Labor government put in place the Health Legislation (Private Health Insurance Reform) Amendment Act 1994, and it is a piece of legislation which, until now, has not been acknowledged in debate. However, in selectively quoting from various ministers under former Labor governments, where it has been maintained that Labor has no commitment to the private health sector, those opposite have avoided notions such as that piece of legislation in respect of which the honourable member for Fremantle, as the then minister, said:Private health insurance offers a choice for those who want it, but it needs to be seen for what it is—a supplement to the public health system. I just want to stress, `a supplement to the public health system'. The member for Fremantle went on to say:However, those persons who choose this product are entitled to high quality and good value in the same way as buyers of any other product.So far in the debate on this piece of legislation we have heard no discussion about what the government intends to do to ensure that people are getting value for money. To simply reduce the cost directly out of the consumer's pocket is not good enough, because the total quantum of the cost will be that which the government contributes and from the individual themselves. And has anybody opposite tried to convince us that the spiralling rise in the cost of premiums will not continue? No, because they cannot; because, if those opposite do not put in any other measures, it will not stop, it will continue—and that is the problem.As I have said, the government in the last parliament had a piece of legislation called the Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Insurance Incentives) Bill. In the second reading speech, the Minister for Health, Dr Wooldridge, had this to say:These costings are based on the assumption that the private health insurance participation rate will stabilise at just under a third of the population by 1 July 1997, and will then increase by two percentage points over time.What is the present situation? The present situation is that, on the latest figures, the level has continued to drop; it has dropped to 30.3 per cent.So we use the proposal that was put in place post the budget of 1996, post the election, as the basis for the piece of legislation we have before us. We have a policy that has failed in its intent, although, to give credit, at least there was an attempt to target the policies that were put in place last time; there was a means testing of the benefit; there was a disincentive put in place for higher wage earners by increasing the Medicare levy—and it has failed. So what is the government's response? To widen the benefit. Yet in this debate we still have not had the basis on which the government believe that there is any success. To make matters worse, we will not get—because we never get from this government on any matter—a target. We do not really know what they hope to achieve.Back on 14 November, in the Australian, a spokesperson on behalf of the minister even admitted that they felt they would succeed if they were able to maintain the level at just over 30 per cent. What is going on? The costings that the government has provided—as raised with and asked of government ministers and the Prime Minister by the shadow minister and the Leader of the Opposition—of about $1.5 billion indicate that the government has an expectation that it will remain constant at 30 per cent. So what is going on?Other bodies, such as the AMA and other interest groups, claim that perhaps under this proposal the level can go up to 45 per cent. Again, if that were the case, we would be looking at a cost of this proposal of some $2.25 billion—not what the government is maintaining. So what are we really on about with this proposal?Other members opposite have quoted other Labor health ministers. It is very interesting that in the context of a debate like this the much maligned—when he was a member of the Senate—Senator Richardson should suddenly become the flavour of the month for coalition members.Mr Horne interjecting—HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINS—Exactly, because that is what government backbenchers are doing—whatever it takes, including the selective quoting of proposals that Senator Richardson put up for discussion at the time he was the Minister for Health.The former President of the AMA, the honourable member for Bradfield, made a contribution last night. He was able to quote from discussions that he had had with various ministers when he was in the position of head of the AMA—the head of one of the most powerful organised labour units in Australia. But, if he went to his discussions with Senator Richardson, he did not really put on the table the full breadth of what Graham Richardson was considering. Some of those elements are worth airing today.Not only were there increased levies for those not in private health insurance; there was a proposal for higher income earners to have an increased levy across the board. These things were put on the table for discussion. There was also a proposal for the government to buy beds in the private hospital system—a proposal which it was believed would relieve pressure on the public hospital system. What did the government get for its troubles in putting that on the table? Absolutely no cooperation at all. Only a very narrow portion of the private hospital system came to the table for the discussions. They were the hospitals controlled in the catholic health system. It was a genuine, serious attempt to have a partnership between the beds that are provided in the public system and the beds that are provided in the private system.Let us be fair dinkum if we are going to discuss what has happened. Let us be fair dinkum and have a discussion that is based on the whole health system. If we are going to have a discussion that highlights the private health system, let us discuss the whole private health system, not narrowly discuss the private health insurance schemes. It is interesting that we have not had a discussion about the way in which the private health insurance system operates. I was interested to hear yesterday morning a spokesperson on behalf of the industry talk about buying health care. I do not believe that is what they actually do.I believe that Dr Con Costa, the President of the Doctors Reform Society, has it right in an article headed `Howard's private agenda for health care' dated 19 August this year. He states:The private funds have never been more than a passive conduit of money from patients to the doctors and the private hospitals.I stress: `a passive conduit of money from patients to the doctors and the private hospitals.' He then quotes Professor Jeff Richardson, a health economist, who says it is `an inefficient system that anaesthetises market forces and cannot integrate nor deal with larger issues of the health system'. Those opposite are preaching the power of market forces, but they will not underpin aspects of the private health insurance system and the wider private health system that will truly induce that type of competition and a way in which we can get better value for the dollar that is being spent.Let me get back to the very narrow argument that is put—the political angle that in this marginal seat there are so many people on private health insurance who will miss out on the $150, the $400 or the $600 rebate. If they want to go down that political road, it should be remembered that in nearly all those electorates there are more people outside of private health insurance. There are more people who have indicated in surveys over many, many years their support for Medicare. That is what we should be talking about today. We should be talking about the fact that we have a system that has changed the way in which people approach their decisions about the level of care that they wish to have about health concerns.It was not until the Whitlam government and Medibank that we saw radical change. Honourable members ought to remember that at that time 80 per cent of people had private health insurance. The Industry Commission report which has detailed some of this history makes for interesting reading, because it highlights the types of changes that have occurred and what effect they have had on the way in which the line which represents the level of health insurance cover has declined. There have been many things that have changed.Last night, whilst perhaps I was outside the standing orders, I tried to assist the honourable member for Kooyong in his contribution. Most of what he contributed I did not agree with. He highlighted certain aspects of the Industry Commission. He talked about the need to look at the changing culture in the way in which people approach their health cover. I think that is an important aspect to note. We now have generations of health consumers that have known a universal health system such as Medicare for their whole life. The world has changed a lot. I, as a young person in a family with a GP, can remember the types of hours that were provided by general practice. I also remember the pro bono aspect that existed that ensured people had accessibility to proper medical care. I hope we do not want to go back to that system.The honourable member for Hinkler in the beginning of his contribution on this legislation asked what type of health system we wanted. He asked whether we wanted a system such as the one in Britain or in the United States. We certainly do not want a system such as that in the United States, but this proposal is heading down that track. That is something that we ought to avoid.There is another element to this piece of legislation and its proposals which gives an incentive to health insurance that we ought to question. It is a point which has been raised by the honourable member for Jagajaga on behalf of the opposition: the fact that premiums for ancillary services will also get the incentive. We are widening the types of interests that the Commonwealth has in health cover in this piece of legislation. Yesterday the honourable member for Jagajaga quite correctly asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care about the anomaly in the quantum of benefit that would be attracted to those who have dental care as part of their ancillary cover. She compared it with the amount of money that was in the former Commonwealth dental health scheme, and it is about the same level. On the one hand the minister approached the dispatch box and, in answer to the question, said, `This is a matter of Commonwealth-state responsibilities,' but on the other hand he wants to enter into that area through the backdoor by this type of incentive.I believe that perhaps we would be better placed if the Commonwealth had a greater say in the overall health system. We would not have the types of headlines that are continually in the papers in Melbourne about the Victorian health system, a matter that I have raised from time to time in this place—the crisis of confidence that people have in especially the public hospital system and the increase in the number of complaints that people have. Whilst basically we still continue to have a good system, the real problem is that people continue to hear the rising number of difficulties and the rising number of anomalies in the way in which people get treated, and that is a concern.This is a system that should be judged on 100 per cent of its effort, not on what it can do in 60 per cent of the cases. People have an expectation that they should have access to the highest quality health care that can be provided, and that is what is lacking within the community's expectations. (Time expired).10:16:00576Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—There is no doubting the sincerity of the member for Scullin and many of the other members on the other side who have spoken in this debate on the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 . Unfortunately, however, their contributions have been clouded by the handicap of the policy vacuum that Labor have on this particular issue and clouded by the obstructionist politics that they are determined to play.I agree with the member for Scullin in that there does seem to be a crisis of confidence in the health system in this country. Continually and repeatedly, surveys on issues that are of concern to the Australian public rate health as the number one concern. We frequently see headlines about the health crisis in this country and we hear tales of woe about people who have had tragic dealings with our hospital system.The proposals for the health insurance rebate put forward by this government are fair, necessary and supported by public opinion. The public needs a health system that works. The public needs a health system that is balanced. The public needs a health system that is fair.While Australia spends around 8.4 per cent of GDP on health, and while health care spending in this country is rising at around 2½ per cent per annum in real terms, there is a need to ensure quality of care, choice and cost efficiency in the way that these increasing funds are spent. A blind, blinkered ideological approach—the head in the sand approach that we saw from the former government and, unfortunately, that we are seeing from many of those opposite—does not answer the needs of our ailing health system. More lateral thinking, a broader approach and a balanced approach are needed. The proposed 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance premiums to apply from January next year is an essential part of the reforms that we in this country need to ensure choice, to ensure cost efficiency and to ensure quality of care in our health care system.Several points need to be made about the government's proposals. First of all, these proposals are fair. Six million Australians have private health cover for a variety of reasons. In fact, 32,900 people in my electorate of Macquarie have chosen, for one reason or another, to have private health cover. Over the last decade and a half, holders of private health insurance have been subjected to rising costs, rising premiums, averaging around 10 per cent a year. This proposed legislation, the proposed rebate, will bring relief to those six million holders of private health insurance.A couple of points need to be made about those holders of private health insurance. That is, many of them are pensioners or low income earners. Some 700,000 are on incomes of less than $20,000 a year. Some two million are on incomes of less than $30,000 a year. Some 800,000 of those holders of private health insurance are over the age of 65. These figures put paid to Labor's nonsense that somehow private health insurance is elitist. Private health insurance is not elitist. It is a matter of choice and for many people, particularly those who feel very vulnerable about their health care needs, it is the only way to ensure they have a choice of doctor and a choice of hospital.Many low income earners, many pensioners and many retirees battle and scrape to fund their health insurance premiums in order to ensure a choice of doctor and a choice of hospital. For many of them it is not easy, for many of them it is a sacrifice, and it is a sacrifice that the government ought to be trying to alleviate if it can. In fact, the proportion of low income earners with private health insurance has not changed much over the last decade, despite the increased premiums. Most of those who have dropped out have been those on middle and higher incomes.It is fair that those people on low incomes, those pensioners and those retirees who have private health insurance are assisted. As the Council on the Ageing said in its 1997 submission to the Industry Commission, private health insurance should be an affordable option for older people if they want it.The second point that needs to be made in terms of fairness is that many middle income earners already contribute significantly to both public and private health systems. They are paying 1½ per cent of their taxable income through the Medicare levy and they are also paying private health insurance premiums. It is about time that some relief was given to middle income Australians, those Australians who work hard, those Australians who are making an effort to look after themselves and reduce the pressure on the public health system.These proposals are fair and, what is more, the community knows that they are fair. The latest Morgan research shows that some 70 per cent of the Australian community support a rebate for private health insurance premiums. They are fair and they are seen by the community to be fair.The third point that needs to be made is that not only are these reforms fair but they are necessary. Private health is a crucial and critical part of the Australian health system. First of all, it reduces the taxpayer cost of health services. If you want to look at it another way, it makes the tax dollar go further in terms of the health services that can be provided. One-third of total health funding comes from health funds and individuals. More than one-third of operations and a quarter of bed days are financed in the private sector.Each privately insured patient in a private hospital frees up beds in the public hospitals and helps reduce those long, torturous waiting lists. Private health funds contribute around $200 a day to public hospitals for each privately insured patient, totalling some $400 million a year that they contribute to the public hospital system. In total, each year private expenditure on health premiums and health services exceeds Medicare payments. Health funds annually contribute some $4½ billion whereas the Medicare levy contributes only $3.6 billion to funding public hospital care. This is a crucial contribution to health care in this country. Without it, the only option is the option of increasing taxes. The option the Labor Party wants to follow in health funding is increasing taxes instead of having those who wish to contribute something to health care in this country doing so. In rejecting the proposed legislation, Labor is opting for increasing pressure on taxpayers in this country.These proposals are necessary to prevent extra pressure on the public health care system. For each one per cent decline in private health membership in this country, an estimated extra $83 million a year is added to the cost of running the public hospital system. Under 13 years of Labor government, private health insurance membership in this country decreased from 63.6 per cent to 32 per cent. That decline may well have gladdened the hearts of the left-wing ideologues in the Labor Party, but it added an enormous burden to the public hospital system in this country. It added $2½ billion to $3 billion a year to the cost of running public hospitals in this country. If that decline is allowed to continue, there will be an ongoing increased annual burden on the public hospital system, a burden that will become almost unsustainable, a burden that will mean a diminishing quality of care in our public hospital system.It is absolutely crucial that the decline in private health membership is arrested and reversed. It is crucial both for the private health system and for the sustainability of the public health system in this country. It is crucial that the neglect, the vandalism and the sabotage that we saw under 13 years of Labor are reversed. Otherwise, we will see an ongoing increase in the cost of public health in this country. It is estimated that, if this decline does not stop, by just the turn of the century, another $500 million a year will be added to the cost of the public hospital system in Australia.The Australian Health Insurance Association estimates that some 200,000 more people are in private health insurance now than would have been without the incentives introduced by the government last year. Of those who have dropped out of private health insurance, 61 per cent state that rising premium costs was the main reason they dropped out. The Australian Private Hospitals Association estimates that the proposed legislation will lead to an extra one million people with private health insurance membership.The fourth point that needs to be made is that not only are these proposals fair, not only are they necessary, but they are part of a balanced package of reforms. The previous speaker talked about the need to strengthen the public health system as well, and that is a commitment that this government has shown very clearly.UU5HORNEMr Horne—How?0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT—`How?' the member opposite asks. In last year's budget, this government spent $2.1 billion more on health than the former government did in its last year. We spent $2,100 million more on health and $300 million more on public hospitals than the Labor government did in its last year. This year's budget has an increase in the total health spending from last year of $1.6 billion, bringing an increase of $3.7 billion—that is, $3.7 billion more spent on health by this government this year than by the Labor government in its last year. This government is committed to Medicare and it is committed to public health, but it realises as well that public health cannot survive without a strong, balanced private health system to complement the public system.The $32 billion package in the next five-year Medicare agreement—and I say this for the member opposite—is further evidence of this government's commitment to the public health system. The next five-year Medicare agreement is a 19.2 per cent real increase over the last Medicare agreement signed by the former government—a 19.2 per cent increase in real terms to public health in this country.This government is also putting in place a number of other reforms to encourage private health insurance. Clearly, areas such as changes to the reinsurance pool and the problem of gap payments need to be tackled. These areas are being tackled. The proposed private health insurance premium rebate allows us to tackle these other areas, allows breathing space and allows time for these changes to take place. Labor would have it that the private health system continue to go down the drain and that an unbearable, increasing, unsustainable burden be imposed on the public health system.The bottom line is that the government's proposed legislation is fair. It is necessary and it is a balanced part of an overall package. Yet what is Labor's response? What is Labor's response to these fair, necessary and balanced proposals? Their response is to obstruct. Their response is to grandstand. Their response is to stick their heads in the sand, as they did for their 13 years in government, and watch the continued decline in our health system.Two things need to be said about Labor's approach. Firstly, as I have already intimated, they are totally out of touch with what the people want. Over 70 per cent of the people say they want the government's proposed rebates. What do Labor say to that 70 per cent? They say, `We know better. We don't care what people think.' What do Labor say to the 700,000 low income earners in the country with private health insurance? What do Labor say to the two million people earning less than $30,000 a year who have private health insurance?What does Labor say to the 32,900 constituents in my electorate of Macquarie who have private health insurance and want assistance with their premiums? What does Labor say to the thousands of pensioners and independent retirees in Macquarie who want relief from their health insurance premiums? To all of these people Labor says, `We don't care. We don't care what you want. We don't care what you think. We are going to go along the same way that we always go along.'Labor can be sure that the people are aware of their arrogance on this issue, as they are of their arrogance on many other issues. As the President of the Association of Independent Retirees, Mrs Maureen Kingston, said yesterday:Self-funded retirees cannot believe the Labor Party, Democrats and independent Senators would oppose this legislation. It is unheard of for a Senate Opposition to refuse to pass legislation providing much needed financial relief to people who are often struggling to help themselves.Yet Labor would oppose this much needed relief. Self-funded retirees, pensioners and low income earners—indeed all the 32,900 people in my electorate with private health insurance—will be taking note of the intransigence and arrogance of Labor on this particular issue.The second thing that needs to be said of Labor's approach is that it is hypocritical in the extreme. Many of those opposite know full well that these reforms are needed and that, without halting the haemorrhaging of the private health system, the strain on the public system will be unsustainable. Labor premiers and health ministers acknowledge this. The New South Wales Minister for Health, Dr Refshauge, said on 19 May this year in state parliament:Private health insurance rates have constantly plummeted. That is putting massive pressure on every hospital.He estimated that 30,000 more patients joined the waiting lists in New South Wales since 1993. One way of stopping this growing burden on the public system—admittedly not the only way—is to strengthen the private health system so that those who can afford private health insurance are encouraged to continue with it. In the 1991 report on hospital services in Australia, published by the National Health Strategy and chaired by the now opposition health spokesperson, the member for Jagajaga, the critical connection between private health cover and the public system was clearly noted.The point is that on this issue—as is the case too frequently for the Labor Party—commonsense, good policy and rational debate are overridden by ideology—obstruction for the sake of obstruction. Instead of an intelligent analysis of the issues, instead of commonsense and instead of rational policy development, Labor sticks its head in the sand, it retreats into its comfort zone of left-wing ideology and pretends that what it failed with in 13 years in government ought still to be the policy.It is interesting to note that, when Labor members are freed of the shackles of having to comply with caucus policy, they can be a little more frank and candid. Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, in your contribution you mentioned the former health minister Senator Richardson. He was saying these things not only years ago but as recently as last week. I will quote some of his comments on 2GB just last week on this. Labor's former health minister, now freed from the shackles of Labor policy and now able to comment intelligently on the health issues, said:I think part of the problem is that ideology gets in the road and it does on issues that have anything to do with Medicare. The Labor Party sometimes doesn't act too sensibly.. . . . . . . . .On Labor's side . . . they simply don't want to acknowledge that private health care matters.. . . . . . . . .What they don't want to acknowledge is that as these people are dropping out of private health insurance, they are simply queuing up in the public system to be looked after.. . . . . . . . .I wish Labor would stop this silly notion that it doesn't matter if private health care collapses, because I tell you what, we are within five years of a complete collapse of private health care, a complete collapse.Mr Richardson is right. If we do not take rational, reasonable and fair measures to strengthen the private health care system, there will be an unbearable and unsustainable burden on the public health care system.The government's proposals are fair, they are necessary and they are supported by the community. Labor has no excuse for opposing these proposals. It is time it freed itself from the shackles of ideology. It is time it escaped from its policy-free zone and it is time it started responding to what the community needs.10:36:00579Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I rise and state from the start of my speech my opposition to the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 that the government brought before us yesterday. It is not that I oppose it simply to oppose; I oppose this legislation because it does nothing for the country except further erode the public health system and hurt the people that rely on it.The fundamental propositions of the Labor Party are fairness, where all are equal without discrimination; compassion, where we support and protect those who are disadvantaged, oppressed or struggling; responsibility to behave honestly, humanely and fairly; and community, working with all to build a community united, not built on conflict and confrontation. With those propositions in mind we believe government is critical in providing strong leadership and social justice, which are essential in realising the potential of the individual and the community.Yet sitting on the government benches opposite me are a group of people who are opposed to these propositions if we look at the legislation they are starting to bring before this House. The legislation we are debating before this House is based on an unfair principle that government should not be providing support for universal health care but be ensuring that private commercial operations survive on government funding. This unfeeling, uncaring government has spent the last three years ripping apart the health system of this country, while trying to blame us with excuses that have become mantras rather than facts. Why else would they cut $800 million from the public hospital system, abolish the dental health care program, remove important drugs from the PBS and close Medicare offices?Since the introduction of Medicare in 1984, universal access to health services has become the accepted means of providing these services. The preference for this system in the electorate is so strong that, in spite of its ideological objections to Medicare, the government would not risk making major changes to the system. Australia has a mixed system of health care delivery with both public and private providers. Private hospitals rely substantially on private health funds, with 48 per cent of the $4.5 billion annually in health funds costs going to patient care in private hospitals. This represented 71 per cent of private hospital revenue in 1996-97. Private hospitals operate alongside excellent public hospitals. Access is available to all, including privately insured patients. Private hospitals also contract directly with governments for the provision of services and patient care. The Industry Commission's 1997 report saw private health insurance as having two roles: providing top-up funding for additional services and amenities, as well as displacing the need for public funding for services available under Medicare.This role as a fundraiser for health services is acknowledged by governments, health service providers and also private health insurers. It is this role, that of displacing the need for public funding for services, which represents the key reason for the government introducing this legislation. Put simply, the government argues that, by preserving private health insurance, less public funding will be required to provide health services. The government expects that, through this legislation, with the expenditure of $1.5 billion per year, it will actually save money—a proposition disputed by many involved in this field, not the least of the critics being the Premier of Victoria who has described the 1997 moves by the government as `good money chasing bad'. In mentioning the sums of money involved in this legislation, it should not be forgotten that the proposal, set at 30 per cent of health fund contributions, actually represents a minimum of $1.5 billion per year for every year into the future this legislation applies. What has happened to choice, free enterprise and competitive markets? This government is so ideologically driven that I am surprised that they would let one industry have any form of subsidy at all. They removed it from the sugar industry, the wool industry, cars and clothes. But, for some reason, newsagents and health insurance are exempt.It is very strange and somewhat frightening what this government thinks is and is not important to subsidise in the national interest. It hates any taxpayer money subsidising adult migrant English classes, but it will subsidise the wealthy, paying for health care they can afford. There is no sunset clause; there is nothing to control or to cap the amount. This legislation is a blank cheque for at least $1.5 billion per year until this legislation is repealed. This represents a massive funding commitment—a commitment more than the government's Federation Fund each year for what may be many years into the future.This is not a one-off grant of $1.5 billion; it is that amount and more for each future year—a massive drain on the health allocation from the government's budget. Is it the best way to achieve its aim of maintaining and increasing the level of private health insurance? The experience of the existing rebate suggests that the outcome is not as certain as the government would have us believe.Yet there have been so many cases of groups seeking government funding that have been refused. This government has steadfastly refused to support the book industry, the shipbuilding industry and the information technology industry. It has refused to stop industries like BHP leaving Newcastle or to stop car makers importing rather than exporting cars.Why must the government support the private health sector by $1.5 billion, or more, for as long as they deem necessary? Because their health policy is a complete shambles. More importantly, they do not believe in Medicare; they do not believe in universal health care. The Prime Minister has said time and time again how much he believed Medicare was a waste of taxpayers' dollars and that he would dismantle it.Yesterday the Minister for Health and Aged Care, when asked about funding the dental care program, replied that the reason why it was abolished was that this government knew what was a state and what was a federal responsibility. Well, it is quite obvious to members on this side of the House that the Minister for Health and Aged Care does not believe that health is a federal issue. Instead, this government sees itself funding an inefficient industry that blames all its woes on Medicare. Private funds are not as efficient in service delivery and cost controls as Medicare. In fact, charges for hospital services are not capped or controlled under the private health schemes, and many consumers still find themselves out of pocket for private health services when they rightly believe that all costs should be covered by their health fund. The Industry Commission examined the issue of private health insurance. They found that there were reasons for people leaving private health funds that could not be blamed on Medicare. Those reasons included a lack of affordability, poor value for money and a frustration that there was an uninsured gap between what the doctors' fees were and the rebates from Medicare and the private health fund.What this government should be doing is doing what it has advocated in many other sectors of the economy, and that is reform. It is strange how, given the areas of the economy that are in need of reform, this government remains quiet on the private health sector. The Australian Consumers Association has advocated that the private health providers and doctors need to reform this section of the economy which for some time has used government subsidies to avoid the difficult decisions that it needs to make. Instead of reform, this government is proposing to spend billions of dollars propping up the system. Even the Australian Medical Association has called for reforms in this area, and it is the most conservative of health forums.The $1.5 billion should be spent where it is needed, not on subsidies. The government has already spent $1.7 billion on subsidies that have been an abject failure. It is a disgrace for government members to stand here in the chamber and blame us for the problems in the private health insurance industry and then throw good money after bad to support it. The problems and the money spent are of the government's making, not the Australian Labor Party's.The questions of the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed rebate must be asked as they get to the point of how this massive funding might be better spent. The minister is, I am sure, aware of many competing demands for the health dollar. When considering the outlay of $1.5 billion, it is fair to ask how this money might deliver better health outcomes and if indeed it will result in long-term savings to the health budget.This bill fails to deliver on key public issues. It is not an effective means of providing health services to the people of Australia. It is not an efficient way of delivering those health services, and it is not an equitable way of providing those services. Let me deal, firstly, with the issue of effectiveness. One assumes that it is intended to increase the level of health fund membership and, as a result, increase the amount available for expenditure on health services. Does the bill result in the provision of additional health services? The first thing you would notice about the proposal is that at the start not one dollar goes to providing additional health services. The rebate goes back into the pockets of people with private health insurance and the money is lost to the health system.The health fund contributors may spend the money on anything they wish, including a new car, an overseas holiday or even cigarettes. The net effect is that $1.5 billion is taken from the health budget and given to a section of the community to spend on things other than health.There is, of course, one way in which some of the rebate money can find its way back into the health system. As providers realise that health fund contributors are paying less than they were once prepared to pay, they will increase their fees. The cost of health services to consumers will rise. The effect, though, is that providers will receive more for their services rather than provide additional services.This bill does absolutely nothing to reduce waiting lists. It does absolutely nothing to provide much needed health services in my electorate of Fowler. This bill fails the test of effectiveness. Do the measures contained in this bill result in a more effective way of funding our health system? It is worth pointing out that, as they stand, our private health insurers do not compare favourably with Medicare as efficient fund raisers and allocators. Administration costs for Medicare are reported as being three per cent of total costs while for private health insurers the rate is 12 per cent.Private health insurance is already acknowledged as inefficient if we consider that only 88c in the consumer's dollar goes to health compared with 97c in the dollar under Medicare. The proposed rebate is an enor mous discount, a massive 30 per cent. If the intent is to increase or at least maintain the level of funding for health from this source, the number of new contributors would need to be at least sufficient to make up for this discount. The rebate is now limited to new contributors. It is available for all existing contributors as well. For the health system overall to break even, private health insurance would need to rise from the present rate of 30 per cent to around 42 per cent. That is not that far short of the 50 per cent level that existed prior to the introduction of Medicare.This bill represents a huge gamble on the part of the government. It is betting with over $1.5 billion of taxpayer funds that nearly two million Australians will take up private health fund coverage. If it falls short of that number, its health funding will be a big loser. The shortfall will come from the health budget. To assess the efficiency of the measure, you have to assess the probability that this huge gamble will pay off. You have to assess the likelihood that two million Australians will come flocking back to private health funds. I, for one, do not share the optimism of this government.I look at typical families in my electorate of Fowler and ask where they would find $1,400 per year to take out private health insurance. These are families who are already struggling to meet their day-to-day commitments. Even if the measures in this bill reduce the amount from around $2,000 per year, I cannot see more than a few taking advantage of the rebate and joining a health fund. While the rebate will no doubt be welcomed by those struggling to maintain private health insurance, I can see few who would suddenly find themselves in a position to take out private health insurance.This brings me to equity. The median income in the Fowler electorate is $617 per week—$1,400 per year for private health insurance is nearly 4.5 per cent of gross income or three times the Medicare levy. The measures introduced by the government in 1997 providing rebates of up to $450 per year were directed largely at this group—which, I might add, did nothing to increase private health insurance memberships. Significantly, only one in four people with incomes less than $20,000 have private health insurance while three in four with incomes over $70,000 have private health insurance.As I stated earlier, the funds for this rebate do not go back into the health system but instead into the pockets of contributors, at least in the early stages. This means that rebates of up to $600 per year will go to three out of four with incomes over $70,000 but to only one in four with incomes less than $20,000.It is worth noting, while on the subject of equity, the two-faced nature of this government. In its 1996 budget the government withdrew from the provision of funds to the states the dental care. As a result, many people in the Fowler electorate have faced long waiting times for dental treatment and the provision of dentures. Many people unable to wait indefinitely have drawn on their life savings—it is disgusting—to get urgently needed dental treatment. These measures, however, provide a rebate for not only basic hospital services but also ancillary services. In fact, $150 is specifically allocated as a rebate for ancillary services.Ancillary services include dental treatment, not to mention fitness classes, running shoes and Zen meditation in some funds. But what government can be so callous as to withdraw funds for dental treatment for the most needy in our community and then turn around and provide a rebate for dental treatment to those three out of four income earners who earn over $70,000 and who have private health insurance?There are many other examples of the inequity of the proposals contains in this bill. By any measure, the bill fails the test of equity. But what then are the alternatives to these proposals? At the last election, Labor put forward a policy which would have retained the Private Health Insurance Incentives Scheme as a means tested subsidy for low income earners with private health insurance. But rather than lavish further subsidies on wealthy Australians, Labor would provide $500 million a year to public hospitals to treat more patients. As well, Labor would provide $100 million a year for dental care for pen sioners and low income families. By any standard, these proposals produce far more equitable outcomes. The government's agenda is to return to a two-tiered health system, one where a privileged few enjoy immediate access to the high standards of health care while the rest wait in line for second-class treatment. That was the system that existed throughout the terms of previous Liberal governments. That remains the hidden agenda of this government: undermine the existing system of universal health care by starving it of funds while subsidising the private health care system. This is shameful legislation. It is driven not by the needs of the community but by the misguided agenda of this government. It truly deserves the condemnation, not the support, of this House.10:56:00583Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—In speaking to the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 , which I am very happy to support, there are a couple of points that I would like to make at the very outset.The private hospital system and private health insurance both play a key role in keeping pressure off the public hospitals system. Access Economics has estimated that, for every two per cent decline that we have seen in private health insurance, that adds the equivalent in demand of a busy public teaching hospital running all year round to the public system. We have seen a decline under Labor of about two per cent a year over that 13-year period. That has added the equivalent in demand of something like 15 public teaching hospitals every year.The second point to make is that we need to recognise what the Labor Party's vision is for the health system. We need to take it through to its natural progression. What the Labor Party says is that it supports Medicare; well we do too. But it has an ideological obsession with and opposition to private health. The Labor Party represents in its electorates people who use the public hospital system; so do the Liberal and National parties. But only the coalition represents those people with private health.We have just heard from the member for Fowler, who incidentally, I believe, is in one of the safest Labor seats in the country. But even the member for Fowler, with the low median income families that she mentioned, has 34,819 voters with private health insurance: that is, 40 per cent of her electorate have private health insurance. Forty per cent of her electorate would be getting a 30 per cent rebate.Mrs Irwin interjecting—TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—The people in your electorate are on low incomes—you said that.Mr Bevis interjecting—TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—We don't income test Medicare, do we? What I am saying is that there are 34,819 voters in the seat of Fowler who are not being represented by the member for Fowler. But that is okay because the member for Fowler is in a very safe Labor seat, and I do not think realistically that we are anticipating that we are ever going to win Fowler. But I wonder why it is that all the Labor Party people speaking on this bill have majorities of over 5,000. The only marginal seat member we have heard from so far is the member for the Northern Territory. Later we will hear from the member for Kingston, and then we will hear why these people who have majorities of less than 1,000 and who have more than 20,000 people in their electorates with private health insurance, oppose this measure.The previous speaker mentioned that we will see a return to a two-tiered system. What rubbish! If you carry through the Labor proposal, what you will see as its natural progression is that we will have a small private sector—because there will always be some people who are privately insured—and most people will be in Medicare. That is the Labor vision. If you want to know what that looks like, go to the UK. That is the National Health Service—10 to 15 per cent of people with private health insurance cover; everyone else is in the public system. Do you know what that means? It means waiting lists and it means all the problems that you have with a large, nationalised health system.In terms of people dropping out, the major factor has been premium rises. If we look back over the last 15 years, we see that prior to 1990 several decisions the previous Labor government took have added something like 40 per cent to the cost of premiums now. They included removing things like the bed day subsidy and the reinsurance pool and reducing the Medicare rebate from 85 per cent to 75 per cent for private patients in private hospitals. Their more recent Medicare agreement in 1993 actually encouraged public patients to be treated in public hospitals. So you saw a big shift in people moving from the public system to the private system. Previously, private patients were treated mainly in the private system.Since 1990 the major reason for premium rises has been the shift from the public to the private system due to the Medicare agreement and also the enhanced capabilities of the private system. In many of the speeches by Labor members we see an outdated idea of what the private hospital system does. Over the last 10 years we have seen almost every form of surgery being offered in private hospitals. Many private hospitals have intensive care units and accident and emergency units. Consequently, there is nothing that is done in the public system that cannot be done in the private system.The second reason for premium rises has been the process of adverse selection. In the mid-1980s Labor removed the subsidies that existed for private health insurance and we saw huge rises in premiums from 1986 to 1988. When the premiums rose, young, fit and healthy people assessed their own risk and dropped out, which meant that the people who stayed in the funds were more likely to claim. Therefore, there were more payouts and the premiums continue to rise. That is a vicious cycle. The rebate is designed to break that cycle.When the Labor Party was first elected, over 60 per cent of Australians were covered by private health insurance. When Labor left office 13 years later, the figure was a little over 30 per cent. That has added more people to the public hospital system. Medicare was always designed to work side by side with a strong private health system. That is why, when Medicare was introduced, private health insurance levels were at 50 per cent. This bill allows for the introduction of a 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance. That rebate is available as a tax rebate, it is available as a cheaper premium or it is available as a direct cash payment from Medicare offices. So low income people get the full benefit of the rebate. It is available to everyone with private health insurance, regardless of their income or their level of coverage.The policy was announced during the campaign and the intention of this bill is to implement the 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance to begin on 1 January next year. Some people have suggested that premium rises will swallow the value of the rebate. They won't because the rebate is 30 per cent of whatever the premium is.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Not like last time.TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—It is interesting to hear that comment from the member for Brisbane because this is Labor Party policy. Labor Party policy is to adopt the government's private health insurance incentive scheme. I welcome the Labor Party's policy. In the last parliament Labor criticised the coalition government's private health insurance scheme and then during the election they announced that it was Labor Party policy. It was successful. It kept 200,000 people in private health insurance who otherwise would have dropped out. But we think that private health insurance needs to be still cheaper to encourage people to get back in.Unfortunately, premium rises are a fact of life. The premium rises that we have seen since the government came in would have always occurred. It is nonsense to suggest that the premium rises occurred because of the incentive scheme. As most members of the House will know, no premium rise can occur without the agreement of the Prime Minister, Treasurer and health minister and can only be for solvency requirements, not to add to the bottom line of the fund. The rebate is equivalent or better to a tax deduction for private health expenditure for everyone on incomes below $50,000. That covers 81 per cent of people. For 81 per cent of people when we have our new tax rates, from 1 July 2000, the top marginal tax rate is going to be 30 cents in the dollar.This will restore the level of assistance to private health insurance that existed before the election of the Labor government in 1983. It provides almost six million Australians who are holding private health insurance with relief. Of those six million Australians, there are 700,000 Australians on incomes below $20,000 who hold private health insurance, many of them pensioners, many of them low income, self-funded retirees. There are almost two million Australians on incomes below $30,000 who hold private health insurance. A survey by Morgan Research for MBF found that 67 per cent of the community supported this rebate for private health insurance. So 67 per cent of the community support it—the Labor Party opposes it. Tony Quinn and Associates estimated that you needed something like a 25 to 30 per cent drop in price to bring people back into private health insurance.The new Medicare agreement requires that every one per cent drop in private health insurance levels requires us to pay an extra $83 million to the state and territory governments. So if we do not do anything to private health insurance levels we will have to pay an extra $500 million in the next few years just to keep the status quo. Let us make it clear. The Labor Party's vision is for a small, private sector which will be for the elite and a large national health scheme, Medicare, in which you will have the problems of waiting lists. But the people who are on high incomes, the people who are influential, can always get past the waiting lists.The private sector at present provides half the operations in Australia, one-third of the admissions and a quarter of the bed days. The Labor Party has said that the money should be spent on public hospitals. The coalition is spending $32 billion on public hospitals as the Commonwealth government. That is a real increase of 17 per cent over the previous five-year Medicare agreement.In 1991 the National Health Strategy, chaired by the Labor spokeswoman for health, the member for Jagajaga, published the report Hospital services in Australia. In that report the member for Jagajaga recognised the problems with the approach that the Labor Party are now advocating. She said that:. . . increased funding to public hospitals is also likely to lead to a change in the equilibrium between public hospitals, private hospitals and private health insurance, without necessarily achieving the level of impact intended. If increase funding to public hospitals reduced the perceived pressure on public hospitals through smaller waiting lists and shorter waiting times, it is likely that private health insurance levels will drop. This could result in increased demand for public hospitals and reduced revenue from private patients. The result may be a return to the situation which existed prior to the provision of extra resources.So putting more money into public hospitals is not going to help. It takes us further along the road to the Labor Party's vision for the Australian health system—85 per cent public and a very small elite in the private sector.The opposition has not recognised that the government has introduced reforms which address the main reason for people's dissatisfaction with private health insurance, that is, rising premiums. Other problems which are often mentioned are the proliferation of bills and the out-of-pocket expenses. The government has introduced reforms to remedy some of these problems. We are going to allow, for the first time, funds to pay loyalty bonuses. We will also allow group discounts for companies and employees. A consumer information service will be developed to help people choose between the different funds and simplified billing will continue to be promoted.Some people have said that the rebate should be means tested. The people who have dropped out of private health insurance are those in the top three income quintiles, those earning the top 60 per cent of incomes, and they are the ones that we want to get back into private health insurance. Medicare is not means tested. The Labor Party's approach is to say, `We do not mind if a millionaire is bulk-billed. We do not mind if a millionaire is admitted to a public hospital, that is fine. But if people earning a bit above average earnings—families on average weekly earnings—are trying to provide for their own health care, we do not think they should get a rebate for that.' The rebate does not go to the funds, it does not go to the hospitals, it goes into the pockets of the people who have private health insurance.The government is also encouraging no gap arrangements. In South Australia the Sportsmed hospital is innovative in this area, developing agreements with most of the care providers at that hospital, with one bill, so that people pay no gap. I believe that, with the majority of orthopaedic surgeons in Adelaide, there is no gap to pay. Under the National Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, there are no out-of-pocket expenses to pay. The Melbourne Private Hospital has pioneered this as well: one bill and no gap.In my own electorate of Boothby 47,617 voters have private health insurance. That is quite a high level. The Labor Party are the opposing this bill. The Labor Party are opposing giving any assistance to those people who have private health insurance. This puts more pressure on the public hospitals in my electorate.It is very interesting to look at the number of voters who have private health insurance in many Labor Party electorates. These are the people the Labor Party are not representing. The Leader of the Opposition's electorate of Brand has 45,820 voters with private health insurance. The Deputy leader of the Opposition's electorate of Hotham has 32,424 voters with private health insurance. The member for Jagajaga, who is the Labor Party's spokeswoman for health, has 36,719 voters in her electorate who have private health insurance. Those members probably do not mind that. They are not representing their voters, but they are in very safe Labor seats. But what about the marginal Labor seats?Where is the member for Bass, who won her seat by 39 votes? She has 24,692 voters with private health insurance. She is going to come in here later today and vote against a 30 per cent rebate for all of those people. Where is the member for Dickson, who won her seat by 88 votes? She has 30,275 voters with private health insurance. The member for Kingston is going to be speaking on this bill later. He won his seat by 382 votes. He has 38,580 voters with private health insurance. If only one person out of 100 change their vote on this issue alone, he is out. The mem ber for McMillan won his seat by 436 votes. He has 23,909 voters with private health insurance. The member for the Northern Territory won by 518 votes. He has 34,655 voters with private health insurance.In looking at the speakers' list, I notice that all the Labor Party people hold their seats with majorities of at least 5,000. The member for the Northern Territory and the member for Kingston are the only members holding marginal seats who have said in Hansard that they oppose this rebate. But when the time comes to vote on it, we will see which way they vote. The member for Paterson and the member for the Northern Territory have been through this before. When they go back to their electorates in three years time they need to stand on their voting record in this place. You have all seen the ads. We all know what the Labor Party's voting record was in that period when they opposed a GST and then voted for all the indirect tax rises without any compensation. These members holding marginal seats will have to tell the people who have private health insurance in their electorates—although I am sure our senators will—that they voted against this rebate, that they voted against giving any relief to their constituents.The Labor Party is quite ideological on the issue of private health. It was not always the case. When Graham Richardson was the minister for health, he decided that Medicare was only sustainable while 40 per cent of people had private cover. He tried to win caucus and cabinet support for a package to support and boost private health insurance membership; it was resisted by the Labor Party for ideological reasons. Speaking on 2GB five days ago, this is what Graham Richardson said about Labor's ideological opposition to the government's 30 per cent rebate:I think part of the problem is that ideology gets in the road and it does on issues that have anything to do with Medicare. The Labor Party sometimes doesn't act too sensibly.. . . . . . . . .On Labor's side . . . they simply don't want to acknowledge that private health care matters. There's an ideological bent here that says Medicare is perfect, which is ridiculous, and therefore can't be changed, which is also ridiculous, and therefore nothing should be done about private health, which is also ridiculous . . . What they don't want to acknowledge is that as these people are dropping out of private health insurance they are simply queuing up in the public health system to be looked after.. . . . . . . . .I wish Labor would stop this silly notion that it doesn't matter if private health care collapses, because I tell you what, we are within five years of a complete collapse of private health care, a complete collapse.They are the words of the former Labor minister for health. We see a very curious thing in this parliament. Before people are in parliament, such as the member for Jagajaga, they are quite sensible. They indicate that one of the problems with giving more money to public hospitals is that it is just going to keep this cycle going. After they leave parliament, they are like the former minister for health, Graham Richardson. Again, they are quite sound in their reasoning. But when they are sitting in this parliament, they are so ideologically blinkered. They say that Medicare is perfect and that there is nothing wrong with Medicare but, really, they do not support the private system. (Time expired)11:16:00587Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—Members in this place are faced with a very stark choice in this debate: a choice between improving Australia's public hospitals for all Australians or subsidising the private health insurance industry and therefore affecting the status of a few. Labor believes that strengthening the Medicare system is the best way to improve the nation's health system. The Liberal government is arguing that $1.5 billion needs to be spent propping up the failing, ailing private health insurance system.Labor remains committed to universal access to publicly funded health services through Medicare and will ensure resources are allocated fairly on the basis of medical need, not the ability to pay. Labor introduced Medicare because we believe in a universal health system of hospitals, doctors and medicines for all Australians. We believe in a system of public hospitals relied upon by all Australians, because even those with private health insurance use public hospitals for emergency and complex care when the need arises, despite any private health insurance they may have.However, Labor recognises also that private health insurance plays an important role in Australia's health system. We believe that making private health insurance better value and hence more attractive to the consumer depends upon a cooperative approach between health funds, hospitals, doctors and government. The reality is that, while these groups continue their conflict, insurance premiums will continue to rise, causing patients to face massive gaps and fund memberships to fall. Governments must continue to work at all levels with the three major groups—in fact, all groups—to make private health insurance better value.If we are going to talk about the reactions of people within electorates, when you speak to people in my electorate there is absolutely no doubt that those who have private health insurance maintain it with the wish, the hope and the dream that the gap problem will be addressed. That is their problem. Their problem is the cost but there is also the inequity that, after paying out all the money for private health insurance, we face these inevitable gaps that then have to be paid.Making private health insurance better value for consumers must be that public policy goal. For most low and middle income Australians, private health insurance simply does not provide that value for money. Consumers are therefore voting with their feet and moving out. Many people I have spoken to tell me that, should they have an income high enough, they would rather not pay any insurance, take their luck, invest the equivalent amount of money and pay the bills as they come along, purely because they pay out an enormous amount in insurance premiums. If they are unfortunate enough to need acute care of any kind, they then get, at the end of that process, a very large bill. It is just not equitable to them.The question is: why are they really moving with their feet? The answer is that, while the quality of the insurance product continues to erode, as I have said, the premiums continue to rise at a rate above inflation. In the eight years from April 1989 to July 1997, the consumer price index increased by almost 30 per cent while private health insurance premiums increased by a whopping 100 per cent in the same period. This is the government's second attempt to address the decline in private health insurance. Their first attempt last term, the centrepiece of the coalition's 1996 health policy, the Private Health Insurance Incentives Scheme, was an altogether and collectively totalled $1.7 billion attempt to reduce premiums and increase membership. The scheme has been a disaster.Three rounds of increases have pushed up premiums by more than 20 per cent. Health fund membership is at its lowest level ever—30.3 per cent, well below the government's target of 35.5 per cent. However, instead of admitting the failure of the first scheme, the government is throwing good money after bad with this 30 per cent rebate, a rebate that is not means tested and not expected by anyone to have any effect on the decline in membership.The greatest beneficiaries of the government's proposed scheme will be families earning more than $70,000—families who are not rich but they are on $70,000—70 per cent of whom already have private health insurance. Families earning less than $30,000, only 30 per cent of whom have private insurance, and everybody else derive nowhere near the same benefit.It is important for the Australian public to understand that, under the government's scheme, half of this rebate will go to 20 per cent of Australian taxpayers with the highest level of incomes. The true effect of the policy will be to deliver a majority of high income earners a massive subsidy for something they already have while offering lower income families a subsidy for something they cannot really afford.I ask the minister and the Prime Minister what they will do if private health insurance companies raise their premiums to swallow yet another benefit, as did happen in the last parliament. We all saw it. The Prime Minister stood in this very place and said, `I will absolutely personally okay every premium rise by a private insurance company in health from hereon in.' The $600 million rebate came in. Within days, we had increases in premiums.The government may have the best of intentions in directing this $1.5 billion subsidy to Australian families, but economic reality dictates that it is a handout to private health insurance companies, who will undoubtedly raise their premiums. As I have said, it happened last time. What is the guarantee it will not occur again?The private health funds should not be in receipt of such a massive subsidisation. It is a disgrace that the government's solution to the decline in the number of Australians using private health insurance is to reward the blatant `rent seeking' behaviour of the insurance companies. All the rhetoric from this government about its sound economic policy comes to nothing when you look at the range of handouts it gives to prop up those `rent seekers'. One wonders how the pointy headed economists on the other side of the House could possibly justify this policy.So limited is the government's approach to this problem that they refuse to look at ways to address the real problem—that is, finding ways of encouraging the private health funds to actually improve their product. There is no guarantee in this legislation at all that health funds will lift their game by controlling costs and resolving the problem of out-of-pocket costs to patients—again, the gap. Funds, doctors and hospitals must negotiate to reduce the cost of insurance, particularly those medical gaps. They will be less likely to do this if they continue to receive handouts like the government's billion dollar handout in this instance.I think it is important to correct the misconception that the private health system itself is in crisis. Private hospitals do not necessarily need to be linked to the failing insurance funds. The Australian Consumers Association were spot on in their 29 October report on the government's rebate policy when they said:What is . . . in decline is the private funding system, a $500 million bureaucratic financial intermediary which currently adds little value in delivering health care. Public policy should clearly distinguish between the health funding system, which should be based predominantly on Medicare, and the health delivery system, which should be as competitive as possible.One of the government's major claims for this legislation is that it will ease the pressure on the public health system. This assertion, I do not believe, is backed up sufficiently by the facts. In the first year, the coalition's subsidy proposal allocates just over $1 billion, rising to $1.36 billion by 2001-02. This would be enough for most existing members but would not cover any new members. As a result, it would be expected that there would be little increase in private sector treatment on top of what would otherwise be provided to existing members.In other words, there would be little or no reduction in demand for public health services. Waiting times for surgery in public hospitals would continue to grow. Here in Canberra, for instance, we have seen waiting lists for elective surgery at Canberra Hospital increase by 20 per cent since April this year alone. That is on top of the ACT government probably correctly boasting of one of the best Medicare agreement financial arrangements in the country. We got a windfall of money, yet it seems that our waiting lists continue to grow. It is a dilemma. Fixing the public hospital system should be the government's highest priority because it is where the greatest need exists. Government should spend money directly on treating patients. It has to be the most effective way to reduce waiting lists.There can be no justification for the general extension of rebate to the ancillary services area. This has nothing to do with relieving pressure on public hospitals. One point that is interesting to note, and accurately reflects the ideology and priorities of this conservative government, is that privately insured people will get a rebate of 30 per cent on their dental premiums. That is terrific for them. This means that nearly $200 million of the rebate will go to subsidising dental treatment—two years after this government scrapped the $100 million Commonwealth dental scheme that gave dental treatment to pensioners and those in need in our community. That really sticks with me. That is one of the most disgusting elements of this particular piece of legislation. It shows the government up for what it really is.I have to admit to being puzzled by the government's reasoning for proposing this legislation. The government and their supporters in this debate have made assertions that the rebate will help arrest the slide in private health insurance membership and take pressure off the public health system but have offered no evidence, none at all, to back up that assertion. When they introduced their incentives scheme, the Prime Minister and Minister Wooldridge claimed that the subsidy of up to $450 a year for low and middle income earners would lift membership rates back towards 40 per cent of the population. In fact, coverage has continued to slide. On all the available evidence, I do not believe that the government's rebate proposal will generate a long-term increase in private health insurance cover, nor will it reduce pressure on the public health system.In conclusion, I am to some point fascinated by the element of the debate coming from the other side that we on this side should all be aware and, in fact, scared of the number of people in our electorates who may or may not have private insurance. For the record, from my point of view, I do not believe the Australian public are stupid, as others on the other side assert. They understand that the harsh economic reality they are facing is an overpriced private health insurance system, a system which offers them an enormous monetary gap at the end of treatment.They also understand very well that, give or take private health insurance, should the crisis occur, should the medical demand be there, they end up in a well-equipped, hopefully well-serviced, well-staffed public hospital system, regardless of their financial circumstances. They really do understand that a fistful of dollars, though attractive in the short term, will do nothing at all to assist them in their aspirations for a good public health system, as we all, them included, believe we need. I do not think the fistful of dollars approach is a very fair or articulate way to refer to those people in any electorate, be it mine or any electorate.At the end of the day the people, the customers, the consumers of private health insurance, really do understand what is happening here—they really do. They know that $1.5 billion is probably the biggest, most expensive finger to be placed in any hole in any dike in any crisis that this government has ever confronted.I really urge those on the other side to get serious and flip away this silly, cheap way of referring to people in specific electorates who may or may not have health insurance. Look at this problem for what it really is. If you cannot guarantee increased membership of private health insurance funds, if you cannot guarantee the shortening of lists for public hospital queues, if you cannot guarantee that people will no longer be lying on trolleys in corridors in public hospitals, this is bad public policy—and you need to put those guarantees in it, or you need to drop it.11:31:00590Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I am pleased that the member for Canberra agrees that throwing money at the public hospital system does not reduce waiting lists. I trust that the 37,913 private health insurance members in Canberra will look to her to support this bill.In the 97 years since Federation, Australia has rarely been held hostage by dogma. For much of our history, pragmatism has been the hallmark of Australian governments, which have steered a course between ideological buoys to build a fairer, more prosperous nation. Even the Australian Labor Party when in government occasionally showed some responsibility by turning its back on the discredited ideology of its union bosses for the good of the country.In opposition, however, the ALP is quite a different beast. Its behaviour is irresponsible and detrimental to Australia's future. Its opposition to every single major policy initiative is as hypocritical as it is predictable. Perhaps no single instance of intransigence illustrates its hypocrisy as does its stance on this bill. The government's 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance premiums is a win for both the privately insured and those who rely on Medicare. It is a win for the private hospital system, and it is a win for the public system as well. There are no losers.Yet the Labor Party—which is so bereft of leadership, as was demonstrated last night, and ideas that it is looking to past glories of class warfare—rejects this legislation. The Australian people want to know why. They know that both the public and private systems are under severe strain, and that this initiative is sorely needed.My own research and feedback from constituents in Deakin indicate that health and hospitals are the number one issue in the electorate. Recent national studies suggest that this concern is echoed throughout Australia, with two of every three Australians believing that our health care standards are in decline. This decline, perceived and real, runs parallel to the fall in private health fund membership.Since 1983, when Labor won office, the percentage of Australians with private health insurance has been on a slippery slide. With the return of the coalition in 1996, the subsequent introduction of the rebate for private health insurance and the surcharge for uninsured higher earners, the rate of people leaving the funds has slowed. So we are left in the position where only 30.6 per cent of Australians are private fund members—down from the 64 per cent in 1983.Despite the fact that less than one-third of our population is insured privately, more than 50 per cent of operations are still performed in private facilities. This indicates that over two-thirds of our population is reliant on a system that can produce less than half the number of surgeries.During the last election campaign, the Labor Party said that it would put another $500 million per year into public hospitals and presumably leave the private health system to rot. With every premium increase, there is a drop in the number of members in private funds; with each drop in membership, the premiums rise. It is a self-perpetuating cycle that demands the Commonwealth hand over another $83 million to the states and territories every time the rate drops by one per cent. We know that, under our current taxation arrangements, handing over money for the public hospital system to the states or territories—as the member for Canberra has indicated—is a necessity. But we must also look after the community directly to ensure that our health expenditures are utilised to the fullest by those who actually use the system.Let us assume that the $500 million promised by Labor would have gone directly into the public hospital system; even so, it would have done nothing to improve the plight of our public hospitals. At best, it would have merely preserved the status quo and kept Australian health care in crisis. Let us not forget how Labor proposed to pay for that injection. Labor was going to increase the Medicare levy; and, presumably, after discovering its plug was too small to stop the dam bursting, it would have continued to drive that levy up. Thankfully, the voters did not give Labor the opportunity to implement that sorry plan.A commitment to Medicare is well and good. We do have a responsibility as a government and as a society to ensure that those who need care can access it at minimum cost and with minimum delay. Labor claims this as its commitment, but the bare facts show that its blindness to the realities of health care funding has put Medicare in jeopardy. Despite this, the ALP has gone to the last two federal elections claiming that the coalition sought to destroy Medicare.Before the 1996 election, the member for Fremantle, a former health minister whose grasp of the portfolio earned her nothing but scorn, tried to twist the words of our leader in a blatant attempt to scare the people over Medicare. It did not work then, and it will not work now. Australians know that there is a crisis. They know that Medicare on its own is insufficient and, importantly, does not have the answers to meet our health needs.In the months leading up to the recent election, we had the health and aged care campaign of fright dusted off by the member for Jagajaga. Labor again expected the people to ignore their appalling 13-year record. In doing so, they clearly underestimated the ability of the electorate to understand the issues. Around 200 constituents have made overtures to my office about the importance of a better private health insurance deal. Among them is a Mrs Peggy Kemp of East Burwood, who is a longstanding member of a private fund. She echoed the thoughts of many when she said yesterday about the rebate:It will make health insurance more affordable—it should have happened long ago. Older people, pensioners and self-funded retirees cannot afford to pay more. Most budget and do without to keep their health insurance—the 30% will provide much greater incentive.This sentiment by my constituent echoes those which many others have repeated over and over again to my office, and I am sure to offices of members right across this country.The General Manager of Bellbird Private Hospital in Blackburn, Ms Helen Pickett, tells me that the vast majority of their patients strongly support the increased rebate because it provides benefits: choice, timing and the location of treatment. The CEO of Ringwood and Mitcham private hospitals, Cheryle Royle, tells a similar story. Ringwood is a facility specialising in cancer treatment. It has a 98 per cent occupancy rate and offers various services not available anywhere else in the eastern suburbs. Mitcham Private Hospital, which is not very far from my office, specialises in obstetrics, mother and baby care.These are facilities providing services used by people who typically pay private premiums. They expect specialist services on time by a doctor of their choice. These are not the people who fit the stereotype invoked by the ideologues opposite. They are not rich. They do not behave as some members opposite do—like members of the Politburo who do not support the health system but who have sufficient reserves of cash to pay for their procedures. These are people for whom private health care is a big commitment. It is a sacrifice to stay in a fund, but they do not want to opt out. Part of this is due to fear. Many are older and will not risk the public system and the waiting lines should they need treatment. Some have been fund members for decades preceding the introduction of Medibank, and they believe this new initiative is their last chance to keep their membership.According to the Australian Health Insurance Association, the coalition's private health insurance incentive scheme introduced last year has prevented around 200,000 Australians from deserting private funds. However, with funds traditionally announcing premium increases in March, the pressure will be on again. We need the 30 per cent rebate, and we need it now. There are around 39,000 people in Deakin who are still covered by private health insurance. Nearly half of these currently qualify for the private health insurance incentive scheme rebate. These will be the people most at risk—low and middle income earners who are most in danger of leaving the private funds should Labor continue their obstinacy on this issue.Back in 1991 Ms Jenny Macklin, the then director of the National Health Strategy, admitted in the report Hospital Services in Australia that a drop in private health insurance could result in increased demand for public hospitals and reduced revenue from private patients. Now that that same director is the member for Jagajaga she has changed her tune. She has abandoned research methods and has adopted holus-bolus the politics of envy so in vogue with her Labor comrades today.I remember reading a piece by a commentator who observed that increasing numbers of Americans were defining themselves not by their beliefs or family or profession but by the things they did not have. He felt that to elicit more sympathy from special interest groups he should perhaps categorise himself as `yachtless'. In that vein, it must be said to the envious members opposite that if this legislation is not passed there will be many Australians who are `rebateless'. If that happens, the community will vent their anger and make those opposite jobless.All electorates, including those held by Labor members, have significant numbers of people in private insurance. Even the member for Jagajaga has quite a number—some 36,700, if I have calculated correctly. About 19,000—the same number as in Deakin—do not qualify for the current rebate and will be left high and dry by Labor. The remaining 17,000 or so will continue to struggle with the current set-up. I am not sure how comfortable the member for Jagajaga feels, but with a potential 37,000 angry people on her doorstep her margin of fewer than 5,000 votes is looking very thin. Already the protests have begun. A writer in yesterday's Age commented:It is very disappointing that Jenny Macklin has espoused the view that the best remedy for the ills of health care funding would be to pour more money into the public hospital system. It has taken a quarter of a century for it to become clear that Gough Whitlam's promise of free, optimum quality health care to all is simply no longer affordable. If more people are not encouraged to pay more towards their health care, then the standard of it in the public system cannot be obtained.When the health representative of a major political party espouses such a demonstrably erroneous and anachronistic view on such a fundamental issue, it is a very serious matter. If the ALP achieves government, a political party so out of touch with economic reality would wreak havoc on the health-care standards of the Australian population.They were the words of Graham Brazenor, the President of the Australian Association of Surgeons, Eaglemont, Victoria—which, by the way, is in Jagajaga. I would not be marking him down in the Labor column just yet.I wonder whether the new members on the other side of the House, so brimming and up-beat with feelings of solidarity, realise that one of the very first votes they take in this place may well prove their political undoing.In my neighbouring seat of Chisholm, the privately insured number approximately the same as Deakin—39,500, of which over 20,000 do not receive the rebate under the private health insurance incentive scheme. It may be a long while until the next election, but rest assured that the people of Australia and the people of Deakin will not forget who is to blame when the premiums continue to rise and the queues for surgery in public hospitals grow longer. I think they would be better off heeding the advice of Graham Richardson, who has more political savvy than the entire current frontbench.The defeat of this initiative will inflict pain on more than just a few Labor ideologues. Many Australians will suffer in a very real sense. The Medicare levy, which is paid by the taxpayers, contributes only $3.6 billion to the health budget. This accounts for 8.1 per cent of the outlays in the health budget and, by way of illustration, only just covers the cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In fact, health funds will this year contribute $4½ billion to hospitals and other providers. That is more than the Medicare levy. Private funds also contribute around $400 million per year to public hospitals. Does Labor seriously believe that hospitals do not need this money which comes from the private funds?Let us not be distracted by those opposite who have attempted to turn this into an argument about the relative benefits to the rich and the poor. All who spend $1,000 on private care will save $300. All who spend $2,000 will save $600, regardless of their assets or their income. How can the ALP and the Democrats, even glued together as they are like Marx and Engels, claim this is unfair? Australia spends $43 billion annually on health. That comes from government and non-government sources, and it is over $2,000 for every man, woman and child.Our expenditures are higher than ever, yet the services we offer have continued to decline. Pumping more money into public hospitals is not of itself the panacea for the problem, as was illustrated quite well by the example given by the honourable member for Canberra about the situation here in the ACT. The demand on public health will continue to rise unless more people take out private cover.While decreasing numbers in funds have meant premium rises, the anticipated reversal of that decline will also stem the increases. With younger and healthier Australians finding private cover more attractive, the predictions of premiums at 1985 levels as a percentage of weekly earnings may well be realised. In any case, whatever the weekly earnings today, people who join funds will have a heavier pay packet with the introduction of this measure. Even those who cannot or choose not to join a private fund will benefit from this rebate in that the access to public facilities will be greater.We have a unique system in Australia and potentially a very good one. For our health care system to function as it should, private and public systems must have adequate funding. We have heard successive speakers from the opposition play follow the leader and argue that the rebate will do little to ease the pressure on public hospitals. They say the current private health insurance incentive scheme has failed, yet they would maintain a system that gives the same discount to someone earning $49,000 as it does to someone on half that income. What can be fairer to the Socialist Left than a rebate which is greater than full tax deductibility for low income earners?In 13 years, the Labor Party did nothing to help the private funds and, by doing nothing, put our universal health care system in jeopardy. Where would public schooling be if it were not for the private system to ease the pressure? Where would public schooling be without the taxes paid by parents who choose not to use that system or by people who do not have children but pay for the schools regardless?As with all members of this House, I wish to see stronger and more viable services in my electorate. Maroondah Hospital, and Box Hill Hospital, which is just outside Deakin but used by many of my constituents, are fine facilities. But, if the people are forced to stop using our private facilities in Deakin, such as Bellbird, Ringwood and Mitcham private hospitals, the resultant shift will be an increased strain on those two public hospitals. We can simply build bigger public hospitals to accommodate greater need but, in the end, we will also bankrupt the system and universal health care, the great dream of the post-World War II Labor Party, will be dead.It is interesting to hear the other side talk about good policy, because there was precious little of that in the later years of the ALP government. Rather, there was the endless pandering to special interest groups in exchange for promises of support, and since their demise they have shown time and again they cannot make policy. In the parlance of a great man, `They just don't have the ticker.' How ironic it is to see Labor apply a boot to the teeth of this massive special interest group, the 5.8 million people who have private health insurance and the countless others who want it but cannot afford it. In this case, their politics are as lacking as their policy.We are here representing the people who sent us to this place. Here is the opportunity for each of our electorates to score an extra $9 million, and since Labor left office that kind of money does not grow on whiteboards. How can we go back to the electorates and say to pensioners and low income earners, to the battling families on less than $70,000 per year who pay tax, school fees and health fund premiums, that we are going to let the health system collapse? Even more disappointing is the failure of the Democrats to uphold their promise to keep the bastards honest. My constituents are firm on this health insurance rebate proposal. They demand it. If ever there was a mandate, this is it. (Time expired)11:51:00594Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I find the member for Deakin's comments about ideologues rather interesting because I have never heard such a speech, such diatribe, such absolute garbage, by an ideologue in my life. He talked about $9 million for the electorate. If I had $9 million for health in my electorate, I would like $9 million to be spent on Belmont Hospital.The Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 is doomed to fail. The government has a philosophical commitment to the private health industry. On one hand the Howard government is prepared to withdraw the Commonwealth dental scheme, reduce funding to the public system and close Medicare offices whilst on the other hand it is prepared to spend $5 billion to pay a rebate to the private health insurance industry. It is transferring dollars from health service delivery to the health insurance industry.The government is making the fatal mistake of treating the symptom rather than the cause. It needs to ask why there is a decline in private health insurance. If it asks this question, the answer will not support the premise that extending the subsidy to people on high incomes will encourage more people to take out private health insurance. In fact, 72 per cent of people earning over $70,000 already have private health insurance, compared with 23 per cent of people who earn less than $20,000. In other words, this new subsidy will be directed towards and most advantage those families that already have health insurance. It is highly unlikely that it will do anything to stop the exodus from the health insurance funds.There are a number of reasons why people opt out of private health insurance. The Industry Commission found in its report that the main reasons include: lack of affordability, the existence of Medicare, a perception that private health insurance is poor value for money, frustration with the gap which private hospital patients find themselves confronted with, and a multiplicity of bills which they believe should be covered by the costly insurance they have been paying. They find it difficult to see the value in paying for the insurance. People have decided that there are just too many extras and too many hidden costs in the private health system.In comparison, public health system costs are visible and patients are not confronted with unexpected bills on discharge from hospital. Often the bills arrive when the person is still recuperating—a time when they are under financial and emotional stress. These bills create worry and a psychological environment that will impede the person's recovery. Private health insurance is bad medicine and a very inefficient use of scarce health dollars.In December 1996, the Minister for Health and Family Services introduced the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1996. He promoted it as the government's answer to all the problems associated with Medicare and the private health system. The minister argued in December 1996 that the incentive in the government's legislation would provide an injection of funds and restore public confidence in the private health system. In commending the bill to the House, he said:The private health insurance incentives scheme and the related measures being introduced today highlight the government's absolute determination to turn this around—Wow! He didn't do a very good job, did he—to make the most of our existing health care assets, both private and public, and to ensure that Australia and Australians can look forward confidently to assured quality health care, with the maximum individual choice.Well, Minister, the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1996 was an abject failure. Despite your ill-founded attempts to encourage people to take out private health insurance, more and more people are dropping out of it every day. They are exercising their individual choice by saying private health insurance is not meeting their needs. I would argue that this is because of the uncertainty and hidden costs associated with it. For instance, a person who has a total knee replacement will receive a 75 per cent refund of the Medicare schedule fee, which was $970 in November 1997, and the private health fund will pay the other 25 per cent. Unfortunately, very few doctors charge the schedule fee. The average fee charged by doctors in 1997 was $1,250. The AMA recommended fee was $1,860, which leaves the person paying between $280 and $890 out of their own pocket.This is not the end of the hidden costs. Practically every service a person receives in a private hospital has an additional cost. This is the issue that the government needs to address if it wants to encourage more people to take out private insurance. The issue is not about paying a rebate to people who already have health insurance. The government has allocated $1.5 billion a year for the new subsidy scheme—a scheme that the Australian Consumers Association argues will be enough to subsidise only existing members, most of whom are high income earners who receive a greater benefit than workers on average incomes. High income earners like the Prime Minister will receive a benefit of around $750 whilst pensioners will receive a maximum benefit of $150. Only yesterday a pensioner rang my office and said that she had been paying health insurance since 1945, and she thought it was grossly unfair that she would get such a small rebate while people on high incomes—people who could afford it—would be getting a much greater rebate.This government's idea of fairness is to subsidise the people in least need and to make it difficult for people with the greatest need—hardly the way to promote an inclusive, caring society. If the Howard government continues to push its ideological commitment to the private health insurance and private hospital industries, Australia will end up with a two-tiered health system, similar to the US. The government is promoting private health insurance as a replacement for Medicare and public health care. The minister has stated on a number of occasions that Australians should contribute to their own health care and that the way to make this contribution is not through the Medicare levy but by paying for private health insurance.In the US, the high cost of health care and health insurance has led to 40 million people—a quarter of whom are children—not having private health insurance and not being eligible for government assistance. The cost of health insurance in the US is so high that one out of every eight American families has health insurance and other out-of-pocket expenses that exceed 10 per cent of its income.The US example demonstrates the inequity that is caused by a two-tiered system where the focus is on profit for the private health insurers and the private hospitals—a system that the members on the other side of this House, the minister and the Prime Minister are promoting. It is the health consumers, particularly those on low and middle incomes, who are most disadvantaged by this type of system. This system places an enormous strain on government funded health systems, and there are two systems: one for the rich and one for the poor. And that is what the members on the other side of this House support.One of the ironies of this legislation is that the government is prepared to spend billions of taxpayers' money to subsidise the private health industry while at the same time restricting funds to public hospitals. The legacy of this legislation will be increased health costs and the creation of a second-class public hospital system. We on this side of the House do not want to see that happen.The government has chosen not to wage a direct assault on Medicare by dismantling it up-front; it has chosen a sneakier way to do it. It has chosen to run down the public hospital system whilst wasting taxpayers' money by propping up the private sector. It has slowly started to erode the operation of Medicare by closing Medicare offices. Belmont Medicare office, in the electorate I represent, was closed despite enormous community resistance. Those on the other side of this House do not listen to what people say. They do not listen to the community. These closures make it difficult for older people and families with young children, people who need their Medicare refund to purchase their medicine after they have visited the doctor. It is all part of a gradual move away from Medicare and universal health care. It is a move to a private health system that those on the other side of this House support.Under Clinton, US representatives came to Australia to look at our health care system. Medicare has been successful. There are some problems, but you do not solve them by propping up a failing system. This makes it even more difficult to understand why this government continues propping up the failing private health industry. The government argues that to decrease the costs of public hospitals there has to be a strong private sector. It just does not add up. Why put money into the private sector if where you really need it is in the public sector? This argument is totally misleading and it is misleading on a number of grounds.Firstly, Medicare has the support of 90 per cent of all Australians; 90 per cent of all Australians think Medicare is a good thing. People are prepared to pay for a good public health system. Those on the other side of this House tend to conveniently forget that Australians willingly pay for our excellent health system through the Medicare levy and have done for some time.Secondly, the government has failed to point out to the House that the people who have private health insurance still need to utilise the services of public hospitals. We all know that, if you are really sick, the only place to go is to a public hospital. The private sector is driven by the profit motive and therefore does not provide a full range of services because, if it is not profitable, then you do not do it. For instance, private hospitals do not usually provide accident and emergency services or high cost, high-tech, cutting edge treatments such as transplants. All Australians, regardless of whether or not they have health insurance, may need these types of treatments at some time in their lives. I think all Australians should have the right to expect that they will get these treatments.Under the current Medicare system, all Australians are able to get the treatment they need. If the private system were to provide those high-tech, high cost systems, then the cost of health care would escalate which would lead to an escalation of insurance premiums and create a system where health care was a luxury item, not a right. This is the system that the minister is promoting and it is the two-tiered system that the US has. It is a system that we do not want. Whilst subsidising private health insurance and increasing the private sector may be a quick fix way of addressing health needs, in the long term it is going to be more expensive and less efficient for the whole community.I have asked myself who benefits from spending in the private sector. The answer is the private hospitals, the health insurance providers and the doctors. It is most certainly not the health consumer, not people like the pensioner who rang my office yesterday saying that she was very dissatisfied with what this government was intending to do. The health consumer benefits from a universal, publicly funded health system—a universal, publicly funded system like Medicare where they can access all the services based on their need, not on their ability to pay.At no time has the future of Medicare been so uncertain. At no time have public health services faced such a sustained attack by a federal government as they are facing now from this federal government.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—They don't believe in it.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—That is right. As the member for Hunter says, they don't believe in it, they don't believe in universal health care, they don't believe that every person has the right to quality health care.This government has battled to disadvantage the states and it has cut their share of the health dollar, money that was going to direct service delivery. If John Howard and his government have any commitment to Medicare, it is a very strange commitment. It is not a commitment to more dollars for health and it is not a commitment to patient care. Rather it is a commitment to the private health industry and to the destruction of public health and Medicare.The Prime Minister and his ministers should direct the money that they are planning to spend on subsidising health insurance to direct service delivery. If the government has $1.5 billion a year to spend on health initiatives, it would be much better spent in public hospitals and it would be much better spent reducing waiting lists. In fact, that $1.5 billion would fund 7,500 beds in public hospitals or, on the other hand, it would build a 1,000-plus bed hospital in each state. These beds would reduce the time that people waited to have surgery in public hospitals. This is direct service delivery. It would ensure that the people we all represent in this place had the quality health care they deserved.The Howard government has shown a callous disregard for the health and wellbeing of people in Australia. In every budget, every policy and at every turn the Howard government has attempted to undermine public health care and services. A prime example of this government's failure to provide vital health services to Australians was its decision to abandon the Commonwealth dental program—a program that cost $100 million, a program that provided essential dental care for pensioners and war veterans, especially in communities like mine in the Hunter and the Central Coast.Now Dr Wooldridge has decided to replace it with a $200 million subsidy to private health insurance companies. And the people that this government hurt the most were the elderly Australians, because this dental health program bought what most of us take for granted—quality and timely dental care. This government has taken their security away from them. Now, instead of spending $100 million to ensure the security of elderly Australians, the private health insurance companies are getting $200 million so that people like me can get a rebate to pay for their ancillaries. This is an immoral act, an act of an immoral government. This government has attacked health services and care at all levels. It has slashed money from the pharmaceutical benefits. It has done this in two ways. Firstly, it has introduced a new drug tax or, as it likes to call it, a therapeutical group premium. This means that Australians will pay more for the latest and safest drugs. The other way John Howard's government has taken money out of the pharmaceutical benefits is by removing some medications altogether from the scheme. I have had numerous constituents tell me how they had to change their medication because it was no longer funded, medication that they had been taking for long periods of time and medication that had no side effects. Now the government is investing the money that could have been spent subsidising these medications on health insurance. The Howard government is retreating from its responsibility to the public health system. It has been shifting the cost of providing public health services to the states. At the same time, it has been giving the states less money to provide vital health services. The public health system and those people who rely on it are under siege by this government. The minister, the Prime Minister and the members on the other side do not care. Dr Wooldridge has already tried to stop the haemorrhaging of private health insurance. It has been a dismal failure. Despite millions of dollars in incentive, the level of private health insurance has fallen and this latest initiative will not stop it. It will continue to fall. This legislation is doomed to failure. It will not stop the exodus from private health insurance, as I have already said. The probability is that the benefit will be eaten away by premium increases. The only losers in all this are the Australian people, people who would have benefited from this money being invested in the public health system. They would have benefited from more hospital beds, cheaper medicines and the Commonwealth dental program. They certainly do not benefit from this scheme, which is only for those people that you on the other side support.12:11:00598Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I am delighted to have been given the opportunity to speak on this very important bill, the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 , on behalf of the 100,000-plus residents of Gilmore. However, before I proceed, I would just like to raise with the previous speaker, the member for Shortland, a number of questions. I see she is just leaving the chamber, unfortunately.Is the member for Shortland aware that the proposed government 30 per cent rebate will provide a significant benefit to the people of Shortland where there are more than 38,435 people who hold private health insurance? Perhaps the member for Shortland would like to outline to her constituents why she is voting against this rebate, why she is voting against financial assistance for the 38,435 people who hold private health insurance and the hundreds more who would no doubt do so if they could. I am quite sure that, out of those 38,000 people who hold private health insurance in the seat of Shortland, there are many Australian battlers. How can the member for Shortland explain to her constituents that she has so blatantly and so willingly betrayed their interests by speaking against this bill? In Gilmore, there are some 35,700 people who are covered by private health insurance. That is 35,000 people who have saved to take out private health insurance and who maintain private health insurance in the face of increasing premiums. I know personally that many of these families, pensioners and self-funded retirees are struggling to meet their payments, knowing full well the importance of having private health insurance. I quote from a letter, totally unsolicited, received by me yesterday from a constituent in Mollymook. It reads:I am writing to you because I get sick and tired of hearing the opposition saying only the wealthy can afford the private health fund. I am a widower. I've been in a fund ever since it started to operate. I'm in the highest premium. I live on $13,000 a year, pay taxes, eat well and dress well, and have a reasonable social life. I don't drink, smoke or gamble and I am not a whinger. I am 87 years old. You can read this letter and hope members who keep harping on this and the new tax system which we really need, listen to it.There are many others in Gilmore who would gladly take up and maintain private health insurance, if only they could afford it, and this rebate provides that affordability.So perhaps the Labor Party would now like to tell the 35,700 people of Gilmore who maintain private health insurance and the thousands of others who would take it up why they oppose giving them the assistance to do so, why they oppose helping our families cope with the financial pressures of health insurance and why they oppose supporting parents and children in the electorate of Gilmore from receiving the security and peace of mind that they desire through having private health insurance.As has often been quoted in this House over the past few days, I would like to make it very clear once again to the opposition members on the benches over there—in the words of your former health minister, Graham Richardson—the reason why Labor opposes this measure is purely philosophical and has nothing whatsoever to do with the realities of raising a family and looking after our elderly in a modern society, especially in the electorate of Gilmore. Let us look again at what Graham Richardson actually said:On Labor's side they simply don't want to acknowledge that private health care matters. There's an ideological bent here that says Medicare is perfect which is ridiculous and therefore can't be changed which is also ridiculous.I would like your indulgence for a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker. This reminds me of the ridiculous nature of the Labor Party's opposition to other major reforms by this government, including work for the dole, on the basis of ideology and philosophy. Perhaps opposition members would like to come to Gilmore and explain to the 200-plus people who have completed work for the dole and have moved on to full-time or part-time employment or further training why they were so philosophically opposed to those 200 people obtaining the advantage they did through work for the dole. Why were they opposed to their gaining this assistance to find further employment or training?Like work for the dole, the 30 per cent health insurance rebate for all Australians will be a great success. The electorate of Gilmore has approximately 70 per cent of residents on incomes less than $30,000 and 60 to 65 per cent of people in receipt of some form of social security payments. Gilmore's population and demography is a living example of the fact that this bill will be of immense benefit to people on a whole range of incomes, particularly low income earners who, frankly, need all the assistance they can get at the moment. By the way, it is these same people who voted in favour of the coalition government so that the tax reform that is so necessary for them and their families can take place, giving them extra tax benefits and an ability to take the initiative of having a second job without it all being eaten up by the Australian Taxation Office.In the past year alone, hundreds of people have written to me regarding private health insurance. These people have been at different times concerned, angry and sometimes even scared of the fact that they will no longer be able to afford private health insurance. Where will this leave them and their families without security and peace of mind? Health is the number one issue facing Australians, and Gilmore is no exception. This rebate is one of the biggest initiatives undertaken in this country to arrest the decline in private health insurance membership. In doing so, it supports both the private and public sectors. The Labor Party once again opposes it.On top of the hundreds of people who have written to me specifically on the issues of private health insurance premiums, there are literally hundreds more who have signed petitions, responded in surveys or dropped into my office concerning this very issue. They always ask what the government is doing about it. This bill is the reform that most Australians have been asking past and present governments to introduce to assist them. It is this government, with Minister Wooldridge, which has had the courage and concern to introduce the rebate.Many Gilmore residents have commented in their letters, phone calls or responses that private health insurance should once again be tax deductible. Many of us here will remember the days when it was. This bill effectively now provides that for the majority of those with private health insurance. The bill will allow the government to introduce a 30 per cent tax rebate for private health insurance premium holders from 1 January 1999. The move has been widely supported by the residents of Gilmore, who see through the ridiculous nature of the Labor Party's opposition to this bill. The proposal was widely published in Gilmore in the lead-up to the recent election as it forms a major part of the government's tax reform package. There has not been one negative complaint about this issue to my office since it was announced.The Gilmore community is in support of this measure. The government has a clear mandate for it to be introduced. The government's 30 per cent rebate will replace the private health insurance incentive scheme, which was introduced by this government earlier in our first term. This was another measure that was opposed by the Labor Party. One keeps asking why it is that the Labor Party is always opposing, criticising or being negative yet has no solutions of its own. Perhaps it needs to be reminded that actions speak louder than words, and it had 13 years to provide that action.The incentive scheme was a prime reason why many of my constituents of Gilmore retained private health insurance. The Labor Party has scoffed at this incentive scheme many times yet said before the last election that it would retain it. We all know that the Labor Party opposes government initiatives for the sake of it. But that sort of hypocrisy highlights to the residents of Gilmore and people with private health insurance throughout Australia that Labor will say one thing and always do the complete opposite. The incentive scheme helped many Gilmore residents maintain health insurance in the face of increasing premiums. Those premiums, I might add, have been increasing steadily by around 20 per cent since the Labor Party introduced Medicare.I would like to make it very clear that the bill we are debating today will continue to support the system of Medicare, not dismantle it, as has been claimed so unashamedly by the opposition. It will reduce the strain on our public hospitals by encouraging more people to seek treatment in private facilities. I would also like to commend the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Prime Minister for successfully negotiating a major new Medicare agreement which will provide more than $3 billion in extra funding for the public hospitals system throughout Australia. This is the most generous agreement ever reached between the Commonwealth and the states. I call on the New South Wales state government to now honour that agreement and provide extra funding to accommodate the health needs of the people of Gilmore, particularly, as has been mentioned, their dental health care.I reiterate that the bill before us today will provide a 30 per cent rebate for all people who hold private health insurance premiums. It is a rebate that is regardless of their income, their level of cover or their type of membership. What it will mean is that the average family in Gilmore paying premiums of about $2,500 per year will get $750 back from the government. Single Gilmore residents paying premiums of $1,500 per year will receive a rebate of $450 from this government. The rebate is linked to what people pay into their funds and is an incentive for all people to hold private health insurance.The government gave a commitment on coming into office that it would make private health care more affordable and accessible to all Australians. This bill will deliver on that. It will keep pace with any future increases in individual fund premiums or with any changes to the cost of private health insurance products. More importantly, it will restore the balance in our health system by, as I stated earlier, taking pressure off our public hospitals.Gilmore residents will be able to choose the payment of this incentive through the method best suited to their needs. For example, many of the elderly residents in Gilmore have welcomed the idea that they will be able to receive a discount up-front on their premium costs through the private health insurance fund. This will also benefit many families who budget from month to month. They will be able to factor this into their costs. Another option is to take the discount as a tax rebate in an individual's family tax return. Others will choose to obtain a direct payment from the Medicare office. Therefore, the flexibility of this system is such that the 35,700 private health insurance holders in Gilmore will be able to access it easily and by a means which best suits them and their family. But beyond Gilmore this measure will benefit six million people throughout this country who hold private health insurance, including the number of people that I mentioned in Shortland, and will be an enormous incentive for others to join.In Australia we always pride ourselves on being individual, taking initiatives and making our own decisions. We are a nation of people who demand choice and the right to be able to determine for ourselves how we live our lives, what food we eat, what entertainment we enjoy, how we educate our children and how we protect our health; and, above all, we want a fair go for all. In the same way that we decide whether or not we choose to exercise, whether or not hang-gliding is a healthy alternative to walking around the block or whether we watch a game of football instead of playing, we want to choose which hospital system we want to protect and treat us.Under the Labor government, private health insurance was a luxury of the rich. Those who could afford it did so, but there was no incentive for others to take it up and no extra assistance given to our hospitals to cope with the pressures of those who either could not be bothered or could not afford the choice of private health insurance. Under this measure there is choice for Australians to determine by whom, how and where they want to be treated. This is not about saying one system is better than another. It is about saying: if you want to be treated by Medicare, do so; if you want to be treated under a private health arrangement, do so. We are ensuring that people who want this choice can afford it.One of the most interesting things I have read recently regarding the introduction of this measure is a survey by one of our nation al health insurance firms which showed that more than two-thirds of Australians supported the introduction of a rebate for private health insurance. As I stated earlier, this was borne out by the evidence supplied in the hundreds of letters and phone calls I have received and meetings I have held with people in Gilmore who, like the lady in the letter I mentioned earlier, say the same thing—that they cannot understand why the Labor Party would wish to oppose it. And, quite frankly, neither can I.Perhaps the member for Shortland and her colleagues would like to state why they oppose extra funds in the pockets of their constituents, particularly the Aussie battlers. With an average of $8.9 million being rebated to private health insurance holders collectively in electorates throughout Australia, why does the Labor Party oppose the introduction of this scheme? That is $8.9 million extra which families and individuals can instead spend on goods and services in their communities. That is $8.9 million for local people to spend on local businesses to provide employment opportunities in their local areas.For all their talk about caring about Australian communities and people, the Labor Party have shown in their opposition to this bill that they do not care about improving our health system. They do not care about providing choice for Australians. They do not care about providing employment opportunities in regional and other areas. But, most of all, they do not care about the people of Gilmore.12:26:00601Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The proposal for a 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance is just a another step in the deliberate and staged program to dismantle Medicare by stealth. The stages are as follows: stage 1, starve the public hospital system of funding, bring it into disrepair and disrepute; stage 2, make private health insurance more attractive by subsidising it; stage 3, create a two-tiered health system—a third-rate public system and a heavily subsidised private system; and stage 4, if the private health funds want more money, increase the subsidies further. But, like the government's other privatisation policies, including the privatised Job Network, the privatisation of the Australian health system by this government has one distinguishing feature: it is an abysmal failure.The policy of dismantling Medicare is one that has been dear to the heart of the Prime Minister for more than a decade. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement back in 1987. He said: `What I am going to do is take a scalpel, without punning too much, to Medicare.'BT4KEMPDr Kemp—Mr Deputy Speaker—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! The member for Rankin will resume his seat. I call the minister.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an outrage.BT4KEMPDr Kemp—There is an agreement between the government and the opposition on this.Motion (by Dr Kemp) put:That the question be now put.12:29:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick)74Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.58Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, G. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Macklin's amendment) stand part of the question.12:39:00The House divided. 0Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.0Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, G. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the bill be now read a second time.12:44:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick)77Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andren, P. J. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baird, B. G. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hockey, J. B. Hull, K. E.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E.May, M. A. McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J.Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D.Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.58Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Bevis, A. R. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Danby, M.Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L.Emerson, C. Evans, G. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.604Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Ms Worth) read a third time. Bills604r639Billsr638Bills604Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.12:47:00604Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The two bills we are now debating, the Private Health Insurance Incentives Amendment Bill 1998 and the Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 1998 , are supplementary legislation to give effect to the main provisions contained in the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 . As I have previously indicated, the opposition has a wide range of objections to the proposed 30 per cent rebate. What I want to do now is extend those arguments by highlighting the problems that arise from the way in which the government proposes to implement the rebate as provided for in these two bills. I also want to talk about the anomalies that have been created and the raised expectations that will be dashed when these two bills inevitably go through the House. The underlying issue is the extent to which this government is gambling with taxpayers' money in the hope—and it is no more than a hope, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever—that the rebate will miraculously solve the problems of both the private and the public health systems.For reasons that only the government can explain, the bill which contains the proposed 30 per cent rebate was given the same name as the previous legislation which established the flat, means tested rebate under the Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1997. Therefore, the bill we are about to consider, the Private Health Insurance Incentives Amendment Bill 1998, is in fact an amending bill to the earlier act and not to the bill we have recently completed debating. So, to avoid further confusion in the House, I will refer to the two schemes as the old scheme, that is the flat, means tested rebate, and the new scheme, the proposed 30 per cent rebate. As the old scheme is really only 15 months old, we would have to call it the toddler scheme. The government has absolutely no credibility when it comes to health policy, having to change its whole approach every 15 months.The first of these bills we are now debating abolishes the old scheme—the toddler scheme—which has only been in place by this government for 15 months and provides for the repeal of the old act from the year 2000. This is the shameful part of this government's package. This bill is proof positive that all the government's rhetoric about claiming concern for the elderly is nothing but empty rhetoric and hot air. The bill proves that the government is as heartless as we know it to be.At present, there is a targeted flat rebate for private health insurance. It is paid to individuals with incomes below $35,000 and to families with incomes below $70,000. They can receive up to $450, depending on the type of insurance they have. This income cut-off level is increased by $3,000 for every child in the family. Just yesterday the minister was carrying on in this House about the level of $70,000 and trying to act as if suddenly the government had realised that people above this level were not people who should be targeted for assistance. The minister must be aware, and certainly other members of the government will be able to inform him, that this is the income level that has been used in all other major legislation as a measure of when a family unit has sufficient income to look after itself and not require target assistance. For example, $70,000 is the cut-off level for this government's family tax initiative and for family payments. So much for the arguments of the minister in that regard.As for the 700,000 people on incomes below $20,000 over whom we have seen the Prime Minister shed such crocodile tears in the last few days, they are the people who are currently covered by the Private Health Insurance Incentives Scheme, the one that was implemented just last year. They are the ones who should already receive a reduction in their premium. We know what this Prime Minister did to their dental scheme. So much for his concern about their health. It was this Prime Minister who abolished the targeted dental scheme that did so much to help the elderly in this community. That dental scheme saw the pensioners in our community get the urgent dental care they needed. They now know what this government thinks about what they have to do to get dental care—get in the long queues to get urgent dental treatment.Labor did go to the last election saying that it would retain the old scheme, even though it has failed dismally to increase the level of participation in private health insurance. The Prime Minister boasted at the launch of his then health policy in February 1996 that the old scheme—that is, the targeted health insurance scheme—would increase the proportion of people with private health insurance to 40 per cent. The Prime Minister said that 40 per cent of Australians would take out private health insurance under the scheme that this government now seeks to abolish. That would have seen a rise of 8.4 per cent of Australians taking out health insurance.The Prime Minister has been proved to be hopelessly wrong. In fact, this government allowed the cost of health insurance to run completely out of control, jumping by over seven per cent two years in a row, and the benefit of the rebate was, of course, immediately wiped out. Participation in health insurance did not rise. In fact, it has dropped by another 1.3 per cent in just the last 15 months. What has the government learnt from this experience? What has it learnt when it comes to dealing with health insurance? Absolutely nothing. It just wants to pour this incredible amount of taxpayers' money into the same black hole—good money after bad. However, the Labor Party said during the election campaign that we would retain the old scheme to ensure that those least able to afford health insurance got some assistance. That means currently 1.2 million contributors, estimated to cover about two million people, do receive a discount under the old scheme. This represents about one-third of the people who currently have health insurance. Given that we know that higher income groups have a much higher level of health insurance, this represents a very healthy level of assistance.The reported cost of the old scheme, the one the government is now seeking to abolish, was around $300 million in 1997-98—significantly less than the original estimate. However, there are not yet complete figures on the first full year of operation. This is because it is not yet clear what proportion of people have taken up the assistance as a tax rebate and what proportion have taken it as a reduction in the original premium. I would be pleased if the minister would now make a definitive statement about the expected cost of the old scheme for the year up to June 1998 and a forecast of the remaining cost up to the year 2000 when the bill before us would repeal the old scheme.After the government announced the new scheme, the 30 per cent rebate, just before the election, the opposition was quick to point out a major flaw in its design. The government had overlooked the fact that not all Australians live in high cost states like Victoria and not all low income people buy blue-ribbon, high cost health insurance products. A quick check by the opposition revealed that there would be a significant number of people for whom the benefits available under the old scheme would actually be greater than the benefits available as a result of the 30 per cent rebate. This would have been particularly the case for people in Western Australia and the Northern Territory where the cost of insurance can be as low as half the cost of insurance in other states. For example, a 30 per cent rebate on a Medibank Private Smart Choice policy in Western Australia would have left that policyholder facing an increase in the premium of over $50 under the original design of the government's scheme.The government did have enough sense to redesign its proposal on the run to make sure that nobody would be worse off by including in this new scheme a minimum incentive payment equal to what a person would have got under the old scheme. In other words, that person will not get anything extra out of this new rebate, not one cent. Although this amending bill gets rid of the old scheme in the year 2000, the minimum incentive pay ment remains in perpetuity because that had to be put in to protect these people. The government has been quick to assure us that people on the minimum will receive a larger amount very soon because the likely rise in premiums will mean the benefit under the new scheme will rise. I note in passing that this is another area where the government has not provided any evidence, no evidence at all. It has not even provided credible estimates for price increases.The government is so proud of the built-in inflation that comes with the 30 per cent rebate that it thinks it is a plus that people will get a higher rebate as insurance premiums continue to escalate out of control. The government does not seem to understand, but of course those with health insurance will be very quick to understand, that with premiums rising at three times the inflation rate every year—that is, an eight to 10 per cent price rise every year—another $150 a year would be added to a typical health insurance policy. The 30 per cent rebate would then reduce a typical policy by about $45. The consumer would have to pay the remaining 70 per cent. Therefore, the consumer would pay a rise of $105 a year in insurance premiums.If the government would only act to ensure that premiums are kept down to maybe even twice the rate of inflation, then the consumer would see a rise of only about $90 a year, but of course the government is not doing anything of the kind. It should be obvious to the government that the benefit to the consumer would be much greater if the government would only act to end the rapid escalation of premiums, rather than locking itself into open-ended growth in premiums with this new rebate.We only have to look at the history of the old scheme that this bill abolishes to see the way in which the rebate will be wiped out if the underlying economic problems in health insurance are not resolved. The minister has already conceded that premiums will rise again as early as next March. So within three months of the new rebate coming in, we will see the insurance companies taking their first bite out of it.My calculations are that a person on the old scheme will be, at best, $250 a year better off. At worst, they will be no better off. They will not get one cent extra. Even if they are going to get $250 as a result of the new scheme, that will be wiped out in two years as a result of premium price rises. In two years the result of this massive amount of taxpayers' money will be gone. Premiums will rise and, of course, the people who will have to pay them are those who have private health insurance.By contrast, a high income person not benefiting from the existing scheme will get a benefit of up to $1,000. So the person who can only afford low cost insurance gets next to nothing, but the high income person who can afford the top table blue-ribbon insurance will get a benefit of up to $1,000. That will take about five years to wipe out the benefit of this 30 per cent rebate. In the end, it will be eliminated because the government is doing nothing at all to address the costs that drive health insurance.The percentage rebate locks in the rising cost of the scheme and does not protect the consumer. A person paying $1,800 today, not in the old scheme, may see their premium drop by around $500 in the short term, but their premium will be back to $1,800 within five years, judging from past experience. The government shows every sign of repeating its worst mistakes. It is interesting that the minister has made no reference to this substantial imbalance in insurance costs. He should have looked into why the costs in some states are so substantially above costs in other states. We then might have had some effort by the government to address a long-term strategy to bring down the cost of insurance across the nation.I want to look at the means by which the government proposes to pay the rebate. There are three options provided by the bill. People can receive the rebate as a tax rebate, which is provided in this bill. Alternatively, they can get a reduction in the premium direct from the insurance fund or get a cash refund from the Health Insurance Commission. The first of these two options is available to people under the old scheme. However, it appears the government was concerned that they were not getting enough publicity for the rebate because it was being delivered effectively and indirectly by the insurance funds and the tax office. There has been no rationale put forward by the government—just like everything else that this government puts forward in this area—for adding the cash rebate option. It makes little sense to require people to pay the full amount and then have to claim a cash rebate.The increased administrative cost for the new scheme is shown in the explanatory memorandum as $14.7 million of taxpayers' money going in to administer this new idea, with an ongoing cost of $7 million after the first year. The government has not been able to provide a breakdown of the costs between the three delivery options. Therefore, we cannot compare the efficiency of these measures. It is understood that the bids have already been made for the provision of the cash rebate, and I understand the Health Insurance Commission views it as a lucrative business. The minister ought to put the cost of providing the cash rebate option on the public record and provide the reasoning for including it when it clearly has not been required in the old scheme, and there has been no public call for this option to be provided.The reality is that this government wants to get some more publicity for itself, revealing the underlying political intent of this handout, which is to improve the coalition's battered reputation. Ross Gittins said in the Sydney Morning Herald today that this is just an attempt by the government to buy time. He goes on to say:"Buy" is the operative word. It's hugely expensive, costing $1.2 billion a year on top of the $600 million a year cost of the more limited rebate . . . `Buy' is absolutely the operative word.The government has also failed to provide evidence that it promised in relation to the impact on the fringe benefits tax of employers who pay health premiums on behalf of their work force. The tax bill includes a range of provisions in relation to fringe benefits tax that the government has not explained. It is understood that the tax office has provided advice in relation to a possible loophole in this legislation and has recommended that advice be given to employers on how the payment of FBT should occur. I would appreciate it if the minister would table the advice from the tax office and clarify whether the FBT treatment under the tax bill will provide an additional benefit through FBT minimisation.In summing up, I return to my original concerns about this legislation. It has been a long time since a group of bills has been presented to this parliament proposing the expenditure of such a huge amount of money: $1.5 billion with so little supporting argument—none at all. We have no economic evaluation, no analysis of the impact on the health system, nothing to say that this subsidy will encourage one more person back into private health insurance. In their place, we are offered an opinion poll—that is it for this government—and not even that was independently designed.What Labor hopes is that the Senate will hear the strength of the arguments against this proposal. If the government does not believe that one extra person will take out private health insurance, then how can they expect this parliament to endorse the expenditure of $1½ billion of taxpayers' money? What we would hope is that the government will be required by the parliament to think more deeply about how health services should be delivered in this country. What we do not want to see is the parliament having to come back in 15 months time with yet another shonky scheme to address the problems of our health system.This government has obviously got no idea how to address the serious problems that exist in Australia's health system. It thinks that by adding this huge amount of money—really a blank cheque—into health insurance somehow the problems will be resolved.Yesterday in addressing the 30 per cent rebate, I gave an example of a young man who had had three operations and had been left with large out-of-pocket costs as a result of those operations being conducted in a private hospital. I had a call last night from a fellow in Queensland. He has top level private health insurance. He has a brain tumour and has had to have operations on both of his knees as a result of an accident. In the space of 13 months, this man paid out $11,000 in gaps, in money over and above what he had already paid for his health insurance—$11,000 had to come out of his own pocket to pay for these urgent operations.As a result of this enormous amount of money that he had to pay, he had to take out a personal loan to cover the repayments. This is what people in the United States are so familiar with. This is the health system that Australians do not want. They do not want a United States health system that says to people that, when you get sick, you are going to have to either mortgage your home or take out a personal loan to pay for essential health care.What does this government want to do? This government wants to say to Australians, `You're going to have to take out private health insurance to get the essential health care you need. We're not going to put the money into the public hospitals to make sure that, when you get sick, you can get treated.' That is not what this government is all about. What this government wants to do is make sure we go down the United States route, so exemplified by the experience of this person. This government also has no proposals whatsoever to deal with the problem exemplified by this young man. It has no solutions to fixing the problems of gaps or out-of-pocket payments in our private hospitals. If only it did, private health insurance might be a more attractive product.The Labor Party does not support the provision of percentage discounts for health insurance, as this provides the greatest benefits to those buying the most expensive products. We already have a means tested rebate for low and middle income earners and this has done nothing—absolutely nothing—to increase the participation rate in private health insurance.As the government itself acknowledges, this new $1.5 billion scheme will not generate a new flood of members to help out the insurance funds. It will not take one person off the public hospital system or off growing waiting lists. That is on the government's own admission. So the government has to look somewhere else for a solution and what it should look at is the cost of insurance. It must control costs; it must get a commitment from the health insurance funds, from the private hospitals and from the medical profession to control costs. The government needs to design a much more effective insurance product for those people who wish to use private hospitals.The Labor Party remains completely opposed to the creation of a two-class health system. Good hospitals are not a luxury and must never become a luxury that should be restricted to those with the money to pay. That is not what Medicare is all about. Ordinary Australians should not be relegated to second-class medicine delivered at the end of a lengthy queue. Australians want the provision of accessible, quality health care for everybody. That is what Medicare is about. When this government goes out and says it is committed to Medicare, it should understand that that is what it means.To avoid the wastage of an extra $1½ billion a year in taxpayer subsidies to high income earners, the government should withdraw this bill and pursue a different strategy. It should redirect the funds it had earmarked for this scheme into solving the problems of our public health system. The government should restore the funds that the states have urgently called for to reduce their hospital waiting lists. This would cost an extra $700-odd million on top of the funds the states have so far received. It is half the cost of this rebate proposal. The government should also put back the $100 million to restore the dental health scheme—again, half the amount it proposed to hand out as a rebate on dental claims for those with private health insurance.The funds that would be swallowed up by the proposal before us should be redirected into the public health system that still remains in crisis. That is where the crisis is and the minister, if he is not aware of it, should go out into the hospitals and have a look at the people on trolleys, have a look at the people who wait for hours in emergency departments because no beds are available in our public hospitals.There is an urgent need for a range of targeted programs to restore patient care levels. But, if this proposal does not get through the parliament, is the minister going to do what the public is calling for and put the money into our public hospitals? No, what he wants to do is take his bat and ball and go home. In a fit of pique, he will say, `No, if the parliament won't let me have my way, the public isn't going to get anything, the public health system won't get anything. It doesn't matter whether there is $1½ billion to spend on health, we're certainly not going to put it into the public hospitals where it counts.'That really sums up this government's approach to the health policy. If anything does, it is that statement by this health minister. He is prepared to put $1½ billion into a scheme that will not encourage one extra person into private health insurance, but he will not put it into public hospitals where he must know that it would urgently treat so many people who are desperate to get the care they need. If the government proceeds, it must be aware that all Australians will be watching and holding it accountable for the inevitable failure of this scheme to achieve what the Private Hospitals Association has set as a target for the government.The private hospitals want private health insurance back up to 45 per cent. That is what they want to see this scheme achieve. What we would say to the government is: if you do not achieve that target, if you do not keep the scheme within budget and you do not put an end to public hospital waiting lists, this will yet again be another example of this government's failure when it comes to health policy.For the bulk of the community, public hospitals through Medicare provide the security of a high quality hospital service. That is what they want. They want to be treated in the public hospitals, which do such a fantastic job. If this government was really sincere about its commitment not to undermine Medicare, then it should agree to abandon this ill-conceived, completely poorly argued proposal, which has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Instead of taking the bat and ball and all of the money back to the budget, the government should put the money into the public health system where it is so urgently needed.13:16:00610Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—Over the last few days, we have heard numerous maiden speeches from the new members of this place. Many of these speeches have contained references to the members' intentions to represent the views and aspirations of those who elected them, as we all should do. I took the time to extract a few of the remarks made in this place by some of the newly elected members. The member for Oxley in Queensland said:Through listening to the people of Oxley, I feel I am then able to speak—and speak not to the people but for the people of Oxley.The Labor member for Griffith made a similar remark:I am in this place, first and foremost, as a representative of my local community . . . The member for Lilley said:My commitment to themreferring to his electors—is to work hard, to listen to their views and to strongly represent their interests in this place.Back in 1990, when the then Senator Kernot gave her maiden speech—of course, as a Democrat in those days; she has since changed her spots—she said:The honour of being elected by the people of Queensland to represent them in this chamber is immense and goes without question.No doubt their electors would have been reassured by these words. But, in fact, in the first division that we had today—the very first division in this 39th parliament—every member of the opposition neglected to represent the views of the people they represent and voted with their feet and tried to defeat a worthy representation of a measure that will go a long way to helping hundreds of thousands of Australians.Currently, 980,000 Queenslanders have private health insurance. Not one Queensland member of the Labor Party in this chamber got to their feet to utter one word in defence of their reasons for voting against this meas ure—not one member. That is a disgrace and a blight upon the electorates they have now been elected to represent.Mr Griffin interjecting—2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Not one Queensland member of this opposition had the guts to stand in their place—Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Longman has the call.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—He is wrong!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I call the parliamentary secretary at the table to order. The member for Longman has the call.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Not one Queensland member had the guts to stand in this place and defend their decision to oppose this measure. Not one Queensland member wants to explain to their constituents why they deserted them on this issue.I would normally restrict my remarks to looking after the electorate of Longman, where there are 23,223 who currently hold private health insurance, but there is a bigger issue: there are 980-odd thousand Queenslanders who need to have a voice in this place, people who are already being seen by the first division in this place as having been neglected by those opposite. They are the 29,704 people who have private health insurance in the electorate of Bowman; the 28,273 people who hold it in the seat of Brisbane; the 38,230 people—or 48 per cent of the population—in Capricornia; some 30,275 electors—or 39 per cent of the population—in Dickson, my neighbouring electorate; some 33,394 people in Lilley; 20,836 in Oxley; and a further 21,439 people in the seat of Rankin.There can be no good reason for the deafening silence of the members opposite other than to support their beleaguered leader who was painted into a corner on this issue. The ALP is again divided on ideological lines. This is not the first time they have been divided on such lines—Ms Macklin interjecting—2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—on the basis of the decisions of the member for Jagajaga who interjects. The fact is that the ALP policy on this issue is being run by an ideologue, a true socialist, in the member for Jagajaga, who proves time and time again on social issues how Left she can possibly be. This is the woman who, having just cost the ALP an election with her capital gains tax proposal, is readying herself to apply the next loss to the ALP through this stand.The fact is that the member for Jagajaga wants to tax people's holiday homes. She wants to tax people's silver—the grandparents. These are the stands that she has taken in the past and the stands that she will take in the future. Of course, that decision, supported blindly by those opposite during the last campaign—and many of them will tell you in the hallways in this place that it cost them dearly at the last election—has now been rejected. So how long will it be before the policy that they come in here to denounce today will also be rejected by those opposite? I hope for their sake it is only the two to three weeks that it took them in the past to recognise the folly of their ways.The member for Jagajaga and the Leader of the Opposition are condemning many of those who sit opposite to be `oncers'. Let me assure these members that we will be pointing out to their constituents time and time again over the next three years what their local Labor member of parliament has done and how they have been represented in this place.Whatever the faults of the Australian Labor Party, they have proven themselves to be pragmatists on occasions. Who can forget Graham Richardson's ethos, `Whatever it takes'? He was the man who represented them as the minister for health in this place and who was denounced by those opposite in the chamber here today. Mr Richardson is one of the many critics of the ALP's ideological position on this particular proposal. If I were one of the Labor backbenchers sitting on a small or medium margin, I would be very nervous that Labor's policies on an important issue like health are being hijacked by the `loony Left'.Unfortunately for them and for all of Australia, the consequences go much further than to just those people who hold private health insurance. The refusal of those opposite to support this measure has profound consequences that go way beyond the immediate impact. It will mean, on average, a loss of $8.9 million of additional household expenditure per electorate. That will result in school shoes for children that might otherwise have been purchased not being purchased. It will mean that state schools like Narangba and Strathpine in the seat of the member for Dickson not being replaced. It may result in parents purchasing less fruit and vegetables for their children, or perhaps not allowing their children to participate in a sporting activity, which of course also has a profound impact on children's health—all because Labor is locked into an unsustainable, ideological position by the member for Jagajaga.It will not be just those who will miss out on this rebate who will be the losers; it will be the shopkeepers, the bakers, the butchers, the small business community, who add to the wealth and the health of their communities by providing jobs.The Labor Party is also denying the wider community the benefits that this rebate will deliver. I realise the member for Dickson has not lived for very long in the area that she now represents. However, surely she is aware that neither the Caboolture nor the Redcliffe hospitals would cope even if a small percentage of those currently contributing to their own health needs were to opt out and rely on these two hospitals.There are in excess of 84,000 people currently covered by private health insurance in the electorates of Longman, Petrie and Dickson alone. Does the member for Dickson seriously believe that any public hospital system could cope if, as Labor would have it, these people took Labor's ideological approach and said, `No more, the state can look after me'?And the argument that the government should spend more on public hospitals simply does not stack up. Australians currently contribute $4.5 billion per year via private hospital insurance to the health system. Given that the percentage of the population having private hospital insurance halved under Labor administration, then it is logical to conclude that in today's terms that represents a loss of approximately $4.5 billion in voluntary health contributions.It is no wonder that this government has had to increase health spending via the Medicare agreement by 19 per cent, or $7.2 billion, over the next five years to make up for this gap. Of course, if nothing is done to redress the decreasing numbers paying private health insurance then this money will not build on the current hospital system and improve it but simply be used to prop up the overstretched current system.The thing that really highlights the opposition's hypocrisy on this issue was their constant condemnation of the existing incentive scheme throughout the last parliament. Their then spokesman constantly came to the dispatch box telling all and sundry that this was a failed scheme and should be abandoned. But what did they do during the election? The fact is that they supported the very scheme that they as an opposition had condemned for 2½ years. They said it did not work, yet they want to continue it. If that is not hypocrisy, I do not know what is.The facts are that Labor, over 13 years, systematically destroyed private health insurance. That was one of the major factors behind the deterioration of the national health system whilst they were in government. They took private health insurance to all time lows. They removed the rebates that were there. They removed the bed day subsidies that were there. Why? Because the member for Jagajaga was also advising on these issues in opposition and her ideology was being driven through these policy decisions.Now we have a situation where not one of the eight Queensland Labor members in this chamber will stand up for their constituents. Why were they not prepared to stand here and defend the stance that they took on the floor of the chamber on the first division of this 39th Parliament? This is not the time to go missing in action. This is the time to say no to the ideologically driven member for Jagajaga, who seems to be getting her way more and more in the Labor Party of 1998. But there is something that the members opposite can do and, more importantly, there is something that the electors in the seats of Bowman, Lilley, Brisbane, Oxley, Capricornia, Rankin, Griffith and Dickson can do. They can petition their senators. They can petition their Labor senators and say, `Enough is enough. You've made your point. We don't like your point. We rejected it at the last election. We want you now to stand up in the Senate and support the government's legislation. We want you to support the fact that this government has increased Medicare funding to the states by 17½ per cent. We want you to support the government's stance so that we can retain the hard-won money that we put into our own private health insurance. It is a choice that we make for a better quality of life for us, but it has a spin-off for all of the community.'If the 980,000 Queenslanders who currently take out private health insurance were to reject it tomorrow, our hospital system would collapse. There is no doubt about that. That is why we are in the strife we are today, because they were the policies that Labor followed for 13 years. I encourage all Queenslanders to speak loudly to all Queensland Labor senators. Send them a clear message that the time has come for them to support this piece of legislation and do an about-turn, as they so often do, after the member for Jagajaga's ideologically driven leftist approach is seen to have been defeating both the Labor Party and good governance.13:28:00612Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I cannot let go the comments made by the previous member regarding these issues.8E4WOOLDRIDGEDr Wooldridge—I move the question be now put.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! The question is that the member be no longer heard.A division having been called and the bells being rung—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Could you clarify the exact terms of the question before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—While the members are gathering I will qualify it. I understood the minister to move the speaker be no longer heard. The Clerk has reminded me that the minister moved that the question be now put.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I think that was what he meant to move but was not what he did move.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Well, I understood it to be that the speaker be no longer heard.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—That is the question he should have put.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The Clerk has told me that the words were that the question be now put.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—With respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, the question you put, to which we voted no, was that the speaker be no longer heard. That is the question which you put and that is the question on which we are voting.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business has a point. The Clerk has brought to my notice that the minister had moved that the question be put, but I had clearly put to the House that the speaker no longer be heard. I have been reminded of the fact that that is what I put to the House. If I have mistakenly heard the words of the minister I apologise to him. But that is what I heard, Minister, that you said that the speaker no longer be heard. For clarification I must apologise to everyone in the House. The Clerk has reminded me that it was distinct—the minister distinctly said that the question be put. Mr McMullan interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am going to put to the House now, because the division that was taken, in which I interpreted the minister's words—and I will take responsibility for that—was the question that the speaker be no longer heard. The honourable member for Bruce jumped to his feet, he then started to speak. during his speaking the minister got to his feet, the minister then spoke and in those words, while the member for Bruce was speaking, I put that the member no longer be heard and that is what the vote is on now—that the member be no longer heard. That is what we are dividing on in this House. I know the Clerk may disagree but unfortu nately that is my interpretation of what I spoke about when I called for the division. We may have a debate but let us resume it later because the bells have rung, the ringing has concluded and we are in the middle of the division. I will repeat the question for the clarification of the House. It is a motion that the speaker no longer be heard. That is the question you are now dividing on. That is what I am ruling on.Question put:That the member be not further heard.13:35:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Hon. J.A. Crosio)76Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.58Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Bevis, A. R. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, G. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Dr Wooldridge ) put: That the question be now put.13:47:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Hon. J.A. Crosio)76Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.58Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Bevis, A. R. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, G. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the bill be now read a second time.13:54:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Hon. J.A. Crosio)76Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.58Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Bevis, A. R. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, G. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.615Bill—by leave—taken as whole.13:57:00615Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Madam Deputy Speaker, what I would like to raise with the minister in consideration in detail—Motion (by Dr Wooldridge) put:That the question be now put.MG4LEEMr Lee—My point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that you cannot move that motion while the member for Jagajaga has the call and is speaking.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The Clerk has advised me that that motion can be moved at any time. The fact is that the minister did move that the question be now put and the question now before the House is that the question be now put.MG4LEEMr Lee—(Inaudible )10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—To your point of order, and on taking advice from the Clerk, I have been informed that that motion can be put at any time. Therefore, I have to rule that there is no point of order.14:03:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)76Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hockey, J. B. Howard, J. W.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. * McGauran, P. J. Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R. Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E. Tuckery, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.61Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Beazley, K. C. Bevis, A. R.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Having concluded that question, the blue and the standing orders suggest that, with it being past 2 p.m., we now should proceed to question time before moving to the third reading. Is that not the case?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—We have just agreed the resolution that the question be now put. Therefore, the chair has no choice but to put the question and then move to question time.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—(Inaudible )10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Would the member for Fraser resume his seat. The question was that the question be put. The House has now resolved to put the question, and I intend to put the question that the bill be agreed to.MG4LEEMr Lee—I might be wrong, Mr Speaker, but I thought—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Dobell has the call, and he is entitled, as is every other member in this House, to be heard in silence.MG4LEEMr Lee—I thought the question was, `Is it the wish of the House to proceed to consideration in detail forthwith?' I thought that was the question before the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As the member for Dobell will understand, having come into the chair I was very anxious to find that I had the right question. So I checked with both the Deputy Speaker and the Clerk. We have just resolved the question that the question be put, which was proposed by the minister for health. We now have to put the question, and the question that needs to be put is that the bill be agreed to. The question is that the bill be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I concede the point of the member for Fraser that it is now past 2 p.m. It being past 2 p.m., consideration of the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A.Questions Without Notice617617617Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it not the fact that the Australian Taxation Office provided to the government's tax reform task force earlier this year evidence of a new generation of tax rorts and the risk they pose to the revenue base? Is it not also a fact that the tax office has provided advice to the government on options for legislative change to combat those new rorts? Will the government act on this advice, or will the Prime Minister once again allow a telephone book of warnings and submissions on tax rorts from the tax commissioner to accumulate while he does nothing—just as he did when he was Treasurer in the Fraser government?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has put his question.617Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Treasurer, I have not called you because I have not as yet had sufficient silence for me to consider that you were being offered the courtesy that should be extended to every member of the House. I call the Treasurer to respond to the Leader of the Opposition's question.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What? Is he going to show you up again, John?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Batman!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Leader of the Opposition has in the last two question times and today referred to comments that have been made by Michael Carmody, the Commissioner of Taxation, on new generation type tax schemes in a speech that he gave to the chartered accountants in business congress of 1998. In the course of that speech, Mr Carmody indicated that he was worried about tax effective investments. He stated:In June of this year I spoke of our concerns about the huge growth in a range of tax effective investments in such things as research, films and primary production. To give you some idea of what I mean, the level of deductions in that year—in 1996-97—associated with arrangements we have most concern about is in excess of $1 billion.Mr Carmody is an independent statutory officer. Having become aware of those schemes, he is now investigating them and taking action.I am aware that he is taking action because I have had numbers of complaints from members of parliament that he is taking too aggressive action. For example, I have a complaint from the member for Fremantle on 5 June 1998 complaining about the Commissioner of Taxation investigating one such scheme. I have a complaint from Daryl Melham, the member for Banks, on 11 June 1998 about the action that the commissioner was taking. I have a complaint from Mr Rod Sawford of 15 June about the action that the commissioner was taking. I have a complaint from Robert McClelland on 16 June 1998 about the action the commissioner was taking.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Treasurer will refer to members by their electorates as well.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I have a complaint from the member for Throsby on 22 June about the activity. I could go on. I have a complaint from the member for Hunter on 29 July 1998 which states:I make representation on behalf of 12 families in my electorate. They have been hit for six by the Australian Taxation Commissioner's recent ruling with respect to investment in the film Clockers . Your intervention in the matter will be very much appreciated.So we have the Leader of the Opposition saying, `What is the government doing about these tax plans?' and his backbenchers are running around saying, `Stop them, please stop them!' When you give away economic credibility, you only make a mockery of your own position.618618Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House if he is aware of claims the government's tax reform plan will have an adverse effect on the level of employment in Australia? What is the Treasurer's response to such reports?618Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question and for his interest in legitimate tax reform. It has been argued and I think it is pretty clear that the government's tax reform, which is a proposal to take taxes off business inputs and to take taxes off Australian exports, will lead to the creation of jobs. Our proposal to improve business taxation in this country and to reduce personal income tax rates for average Australians down to 30 per cent will be great for incentive.One has to follow the claims of the Labor Party, which apparently is prepared to make any claim to try to justify its reactionary position in relation to tax, and they normally take a few days to track down. The member for Hotham has been running around the country saying that tax reform costs jobs. His first authority for that proposition was based on a work by Dr Colin Hargreaves, who put out a statement on the Internet under the name of the Economic Modelling Bureau of Australia, which the Press Gallery will recall the Labor Party hawked about before the election. They hawked about a document saying that the Economic Modelling Bureau of Australia had on its board of reference Vince FitzGerald, Ross Garnaut and Chris Murphy. When Ross Garnaut was made aware of this claim, he put out a statement saying:We regret the way in which this paper on the effects of a GST on jobs has been associated with the ANU. In our opinion, the economic analysis on a GST on jobs is not reflective of the high standards of the ANU.Mr Vince FitzGerald, who also had his name taken in vain in support of this claim, put out a public letter saying:I am writing to let you know that I no longer wish to be on the board of the EMBA, if indeed there is an EMBA.Mr Chris Murphy also put out a statement saying that any attempt to try to link the tax reform with the loss of jobs was erroneous. When the member for Hotham put out the claim, first of all based on Dr Hargreaves—all of whose referees walked away—and said it would cost jobs, he then made this claim:. . . Access Economics . . . say it will cost 130,000 jobs.That was Simon Crean talking to Fran Kelly on Radio National on 12 November 1998. I have now contacted Access Economics. They say that the modelling that they have done on the government's tax reform package creates in its first year an additional 23,000 jobs, an additional 21,000 in the year after that, an additional 54,000 in the year after that and 190,000 new jobs in the first decade, and the member for Hotham went on ABC radio and quoted Access Economics as saying it will cost jobs. It always takes a few days, but you can run these claims. I say to the journalists, before you publish them, give us a few days to run them down. You can always run them down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Treasurer will address his remarks to the Speaker, not to the journalists. CT4Mr COSTELLO—We have this extraordinary situation where the Australian Labor Party now say that they need four inquiries into the government's tax plan before they can vote against it. They are opposed to the government's tax plan and they are going to vote against it under all the circumstances, and that is why they need five months to inquire into it!The Australian Labor Party had to conduct a ballot as to who would actually be their chairman on this inquiry. As AM reported this morning:But it's hardly a sign of the future, is it, when your key Economic Committee Chairman's drawn from a hat after a battle of the factions?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—That is something the Liberal Party does not do. The Prime Minister appoints them. The supine backbench.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition!CT4Mr COSTELLO—He always yells loudest when he is in the most trouble. Mr Crean answered:Well, I think that shows a pretty evenly divided Caucus situation . . . He said:. . . it's not the first time decisions like this have been drawn from a hat . . . Labor making up its tax policy—drawing from a hat! Labor finding its economic chairman—drawing from a hat! Labor finding talent from its backbench—drawing from a hat! This is high farce from a group of people who will not confront the issues that the Australian public voted on. Pass the tax plan.619619Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, the only farce was yesterday's policy on the run by the Treasurer in relation to bank—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the member for Hotham does not move to his question, he will resume his seat.DT4Mr CREAN—My question is to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen reports that the Australian Bankers Association is seeking a GST on a wide range of financial services? Has he seen reports that the ABA Chief Executive, Tony Aveling, has ruled out seeking a GST on normal bank account fees only `at the current time'? Will the Treasurer assure the House that he will never ever levy a GST on ordinary consumer bank account and transaction fees?619Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Of course I am aware that the Australian Bankers Association sought to bring financial services into the scope of the GST, and they were informed no. That is why our policy says it will not happen. As I said yesterday, on several occasions, the ABA sought to come into the GST system. Why? Many businesses seek to come into the GST system because they actually find that it helps them. After considering it, the government said no, and that is the policy.619619Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, given the very positive expectation for further employment growth in the small business sector that was contained in the Yellow Pages small business survey yesterday, could you inform the House of any impediments that stand in the way of businesses taking on extra people? Are you aware of recent comments by business people raising concerns about impediments to employment?619Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for Dawson for her question. There has been survey after survey after survey of the small business community, and they are saying one thing quite clearly: they would like to employ more people but they are genuinely concerned about the unfair dismissal system. We have gone a fair way to reforming it, but there is absolutely no doubt that we could create more jobs in the Australian community if we could provide a fairer deal for small business, and that means the passage of the legislation which we put to the House and which is critical to the creation of up to 50,000 jobs—on the advice of the independent small business community.The fact is that there is an impediment to creating more jobs in this economy, and that impediment is the Labor Party, because they are opposed to doing things which would assist the small business community. They not only created the problem but they are now opposed to the fixing of the problem. It is the Labor Party, with a frontbench stacked with ex-ACTU presidents and trade union hacks. The Queensland Teachers Union now has the shadow portfolio. The deputy leader is an ex-ACTU hack—as is the shadow minister for finance. You have all these ex-union people running the Labor Party and stopping the creation of jobs in the small business community.We have of course provided a briefing to the shadow minister on the unfair dismissal law. We are also prepared to provide a briefing to the new shadow minister for small business. We would hope that the Labor Party might finally put ideology aside and realise that jobs are more important, and that this measure for the benefit of small business really would create jobs. That offer is there for the shadow minister. I am not sure that he needs a briefing from us, because he was asked recently on the Sunday program what perceptions there were in the small business community about unfair dismissal and I am very pleased to say that in responding to this question he said that his own family had had some experience of the unfair dismissal law. This is what he said:Well my wife constantly tells me she could afford to put on one person or would like to put on one more person, but is fearful of unfair dismissals . . . That was a pretty fair comment to make. Commonsense dictates that this is a measure which will create jobs in the small business community. These people know that that would do so, but it is only the ACTU and the ex-union types on Labor's frontbench which is preventing the passage of that legislation.620620Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, yesterday under pressure you ruled out a GST—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Ha, ha!DT4Mr CREAN—He doesn't think it's pressure. This man deludes himself. Yesterday under pressure you ruled out a GST on fees for opening and maintaining bank accounts. With regard to the following clearly identifi able mortgage service fees, will your GST apply to loan application fees, loan establishment fees, mortgage insurance fees and real estate valuation fees?620Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I made entirely clear yesterday on several occasions, financial services are input taxed and there is no GST on their outputs. That is, there is no GST on the financial service—or the fee for the financial service, as I also said to you. Where a bank provides a service for competitive neutrality purposes which is subject to a GST because the product is sold by somebody else, such as insurance or—the other example I gave to you—financial advice, the GST will apply to that. If that was a case of being under pressure yesterday—oh, we love it! Put us under such pressure every day.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—We saw you under pressure during the campaign, Pete!PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Is there a GST on Panadol?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman, members on my right and the member for Jagajaga will not engage in cross-parliamentary exchange.620620Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of recent comments from the Australian Medical Association and others that the survival of Australia's public hospital system depends on the survival of the private health system, and therefore the rebate for people with private health insurance should be widely supported? What is the minister's response to these comments and is he aware of any alternative plans being put forward to ensure that Australia's balanced system of health care survives into the 21st century?620Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of the AMA's comments. They came from the deputy president, Dr Sandra Hacker. The AMA, of course, is not a body that always agrees with what the government is doing and has been quite prepared to say so in the past. I am also aware of some comments made today by a former national president of the Labor Party, Neil Batt. He has put out a press release which says the following:When Labor was developing Medicare—and he was around; he was on the national executive of the Labor Party from 1974 to 1980—it was always predicated on the need for a significant private health insurance membership base. We knew that the public hospitals and the tax system would not be able to cope if private health insurance levels fell too low. The Labor Party that gave Australia Medicare would never have declared war on private health insurance. It accepted the right of all Australians to have choice. By denying 5.3 million Australians a tangible benefit, Labor is itself responsible for every adverse health outcome in Australia.Mr Batt is not the first Labor person who has come out in support of the government's proposal. It follows on from Graham Richardson, the former Labor health minister, who last Friday said that the Labor Party's position was illogical and ideological, and it follows on from comments made previously by Peter Beattie, now the Labor Premier of Queensland, who said, `Everybody knows that the public system would be better off if there were more people in private health insurance.'The honourable member also asked me if I knew about any other proposals. I have to say that I do not, because there is no other proposal on the table. The Labor Party went to the last election with private health insurance on the backburner. It did not understand it. It was not able to come up with a policy so it went to the election with nothing—30 per cent of the health insurance system in Australia with nothing.So there is no alternative. There is not any organisation or body putting forward alternatives. You have a whingeing, carping, bellicose opposition. You have an after-dinner speech from the Leader of the Opposition. Can't you just imagine it: the Chinese takeaway, the bottle of red and him watching the television, seeing the debate coming on and saying, `I've got to get in there and talk,' and then giving a speech with no substance at all. That reflects your policy—no substance.621621Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Are the cost estimates of the impact of the private health insurance rebate legislation based on the assumption of no increase in membership of private health insurance funds and no increase in premiums by those funds?621Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The government clearly indicated to the Australian people before the last election the importance of private health cover. It indicated that it was prepared to ensure that that would occur by providing funding, and of course that has been the subject of some considerable debate. A number of modellings have been done on it.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Oh, there are! When are they going to be provided?HQ5Mr FAHEY—Clearly, there are always modellings done and there is a proposition—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister has the call.HQ5Mr FAHEY—You clearly don't want the answer. You don't want to know the answer; you want to play silly games, as you have at all times on private health cover. You are not interested in seeing that we have a viable health system in this country. The government has made its decision and that decision was given to the Australian people beforehand. It was verified, unlike Labor promises before the last election where they were not prepared under the charter of budget honesty to put forward their fundings for costing.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order relating to relevance. There was a specific question asked about whether or not the calculations that are to be put out in public were based on an assumption that there would be no increase in membership and no increase in the premiums. The question is: is it based on that?—nothing else.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I rule that the minister is in order, after all he is dealing with the whole question of private health insurance.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is in order.HQ5Mr FAHEY—As I indicated, the matter that the government put before the Australian people was costed by Finance. When Finance costs any matter that the government makes a decision on, it is based on reasonable assumptions, it is based on objective assumptions and in this instance it factors in the current levels of premiums and the take-up rate that would be applicable. The outcome is that the government has announced the cost that is there—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Mr Speaker—HQ5Mr FAHEY—Oh, sit down. It is based on all of the reasonable objective analysis that has been done, which the government accepts.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order relating to relevance. The minister has indicated that he has the figures. What are they? What are the assumptions that he has made his costings on?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga knows she is asking, as it were, a supplementary question. The minister has answered the question.622622Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. What is the government doing to expand quality training for real jobs? Is the minister aware of alternative proposals in relation to training, including calls for intellectual renewal? What is the minister's response to those proposals?622Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Moreton for his question. I appreciate it. I am still waiting for Mike Pezzullo and John Angley to write one for the shadow minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question he has been asked.BT4Dr KEMP—The Commonwealth has delivered since 1997 a total of 70,000 places in TAFE over and above the places that existed before then at no cost to the Commonwealth taxpayer. The Commonwealth has achieved these additional places as a result of its policy of growth through efficiencies.In the course of the election campaign and since, I have become aware of an alternative approach to TAFE places. The Labor Party, in the butchered education policy that it put before the people, promised a meagre 10,000 additional places in TAFE over three years at a cost of $120 million to the taxpayer. In other words, the coalition through good government can deliver 70,000 additional places at no cost to the taxpayer; the Labor Party is going to sting the taxpayer for $120 million for a mere 10,000 additional places.This shows the utter incompetence of the policy that the Labor Party put before the people at the last election. It is no wonder that the Leader of the Opposition is now calling for intellectual renewal within the Labor Party. What must his frontbench be thinking about this appeal of the Leader of the Opposition? As the little Red Indian from Werriwa said on 2BL on 7 October:What's the point of being a shadow minister to spend 18 months consulting closely with interest groups? What's the point of just going through what you think is a legitimate process in the party? What's the point of putting it down when you think of the quality format, to have it rewritten by someone in the leader's office who hadn't been involved in education policy at any part of the last 2½ years?The Labor Party's problem is that they have now got an education policy on the back bench without a spokesman, and they have a spokesman on the front bench without a policy. We all welcome the call for intellectual renewal, but it is a big job before the policy butchers in the Leader of the Opposition's office to deliver it.622622Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. The finance minister would be aware that currently 30.3 per cent of the population have private health cover. What increase in the take-up rate has been assumed in the costing of your new private health insurance rebate?UU5HORNEMr Horne—I bet he doesn't answer this one either.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson has a propensity to interject that is only rivalled by his predecessors.622Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—As I indicated a short time ago, clearly all members opposite would dearly love to see the hospital system break down. They have never supported private health cover.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. There was a very specific question asked here and only that question, nothing to justify a ramble on. And that question was: what are the assumptions on the take-up rate? That was the question. He says he has the figures.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I very nearly ruled this question out of order on the grounds that it had been fully answered.MG4LEEMr Lee—How can you rule it out on that basis when he has not answered the previous one?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am not here to enter into a debate with the member for Dobell. I merely indicate that the minister for finance has the call, and the answer is entirely in the minister for finance's hands.HQ5Mr FAHEY—Clearly, if the government did nothing, the fallout rate would be very significant, the drop-out rate would be very significant, and this government is not prepared to allow that to happen. My recollection is that there would be an increase in the uptake, the exact details of that uptake I am not sure of but I will find out. I cannot recollect the exact increase of the uptake from the current 30.3 per cent. I will find out, and I will inform the Leader of the Opposition very soon.623623Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House why the Australian government did not support the United Nations resolution entitled `Towards a nuclear-weapons free world: the need for a new agenda', and whether the government has lessened its commitment to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.623Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Forde for her question. I recognise her interest in these issues and the interests that many members of the coalition have in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. The short answer to the honourable member's question is that this government looks to achieve practical outcomes in foreign policy. We will support proposals that we think will help to advance the cause of nuclear non-proliferation and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. We did promote the Canberra Commission's report. I presented it to the United Nations General Assembly, I presented it to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, and it was circulated to all relevant foreign ministries—just about all foreign ministries—around the world. One of the conclusions of the Canberra Commission's report—which I suspect on the opposition side has only been read by the member for Holt, the man whom the Labor Party wants to hold an inquiry into now—was that the nuclear weapons states themselves had to act to eliminate nuclear weapons. The truth is that action has been taken in the right direction. During the course of this decade, the United States and Russia have halved their holdings of nuclear weapons. We have high expectations that the Russian Duma will ratify the START II agreement so that START II will come into force and START III will be under way as well.But we have been doing more than that. We have been out there promoting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. The achievements of the Australian government in bringing to life that treaty will stand as one of the great monuments to non-proliferation by Australia. We are also in the process of promoting the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and I have very great optimism that, during the course of next year, a treaty can be concluded in the Conference on Disarmament.The new agenda proposal put forward by a number of countries has many features that are attractive, but it is an agenda which is ill-defined. It includes, for example, the proposal for an international conference on disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons. Frankly, we believe that to hold such a conference now would complicate the work being done to promote the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and to conclude the further signatories of the comprehensive test-ban treaty. There are some people of goodwill in this parliament who support the new agenda proposal and I recognise, in many cases, their goodwill. But I have gone to the trouble to find out where the Labor Party stands on this issue. I could find no reference at all to where the Labor Party stood on the new agenda. It has done no policy work whatsoever on this important issue. They set up the Canberra Commission and, since then, they have done absolutely nothing. They are a policy vacuum on one of the key issues that the international community is facing.But then I hesitated because I did find that the Labor Party had done something. A few weeks ago they supported a resolution in the Senate promoting the new agenda. But did the Labor Party put up the motion? No, Senator Margetts did. So the Labor Party's policy in so far as it exists is written by none other than Senator Margetts.624624Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Will the minister make the several modelling options to which he referred in his answer available to the parliament before further consideration of the legislation?624Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The government has accepted a proposal. The acceptance of that proposal is part of the legislation before this parliament at the present time. That is the only issue that is relevant to this debate.624624Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister please advise the House of the status of the Productivity Commission report into the pig and pig meat industries on the safeguard actions against imports? What steps will the minister be taking as a result of the commission's findings?624Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Riverina for her question. As all members of the House would be aware, the pig and pig meat industries in Australia have been in a bit of turmoil and suffering from low commodity prices in recent times. As a result of that, we commissioned an inquiry by the Productivity Commission into whether safeguard actions should be applied. That report has been tabled in the parliament today. It contains a number of findings which we will now be consulting with representatives of the pig meat industry about prior to formulating our response to the report.There has been a fair bit of debate about this issue. I think what should be noted are some of the circumstances that have existed in the past that caused this circumstance. People should note that the Labor Party removed the tariff from this industry in the early 1990s without providing any assistance to industry to adjust.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Did you oppose it?SU5Mr VAILE—They removed that tariff and they did not provide any assistance to adjust.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Did you?SU5Mr VAILE—Earlier this year—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Tell us whether you opposed it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne persists in interjecting. I will not warn him again today.SU5Mr VAILE—Earlier this year, our government announced a $19 million package of assistance to help the industry adjust to the international marketplace and to help it focus on international marketing and exports. It is instructive to note that in the last 12 months exports of pig meat from Australia have actually increased by 84 per cent.624624Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that you have so little confidence in your new $1.5 billion a year health fund rebate that you have assumed it will generate no increase whatsoever in private health cover? If not, what is your new target?624Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the first question is that the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect. I have been informed that the assumed rise on which the calculation has been made is to a figure of 33 per cent.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It should not be necessary for the Speaker to rise in order to achieve some sort of civility in the chamber.625625Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the initiatives this government has introduced in the area of youth traineeships and apprenticeships? As the school year comes to a close, how will those initiatives assist young Australians to make the transition from school to employment?625Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. I acknowledge his great interest in the future of young people in his electorate. The coalition is committed to giving all young Australians the best possible opportunities in life through the education and training system. That is why we put in place our national literacy reforms. It is why we are providing a pathway from work to school. It is why we are maintaining junior wage rates so that young people can compete for the jobs that are available.As we approach the end of the school year, many thousands of young people will have the opportunity to take advantage of the government's training reforms. The government has put in place a new national training system that provides young people with national, portable, recognised qualifications for jobs. This year, over 200,000 people will be participating in the new apprenticeship system. I should tell young people that new apprenticeships are available now not just in the traditional trades. They are available across the whole range of new industries, such as information technology, communications and multimedia as well as in areas such as sport, recreation and finance. There are now some 60 new apprenticeship centres available throughout Australia. I invite young people to inquire at these centres about what opportunities are available to them in their areas.This year, the government is also funding some 80 job pathway brokers, who will be assisting some 1,400 schools and the school leavers at those schools to move effectively from school to jobs. This government is committed to the future of young Australians. This government has policies. The other side of the House has a massive, gaping policy vacuum. We are determined that young people will have opportunities.625625Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has just now confirmed to the House that we have a $1.5 billion per annum expenditure to lift the private health coverage of the population from 30.3 to 33.0 per cent.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You questions?PE4Mr BEAZLEY—How do you expect the House to believe that the further underpinning of this figure is based on an assumption that, as the Minister for Finance said, there will be no premium increase? What arrangements and agreements have you entered into to ensure that, in order to sustain your figuring, there is no premium increase?625Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The assumption on which the Leader of the Opposition's question is based is wrong.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Where is it wrong?ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is completely wrong. Not only do I call it wrong, but Graham Richardson calls it wrong as well. The reality is that, unless further action is taken, there will be a further catastrophic decline in the number of people taking out private health insurance in this country. That is exactly what the Australian Labor Party wants. The Australian Labor Party is opposed to private health insurance. That is why Graham Richardson was driven to say this on 23 November this year:I don't understand why Labor can't simply stand up and say—yes we do need to have a system of private health.The reason that Labor will not stand up and say that is that Labor does not believe, in its modern manifestation, that we should have a system of private health insurance. The incentive that the government has proposed, an incentive that will help 700,000 people who are on—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance.Government members interjecting—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—There is no frivolity in this.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I have asked a direct question based on the government's assumption—ZD4Mr HOWARD—And I am giving a direct answer.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—No, we are not getting an answer to the question. Having now got out the figuring in relation to the increase in coverage, I asked a question—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The point of order?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It goes to relevance. We are now trying to get the assumptions—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will rule on relevance.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—That was the question, and nothing else.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat, and I will rule on relevance.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—One moment, Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition, along with any other member, has the right to a point of order on relevance at any time, as he knows. He does not have the right, and neither does the Speaker, to instruct how the question will be answered. It is not reasonable to say that the Prime Minister's answer on private health insurance was not relevant to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The money that is involved in the new 30 per cent tax reduction that the Australian people voted for on 3 October will obtain three benefits. It will, on the assumptions that have been made, lead to an increase in the number of people who are taking out private health insurance. It will also achieve a very, very significant cost saving to the Commonwealth if it prevents a further burden being thrown on the public purse by the additional strain on the public hospital system if there is a further fall in the number of people who are privately insured.What the Labor Party has done is to watch the steady decline, year over year, of the number of people in private health insurance. When Richardson was your health minister, he warned you that if this fell below 40 per cent you would have a problem, and Carmen Lawrence, Paul Keating and Kim Beazley rubbed their hands together and said, `Terrific, let's have the problem, because we don't believe in private health insurance.'XS4LAWRENCEDr Lawrence—I am the member for Fremantle.ZD4Mr HOWARD—And year after year under Labor the number of people—Honourable members interjecting—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—We may not like every minute of it, but we also want a bit of relevance. Mr Speaker, my point of order is to relevance. There was a very specific question asked here, and there is control under the standing orders in the hands of the Speaker on relevance and a capacity to give an interpretation on it. This cover-up smokescreen is a million miles from an answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. What the Prime Minister has been saying is entirely relevant to the question of private health insurance. The Prime Minister has the call. I should, however, Prime Minister, indicate that the member for Fremantle did—while by interjection and therefore not really deserving this level of tolerance—make the point that she was entitled to be referred to by her seat, and I do reinforce that point.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I apologise to the member for Fremantle for not referring to her as the member for Fremantle. But the member for Fremantle, the then finance minister in the Labor government and now Leader of the Opposition, and the then Prime Minister in the Labor government all rubbed their hands together and said, `Let's have a crisis in private health insurance because we do not believe in it.'The Australian people have a very clear choice: you either invest more money in private health insurance and preserve it as a viable alternative for middle Australia or let it die as an available option for middle Australia. You restrict it entirely to the very wealthy who will always be able to afford to take it out and you load onto the public hospital system of this country the health needs of the overwhelming bulk of the Australian community. That is what the Labor Party wants. The Labor Party wants a two-tiered health system in this country. It wants a health system that will always be able to be afforded by the very wealthy and it wants the rest to compete for the resources of the public hospital system.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister, I would imagine, is winding up his answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Prime Minister is winding up his answer. I am winding up to my answer, Mr Speaker. Can I just say we have that very clear choice: either you have a balanced system where there is fair access for middle Australia to private health insurance or you turn your back on private health insurance, surrender it to the very wealthy and leave the rest of the community with the public system. I do not think that is fair, we will never think it is fair, and that is why we are committing these resources to give middle Australia the opportunity of taking out private health insurance.627627Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. The minister has previously reported to the House that he is undertaking a round of consultations with the Job Network members around the country. Can the minister inform the House of what work is being done by the Job Network members in helping the unemployed into jobs?627Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I would like to thank the member for Robertson for his question. The member for Robertson takes a great interest in the Job Network, and last Friday he opened a new office of Wesley Employment in his electorate. Over the past few weeks, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Rela tions and Small Business and I, singly or together, have consulted with a representative sample of 26 Job Network members. There have been three meetings with senior officers of Centrelink and two lengthy discussions with the board of the National Employment Services Association. Obviously, we would not be making this effort if everything was absolutely perfect, but I can inform the House that the Job Network is already significantly outperforming the Commonwealth Employment Service at getting unemployed people into work—and that is the test which really counts. The other day the well-known journalist Michael Duffy said:Many of the employment and training organisations in . . . the Job Network are non-profit groups (e.g. the Salvation Army, the Catholic Church) and admirable in the work they're doing. It makes a lot of sense for government to continue to work with such groups in a spirit of partnership.Through these consultations it has been impossible not to feel a surge of pride and satisfaction at the work these great organisations are doing to help Australians in need, people like Adrian Atkinson—I quote from a document put out by the Salvation Army—who said:I would like to thank you all for your help, support and encouragement while looking for work. Since working with a Salvation Army case manager, I have become more confident with job skills and am always encouraging others to use your services.Frank Ross said of the Salvation Army Employment Plus:You have been very helpful, honest, very open.They've actually sent you for a job, not just taking your name. They cared about you.There is no great secret to the success of these organisations. Whether their primary motivation is profit, service to the community or religious idealism, these great organisations are determined not just to work with the unemployed, but to put the unemployed into work.The member for Werriwa understands the importance of harnessing the community sector to important social goals. The member for Werriwa is not shirking the task of policy creation. If the Leader of the Opposition were serious about intellectual renewal, he would immediately invite the member for Werriwa to return to Labor's front bench. The member for Werriwa's absence is a sign of the intellectual vacuum at the heart of a party which once prided itself on its mastery of ideas. But the member for Werriwa is not the only one—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I hope the minister is now returning to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I am indeed, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I invite the minister to continue, but his reference to the member for Werriwa wasn't immediately relevant.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I am now quoting Professor John Freeland, the head of the Evatt Foundation. John Freeland talks about the very things which underpin the Job Network. He talks of `the need to identify new policies relating to the generation of wealth, capturing the ingenuity, the creativity, the wealth generating capacity of the market, but harnessing that to achieve the sorts of social objectives we want'. That is a very good description of the Job Network. The Job Network precisely involves these sorts of principles. The Job Network is the so-called `third way' in action. What we have done with the Job Network is recruit a rollcall of the greatest names in Australian charity—Mission Australia, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Salvation Army and Centrecare, and through the Job Network we have enabled them to work even better with the Australians who need it most.628628Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will recollect that he put his previous rebate to study by the Productivity Commission for its value in terms of producing savings in public health policy. Are you aware that page 88 of your own Productivity Commission found that spending $500 million a year to achieve a 3.7 per cent increase wasted $320 million? How can you now argue that spending $1.5 billion a year to achieve an increase of only 2.7 per cent is good public policy?628Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I have long since learnt at this dispatch box never to take at face value quotations that are made in public documents by— DT4CREANMr Crean—It is your report.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—ZD4Mr HOWARD—There is not a point of order, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition now has the call.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I seek leave to table the document so the prime minister can attest as to whether or not it is accurate.DT4CREANMr Crean—Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Granting leave is not the prerogative of the Speaker and the Speaker doesn't intend to have documents tabled in the middle of the answer to a question. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have learnt not to accept the interpretations placed on public documents by members of the opposition. But let me simply restate the choice. In the end this is about a choice: whether you believe in having a viable private health system or not. We do, you don't. That's the simple choice. For 13 years you allowed the private hospital system to waste away. For 13 years you rejected the entreaties even of those on your side of politics who wanted to preserve the private health system. Let me say to the Australian public that you are seeing played out in the parliament of Australia this week a perfect contrast—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I go to the point of relevance. Did he see the Productivity Commission report when he proposed spending $1.5 billion? That is what the question was about, the Productivity Commission—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Australian people are seeing played out in the parliament this week a very clear demonstration that for middle Australia there is only one side of politics to support on private health insurance, and that is the coalition side. It is only the coalition that is prepared to say to middle Australian families: `We will give you financial help to take out private health insurance.' I say to all of those newly appointed Labor members who hold very small majorities: you go and talk to the families in your electorates about whether they want a private health insurance rebate. You go and ask the people who are battling to bring up a family on a modest middle income whether they want private health insurance and you will find that it is the overwhelming aspiration of middle Australian families to have private health insurance. They overwhelmingly welcome this initiative of the government. They know who is in there batting for them. It is not the Australian Labor Party; it is the coalition.629629Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—This question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Can the minister inform the House how local veterans in my electorate of Barker will benefit from Monday's announcement of expanded veterans services in the Murray Mallee region?629Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Barker for his first question in this House and also acknowledge that he is very keen to see the services in rural Australia improve. He knows, as we on this side of the parliament know, that it is this side of the House that is going to deliver better services to rural and regional Australia. The new member for Barker particularly has a great interest in our veteran community.I announced on Monday that the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be contracting local organisations in the Murray and Mallee regional electorates and also in the upper and mid-north part of South Australia in the electorate of Grey to assist in the provision of services to local veterans. These local organisations—the Murray Mallee Financial Information Service and the Upper and Mid North Rural Justice Committee—will provide weekly and fortnightly services to those two communities. They will be able not only to provide these services but also to explain eligibility to veterans in those communities and to take applications for compensation, health and income support entitlements.This is in recognition of the fact that one-third of our nation's veterans live in rural Australia, and they deserve the same type of assistance and access to information as our veterans who live in the more populated parts of our nation. It is we on this side of the House, as I said earlier, who are going to deliver to these communities in rural and remote Australia, because we have at heart the interests of our veterans—wherever they live.This bill is on our commitment to extend the eligibility of our veterans to the gold card. On 1 January next year, up to 50,000 veterans who have qualifying service from the Second World War will receive that eligibility. I am pleased to receive this question from the member for Barker. I look forward to working with him to bring better services to veterans in rural Australia and, particularly in this case, to veterans in the seat of Barker.629629Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Has the minister's attention been drawn to comments by Major General John Hartley and senior officers of Navy's Maritime Headquarters Australia concerning chaos, fluctuating morale and job insecurity in Australia's Defence Force? Is the minister aware that during 1997-98, 80 lieutenant colonels, 42 colonels, 10 brigadiers and five major generals quit, and that an additional 20 per cent of the Army's lieutenant colonels are proposing to resign as a direct result of poor morale, lack of career paths and your government's ill-conceived cost cutting measures? What action do you propose to take to address this untenable situation?629Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I am glad the member for Cunningham raised this matter, because it has been canvassed in a number of newspapers in Australia. The reaction is to the Defence Review Program which has been implemented across the whole of defence in Australia. At this stage we should draw to the attention of the House that the purpose of the reform program was to divert the balance within the Defence Force of Australia to 60 per cent active and 40 per cent support. As a consequence of those changes there will be shifts in personnel. It is the management of the shifts in personnel which is most important to the government. As a consequence of that I have asked the department—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members on the opposition front bench, the minister has the call.EI4Mr MOORE—I have asked the Department of Defence to assess the implications of the changes in personnel and to press on at the same time with the reform program. It is utterly important to Australian defence that the $1 billion that we are saving in this defence reform be transferred to the active side of the defence portfolio. As a consequence of that, Australian defence forces in the future will be very much more on the alert than they have been in the past.IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—When will you be on the alert? What are you going to do about the problem?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister will resume his seat. It has been a mystery to me just what it is that the seat of the member for the Northern Territory has in it that means that both its previous and present occupants have found it necessary to be perpetual interjectors. It could be interjection by osmosis, but I do not intend to sit here and tolerate further unnecessary interjections from the member for the Northern Territory. The minister has the call.EI4Mr MOORE—As I was saying, the objective of the defence reform was to catch up on the 15 years in which the Labor Party neglected the defence forces. As a consequence of that, the Defence Reform Program will continue. The initiatives taken by the government are very welcome by the senior areas of defence.630630Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. A number of newsagents and sub-agents in my electorate of Longman are concerned about the Australian Competition Tribunal's decision concerning the newsagency industry. Can the minister inform the House of the progress in discussions that have taken place with the key stakeholders in this matter?630Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Longman for his question. I know he has a very keen interest in this issue, as do a number of my colleagues.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—So does the Prime Minister!DK6Mr HOCKEY—And the Prime Minister does as well; I should never neglect the Prime Minister. I have had initial consultations with the key stakeholders in this industry. I have spoken with the publishers and representatives of the publishers. I have spoken with the umbrella organisations from newsagents and also with representatives of the sub-agents and a number of other stakeholders.I have asked the ACCC to conduct a mediation role in relation to this matter. It is essentially a private sector matter, but we have a very strong commitment to the protection of home delivery services. That commitment, given by the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the 1996 campaign and in the lead-up to the last campaign, is unchanged. We retain that commitment. I have asked the ACCC to conduct further consultations with the stakeholders. I have asked them to report back to me by 15 February so that we can pursue some issues and some solutions to parts of the problems that have arisen as a result of the tribunal's decision.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, there having been 20 questions, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There are a number of people on the opposition benches who have specifically come to me seeking the call at the conclusion of question time. There are members who wish to ask questions of me. Among those with questions to me was the member for Hunter.Personal Explanations63015:15:00630Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Mr Speaker, I do want to ask a question of you, but I would first seek to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—For the sake of convenience, I will allow the member to proceed. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I certainly do, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—During question time today, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business twisted what I had to say on the Small Business program to give the impression that I was in favour of his draconian, unfair dismissals legislation.Honourable members interjecting—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—My wife's employees, like 93 per cent of those who work in small business, work under state awards. The point I was trying to make is that the minister for small business is trying to give the small business community the impression that it is going to benefit from his unfair dismissal laws when in fact—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Hunter will resume his seat. If he seeks indulgence, he is going the right way to ensure that it will not be granted.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter has the call.Questions to the Speaker631631631Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—In the last parliament, I wrote to Speaker Halverson asking him whether he was prepared to investigate the continual practice of ministers twisting or taking out of context comments by members on this side. I ask you, Mr Speaker, in order to uphold the standards—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is that the honourable member firstly abused the processes of the House in respect of a personal explanation because he did not demonstrate where he had been misrepresented. Now he abuses the indulgence you give by attempting to raise the matter simply under the guise of a question. The quote that was used during question time was a fair quote from the transcript and that ought to be the end of the matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has made his point. The member for Hunter has the call. I am prepared to allow the member for Hunter to proceed; I am presuming the question he is going to ask me, but it is not fair for me to make that presumption.8K6Mr FITZGIBBON—My question to you is put in the spirit of upholding the standards in this place and, in that sense, is rather apolitical.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have gleaned the question.8K6Mr FITZGIBBON—Mr Speaker, I ask you whether you would be prepared to investigate this constant misuse of the parliament and report back to the parliament as to how you in some way might be able to address that abuse.631Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am happy to respond immediately to the question from the member for Hunter. I have sat in this parliament along with a number of other members for 16 years. I have not, in that time, noticed any particular change in the way in which ministers represent members of the opposition.631631Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a couple of questions to you. As I understand it, two MPIs, matters of public importance, were submitted to you today for determination under the terms of the standing orders. My concern that has been raised with you is that, as I understand it, and I would seek your guidance in respect of this matter, an MPI has to be lodged with the Speaker before noon. The MPI that was selected—which was not the one submitted by me dealing with difficulties in Australia's defence forces in respect of personnel and other matters—was subsequently circulated in this chamber whilst debate was still under way on the matter of the MPI which was being canvassed by the honourable member for Boothby.My question is also prompted by the fact that the third reading of that legislation still has not been moved in this place and subsequently will not be until later. Therefore, I am asking whether it is appropriate in all the circumstances for us to deal with the MPI of the honourable member for Boothby which deals with an opposition matter rather than a government matter when page 532 of House of Representatives Practice clearly says that `the principal function of the modern House is to monitor and publicise the actions and administration of the executive government'—not the opposition but the executive government. I ask you, therefore, whether you have been satisfied, as you are entitled to be, that the most urgent and important issue has been selected, given that over 40 of Australia's senior Defence Force personnel are meeting today to discuss the matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham will resume his seat. He has made his point.8I4Mr MARTIN—I have another question following from that, Mr Speaker.632Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Let me respond to the member for Cunningham by indicating that the first question I asked the Clerk when the two MPIs were submitted to me was that they were both submitted on time, as indeed they were. When the MPI is read to the House later this day, I believe that any fair-minded person in this chamber will deduce that the MPI that has been selected is the one that is of the most urgent and pressing in parliamentary terms.Opposition members interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—I am on my feet and I have not finished what I am saying.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—We don't accept what you are saying.10000Mr SPEAKER—Would the member for Lyons care simply to indicate that he regrets making that sort of interjection?BV5ADAMSMr Adams—I do, Mr Speaker.10000Mr SPEAKER—Furthermore, it seems that Speaker Child ruled—and I checked this—that it was appropriate that the anticipation rule not apply to MPIs. It was on those grounds that I made that ruling.632Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, in respect of the answer you have just given, as I understand it, the fact from House of Representatives Practice is that the matter of the subject of the member for Boothby's MPI has been gagged. He has spoken in this place. What more could he say on the issue in an MPI when he could have had the opportunity to talk on the bills?632Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Cunningham knows better than he does. The member for Cunningham will not refer again to the matter on which I have ruled. I called him because he said he had an additional question to me.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Can I have another question then, Mr Speaker?10000Mr SPEAKER—Let this be clearly understood. When the member for Cunningham raised his initial question to me I responded to it. I consider the matter dealt with. If he has any other unrelated matter to raise, I will hear him.8I4MARTINMr Martin—It is another related matter.10000Mr SPEAKER—I want it unrelated to the MPI.8I4MARTINMr Martin—It is related to the selection of the MPI.10000Mr SPEAKER—I have dealt with the MPI as it applies today. If there is a further matter on MPIs to be dealt with, I will entertain that with the member for Cunningham later this day in my office.8I4MARTINMr Martin—It is an important matter for all members of parliament so that other members know what they can do in future.10000Mr SPEAKER—If I deem it to be a matter that needs wider debate or discussion, I will bring it to the attention of parliament prior to question time tomorrow.632Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, when you considered the matter at 12 o'clock the debate was still under way at that point of time. As I think all of us would accept, you are not a prophet and you would not have known that the start of the gag process would have taken place half an hour later. It was a current debate at the time you did it. When choosing between the two—the defence issue with the large number of resignations and the MPI matter, which was thoroughly capable of being canvassed within the debate on the bill—did you consider in making a judgment the possibility that the opportunity was there for members to make the very important points they no doubt wish to make on the health legislation before them and select instead as a matter of public importance the defence needs of this nation?WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. House of Representatives Practice makes it very clear that a Speaker is not required, nor is there any obligation whatsoever on a Speaker, to provide reasons. Furthermore, it has long been the practice with former Speakers, including the member for Cunningham, that they would not give reasons. On that basis, my point of order is that it is inappropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to ask that question. In the interests of maintaining the longstanding practice—practice for 13 years when Labor was in office—that question should not be answered.633Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The Leader of the House has, in fact, made a perfectly proper point of order, but I had deemed that it was appropriate to allow the Leader of the Opposition, given the additional latitude extended to both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, to ask a question that I had considered closed. For that reason, I stand by my ruling to the member for Cunningham that I am happy to meet with him in my office to discuss any further matters of public importance matters. I will go to bed tonight with a totally clear conscience over the selection of the MPI. Does the member for Cunningham have a totally unrelated matter to matters of public importance?8I4MARTINMr Martin—Are you giving me the call?10000Mr SPEAKER—No, I am not, not unless this is a matter unrelated to—8I4MARTINMr Martin—Am I getting the call?10000Mr SPEAKER—I am not being difficult with the member for Cunningham. I was endeavouring to work my way through those people who had sought to ask questions of the Speaker before going to other resolutions. 8I4MARTINMr Martin—Mr Speaker, I stood to seek the call. I was the only one who did. Therefore, I assume I have the call.10000Mr SPEAKER—No, I think it is reasonable to me to observe that your colleagues were anticipating that you were seeking the call on an unrelated matter.8I4MARTINMr Martin—No, it is related. Quite clearly it is related.10000Mr SPEAKER—I am sorry. I am saying that if you are not asking me a question and not seeking to make a personal explanation I require you to resume your seat, and I will call you when your other colleagues have asked me questions they wish to ask me or when I have dealt with their personal explanations.Personal Explanations63315:29:00633Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—Mr Speaker, I would think that is a proposition which is not sustained. In fact, I would refer to the comments that the Prime Minister made about me when I was doing the job; he thought I did a great job, thank you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If on vacating this chair the worst misrepresentation I face is the misrepresentation you have just alleged you faced, I will be a very happy man.15:30:00633McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—In question time today, the Treasurer imputed that I had attempted to prevent the Commissioner of Taxation from clamping down on tax evasion. That is not the case, and the Treasurer has grossly misrepresented my correspondence to him. Questions to the Speaker63463415:31:00634Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. Like a lot of members, I want to put some questions on the Notice Paper . Of course, as you know, we have an email system and can very easily transmit questions from our office to the Table Office and assist the productivity of the individual who has to check and prepare those questions—but, of course, that is strictly prohibited. Mr Speaker, would you consider allowing members of parliament to email questions to the Table Office, even at the risk of bringing the parliament up to date with technology?634Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I think the latter part of the comment was hardly fair, given the level of technological facility that we enjoy. I will discuss the matter with the Table Office and get back to the member for Chifley.Personal Explanations63415:31:00634Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—During question time, the Treasurer referred to me by name, and to a letter I sent to him on 15 June this year on behalf of a constituent. He then misrepresented my actions on behalf of my constituent by stating that I was complaining about the Taxation Commissioner.My letter to the Treasurer consisted of three brief sentences. The first and second sentences identify the constituent and the matter on which a response from the Treasurer was sought. The third sentence merely requested a response. How anyone of integrity could draw the conclusion that he did is beyond the pale.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Port Adelaide has indicated where he was misrepresented and will resume his seat.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—He is a lying sod.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Why don't you sue him, Pete? Sue him!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Port Adelaide has been here almost as long as I have. He knows that that personal explanation finished in a most unprofessional way, and I require him to withdraw the statement he made about the Treasurer.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—I withdraw; he told a gross untruth.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat.15:33:00634Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—Mr Speaker, in answering a question from the Leader of the Opposition today, the Treasurer stated that I had written to him on 22 June and implied that I was supporting tax avoidance or minimisation. This is simply not true.I received a letter from a constituent concerning a complex taxation matter. I forwarded the letter to the Treasurer without comment but asking for the Treasurer's response to my constituent's concerns. Any member would have done exactly the same, and I am happy to table the correspondence regarding this.15:34:00634Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—Mr Speaker, during question time, in my absence, the Treasurer misled the House—and comments made to me drew that to my attention. I arranged for a transcript of what the Treasurer said when misleading the House in relation to me, and it is in the following terms:I am aware that he is taking action— and this was in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition—because I have had numbers of complaints from members of parliament that he is taking too aggressive an action.He then named the member for Fremantle and, in relation to me, said:. . . a complaint from Daryl Melham, the member for Banks, on 11 June 1998 about the action that the commissioner was taking.I note the word `complaint'. Then later in the answer, the transcript goes on to read:. . . and his backbenchers are running around saying, `Stop them, please!'In relation to me, Mr Speaker, the misleading of the House occurs in that the letter I sent to the Treasurer on 11 June is a short letter—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sorry and I interrupt the member for Banks reluctantly, but I presume that he is concerned about a personal misrepresentation.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—That is right. The personal misrepresentation is `a complaint from Daryl Melham, the member for Banks', the inference being that I personally was complaining to the Treasurer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks has the call and may proceed. But I need to point out to him that what he is defending is a personal misrepresentation, not in fact the misleading of the House, which is the allegation he made a few moments earlier.DT4CREANMr Crean—He has. He has misled the House.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—The misleading is in stating that I made a complaint. I did not make a complaint. There were representations on behalf of the constituent.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Yes, I understand. But the facility allows you to indicate where you have been personally misrepresented. That is all I was pointing out.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—Yes. I will delete his name, and I had better read it in full so that it cannot be said that I have cut and pasted it.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—No, I will table it.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—No.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks has the call through me.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—Mr Speaker, I do seek your indulgence, and I do have a question to you because it goes to the very heart of protection of constituents and privacy. So there are a number of matters.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks has been personally misrepresented. We will then move to a question.10000Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—The letter reads:Dear Treasurer,I write on behalf of Mr . . . concerning the treatment of Bud Plan Business Project by the Taxation Commissioner. Mr—and I delete the name—wrote on 2 June 1998 expressing concern that the Taxation Commissioner intends to announce in the press that participants in the Bud Plan Business Project are willing participants in a tax avoidance scheme. Mr . . . states that he is a genuine investor and he is concerned that he was not allowed to be informed privately of the commissioner's grounds for his allegations of tax avoidance.This is the relevant part; it is relevant because, in the hubbub, it is innocent people who get named in the parliament—and that is a classic example of why the tactics of this Treasurer are wrong. The letter continues:I am enclosing a copy of his letter and would appreciate your considered response.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members on my right! The member for Banks has the call. I would ask him to come quickly to the point at which he has been personally misrepresented.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—I will, Mr Speaker. This is in relation to my representations. It states:I am enclosing a copy of his letter and would appreciate your considered response.I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience with regard to this matter.Yours sincerely . . . Mr Speaker, at no stage did I complain to the Treasurer. In terms of indulgence, Mr Speaker, I do seek your indulgence and I do have a question for you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—We have now finished with the personal explanation, and you are now seeking indulgence.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—Yes, I am seeking your indulgence to raise this matter and the treatment by the Treasurer of correspondence by me to him. In my personal explanation I did inadvertently name the constituent. That goes to the heart of the matter. The Treasurer wanted to table the letter.DT4CREANMr Crean—He wanted to table it.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—He wanted to table it. That is the point. That is why I seek your indulgence and ask the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks has indicated where he was misrepresented. The House understands his concern, and I believe he has offered an explanation for it. I do not believe it is reasonable to imply that the Treasurer in any way involved your constituent in this exercise. He did not, after all, name your constituent. You have indicated where you were offended, and you have had an opportunity to explain that. I do not see any reason to grant indulgence to proceed further. If you have a particular concern, I will hear you out and then rule on the indulgence.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—Mr Speaker, my particular concern—and, again, the Treasurer offered the member for Barton the opportunity to publish the letter through the gallery—is that it was an attempt to attack me through representations in terms of a constituent. That is why I claimed I was misrepresented. What I am concerned about is this practice continuing. It occurred in the last parliament when the foreign minister released the itinerary of a shadow minister, Mr Crean. I am concerned that, if this practice is allowed to continue by you, Mr Speaker, then the only representations we on this side of the House can make to ministers is to forward correspondence from clients with `With Compliments' slips. I am concerned about the practice in relation to correspondence between me and the minister being misused in this House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks will resume his seat. He has made his point. He has indicated where he has been personally misrepresented. He has had an opportunity to make that point to the House. I do not believe that any action taken by the Treasurer could be deemed to have been improper in the context of question time.Miscellaneous63615:41:00636Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is granted to the Leader of the Opposition, but I do not intend to extend indulgence to all of the opposition members who were mentioned by the Treasurer.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. There have been occasions in this House from time to time on both sides for ministers answering questions to raise the fact that they have received representations. I have never, however, in this place heard it done so extensively and in such detail in relation to private correspondence by constituents or so misleadingly in the way in which it was handled. Now that we have heard the content of those particular letters, in no way, shape or form do they justify for one minute the interpretation and exaggeration the Treasurer sought to place upon them.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Oh, grow up.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I have indulgence at the moment, thank you very much. You get on your scrapers in question time and rabbit on all the time. Now you are getting a bit of your own back. Sit down!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition must know that he is exceeding the indulgence any chair would grant with those comments. I have ruled on this exercise. I have ruled that all of those members who felt they had been misrepresented had an opportunity to make the point and that the Treasurer has acted consistent with actions that I have witnessed here in the time I have been in the parliament.Personal Explanations63615:43:00636Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—In question time the Leader of the Opposition alleged that the government was being soft on a particular tax avoidance plan. That was his question. If he asks that question and the particular plan in question has been the subject of complaint to me by Labor Party members, I will disclose it.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer has the same obligation as everybody else to move to the point at which he was personally misrepresented. Before he rises, I would make the point to members on my left—and it is conspicuously obvious—that the Treasurer could scarcely be heard, not even by the chair, above the hubbub on my left. The Treasurer is entitled to a personal explanation.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, in accordance with practice in this House, if I have had representations on behalf of constituents from Labor Party members suggesting not that the government was soft on tax avoidance but that it was being too hard, I will disclose that. The second point I make is that I disclosed no names. The third point I make is this: I disclosed only a few of the Labor members that have written to me. I have a lot longer list.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am very grateful to the Treasurer that he did not go through the rest of the list, because we might have been here for the rest of the afternoon. The matter is closed.Questions to the Speaker637637637Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. During question time, the Treasurer said in reply to the matters raised by the member for Port Adelaide that he would circulate the letter to the gallery. I heard him make that comment.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—I did not.ET4Mr BEVIS—I am saying very clearly that I heard him make that comment and I am asking you, as the Speaker—637Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member will resume his seat. The Treasurer has indicated he did not make the comment.Honourable members interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—Once again, the Speaker has not been able to complete a statement due to interjections from both the right and the left, including from the member for Batman.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Speak up! What about him?10000Mr SPEAKER—I have already indicated, while you were so busy interjecting, a comment or two to those on my right.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You responded to the Treasurer.10000Mr SPEAKER—This matter is now closed. I hear what the member for Brisbane said. The least I can do is check the Hansard and ensure that, as the Treasurer has indicated, he did not make that statement and, if he did, require him not to proceed with that action.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Mr Speaker, I will tell you now, I do not intend to disclose anybody's name. I did not in question time and I will not do it. The only person who disclosed any constituent's name was the member for Banks.10000Mr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat.Personal Explanations63715:46:00637Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Hunter claim to have been misrepresented?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I certainly do, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Mr Speaker, during question time today, the Treasurer misrepresented me in the same matter raised by the member for Banks and those before him.Miscellaneous63715:46:00637Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek leave of the House to have deleted from the Hansard the name that I inadvertently referred to in my personal explanation.ZJ6BARRESIMr Barresi—That's censorship.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—It is not censorship. It is doing the right thing. I made a mistake and I will own up to it, unlike others.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the granting of leave is in the hands of the Speaker, and I understand it is, I will look at the matter and report back to the House.Questions to the Speaker638638638McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Mr Speaker, in light of the debate today, could I ask you to investigate the status of correspondence to members of parliament and to report, in particular, whether it is the subject of privilege. I appreciate that that cannot be done today, but it is a matter which I think should be appropriately investigated.638Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—This matter has been blown out of all reasonable proportion. I do not intend to pursue it any further other than the assurance that I have already given to the member for Banks. The matter is closed.Documents638638Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard .The schedule read as follows—Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act—Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report for 1997-98.Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act—Australian Security Intelligence Organization—Report for 1997-98—Erratum.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Australia Post—Statement of corporate intent—1998-99-2000-01.Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act—Equal Employment Opportunity Program—Australian Broadcasting Corporation—Report for 1997-98.National Rail Corporation Agreement Act—National Rail Corporation Limited—Report for 1997-98. Productivity Commission Act—Productivity Commission—Report No. 3—Pig and pigmeat industries: Safeguard action against imports.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 1997-98.Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area Conservation Act—Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report for 1997-98.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:National Rail Corporation Agreement Act—National Rail Corporation Limited—Report for 1997-98.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Auditor-General's Reports638638638Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 17 for 1998-99 entitled Performance audit—Acquisition of Aerospace Simulators—Department of Defence .Ordered that the report be printed.Matters of Public Importance638638638Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have received letters from the honourable member for Cunningham and the honourable member for Boothby proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 107, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important—that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Boothby, namely:The opposition's failure to recognise the threat posed to Australia's health system if private health insurance is put on the back burner.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—15:50:00638Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your wise choice. I often meet from time to time with Dr Jim Forbes, who was the Minister for Health under the Holt and Gorton ministries. Reflecting on earlier times, he said that, while he was the Minister for Health, he often used to discuss different health proposals with the cabinet of the time. He always said that it was very hard to attract interest, that people's eyes would glaze over when he discussed health because there were much bigger issues going on—Australia was fighting the Vietnam War and there were Australian troops throughout South-East Asia, which reflects a different focus that politics had 30 years ago.But, in 1998, as important as we see defence issues, no-one would argue that health is one of the major issues and one of the major determinants of electoral opinion. For as long as I can remember, it has always been in the top three. Now more recent surveys show that it is in the top one or top two. By way of declaring a personal interest, I myself have private health insurance and believe that people on my sort of income should have private health insurance.By way of declaring a personal interest, I have to say that I, unlike most of the members of the ALP, actually worked in the public hospital system. Members of the ALP come in here and talk about Medicare and the public hospital system as if they have a mortgage on them. The difference between the Liberal and National parties and the ALP is that we believe in both systems. We believe in a public hospital system side by side with a strong private hospital system.Members of the ALP represent only two-thirds of the health system. They do not represent the private health system, they do not represent people with private health insurance and they have an ideological opposition to those with private health insurance. The ALP needs some balance. They need to look at a stable and sustainable health system—and that includes both the private and public health systems.I began work in the public hospital system. I worked until the 1996 election in the public hospital system. I would have liked to have continued to work in Casualty in my local hospital, but unfortunately, not wishing to fall foul of the provisions of section 44 of the constitution in holding office of profit under the Crown, I had to resign when the election was called.The private system plays a critical role in taking pressure off the public system. It provides half the operations, one-third of the admissions and a quarter of the bed days. That is the sector in health that the opposition do not represent. It has been estimated by Access Economics that a two per cent drop in private health insurance costs the public system the equivalent of 325,000 hospital bed days. That is the equivalent of two major teaching hospitals running all year round. Now under the Medicare agreements a one per cent drop in private health insurance means that we are obliged to give the states and territories an extra $83 million. What that means is that, if the drop-out continues at the present rate, we will have to pay the states and territories $500 million a year by the year 2000. Medicare was always designed to work side by side with a strong private system.We need to look at the major reason why private health insurance levels are dropping. The major reason is rising premiums. Premiums are rising almost 3½ times faster than inflation. Before 1990 there were a number of decisions that the previous Labor government took which directly contributed something like 39 per cent to the cost of premiums now. There was a 40 per cent explosion in premiums between 1986 and 1988 and there were four government decisions that were taken. They were the removal of the bed day subsidy, the removal of the reinsurance pool, the reduction of the Medicare rebate for in-patients from 85 per cent to 75 per cent; and then later the Medicare agreements, which encouraged public patients to be pushed through public hospitals.Since September 1996, the government has said that premium rises will occur only if it is due to solvency requirements. Some requests from funds to raise the premiums have been rejected by the committee consisting of the Treasurer, the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Prime Minister. Premiums probably will rise—there are the costs of technology and the process of adverse selection which is adding to premium rises—but having a 30 per cent rebate of the cost of your premium is much better than the incentives scheme because the incentives scheme is fixed. If the premiums rise, the rebate will be 30 per cent of whatever the premium is.Some people have suggested that the private health sector is somehow inefficient. The Industry Commission commented:The rapid growth in premiums has been interpreted by some as showing that the private system is either increasingly inefficient or anti-competitive or both. But the facts are inconvenient to such an interpretation.The Industry Commission, the Productivity Commission, rejected that assertion which we have heard continuously from Labor members in this debate. In fact, they said that there is competition between the funds and the main reason that the premiums are rising is that the payouts are rising.The Institute of Actuaries of Australia said that the health system is inherently unstable. What you have is a process of adverse selection. As the premiums rise, young fit and healthy people drop out. That means that there are more people in the fund more likely to make a claim and so the premiums rise, and that is going on as a circle. The government's rebate attempts to address that by making premiums 30 per cent cheaper.To say that the funds are inefficient is wrong. The health funds already try to discourage overuse through step-down contracts with the hospitals which reduce the payments after several treatments, co-payments and benefit ceilings. We believe that reducing the premiums by 30 per cent will help people stay in private health insurance and will also encourage people back.The 30 per cent rebate is the equivalent of the support that existed before Labor was elected in 1983. There were always levels of subsidy for private health insurance. What we are doing is restoring the level of support that was there when Medicare was introduced in 1984. It also allows time for the government's reforms in private health insurance to have effect. We have not heard much about them from the opposition. We are allowing the funds to offer loyalty bonuses and group discounts for groups of employees. We are setting up a consumer information service to help people choose between the wide number of products. We are also encouraging simplified billing. That is very important. Sportsmed in South Australia is now offering people—with the agreement of all the health care providers—one bill. There is also no gap. They are looking at the problem of out-of-pocket expenses. The National Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are encouraging no gap. The Melbourne Private Hospital has simplified billing and there is no gap. The government is trying to get more of these agreements for the out-of-pocket expenses and the simplified billing.There are two million people in Australia with private health insurance on incomes below $30,000. There are 700,000 people on incomes below $20,000. The ALP try to say that private health insurance is just for affluent people. That is not true. In fact, they are not even representing their own electorates. In each of their own electorates there are, on average, 39,000 voters who hold private health insurance.Mr Cadman interjecting—TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—I will get to that in a second. The rebate is available as a tax rebate, as a cheaper premium or it is available from a Medicare office or can be paid directly into your bank account. The rebate will be equivalent to or better than a tax deduction for everyone on incomes below $50,000 after we have our new tax scales in place from 1 July 2000. Tony Quinn and Associates estimate that a 25 to 30 per cent reduction in price is needed to bring people back into private health insurance.We need to address some of the untruths that are being told by the Labor Party in this debate. The Labor Party needs to stand on its record. First of all, it has said that this measure redirects funds away from public hospitals. That is wrong. The government is spending $32 billion over five years, which is a 17.6 per cent real increase. When Jenny Macklin, the member for Jagajaga, was chairing the National Health Strategy, in the 1991 report, Hospital Services in Australia, she recognised that just pouring more money into public hospitals was likely to make things worse. She said:. . . increased funding to public hospitals is also likely to lead to a change in the equilibrium between public hospitals, private hospitals and private health insurance, without necessarily achieving the level of impact intended. If increased funding to public hospitals reduces the perceived pressure on public hospitals through smaller waiting lists and shorter waiting times, it is likely that private health insurance levels will drop. This could result in increased demand for public hospitals and reduced revenue from private patients. The result may be a return to the situation which existed prior to the provision of extra resources.The Labor Party have said that this measure does nothing to increase the efficiency of the funds. There is already competition between the funds. I have already addressed that. They say it is poorly targeted. Medicare is not targeted. There is no income test or assets test for Medicare. You say that it is all right for a millionaire to get bulk-billed and it is all right for a millionaire to go to a public hospital, but you object to two million people on incomes below $30,000 getting the 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance.The Labor Party also do not recognise that the people who have dropped their private health insurance are the ones on the top 60 per cent of incomes. They are the ones that are wanted back because, when they are in the public system, they have influence and wealth and they push the less affluent out of the way. Labor also think we are not addressing multiple bills and out-of-pocket costs. Well, we are. They say it will not increase the proportion of people privately insured. I hope it will. So that is the Labor Party.We need to ask: what is the natural conclusion of all of this? What is the Labor Party's vision for the health system in Australia? They used to come in in the last parliament and criticise the private health insurance incentives scheme, then they adopted it as their policy. The Labor Party are not concerned with the level of private health insurance being 30 per cent. They probably think it should be lower. The Labor vision for the Australian health system is to have a small private sector—probably 10 per cent or 15 per cent—and everyone else in Medicare. That is the Labor vision. And if it is not, they should tell us why it is not and why they do not support the rebate and why they do not support increasing the level of assistance to where it was before Medicare was introduced.That is a two-tier system. It is Labor Party policy to introduce a two-tier system into Australia. If you want to know what that looks like, go to the UK, go to the National Health Service. There will always be people privately insured but it will be only the elite. We need to look at Labor's record. When they came to power in 1983, 65 per cent of people were privately insured. In 1984, when Medicare was introduced, 50 per cent were privately insured. When they left office, it was just over 30 per cent. Morgan Research has shown that 67 per cent of people want the 30 per cent rebate.I believe the opposition are very short-sighted on this. They are not representing their constituents. They are representing only those constituents who do not have private health insurance. We represent them all. It is worth going through the electorates of Labor Party people to see the number of people holding private health insurance. The Leader of the Opposition has 45,820 voters with private health insurance in his electorate. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has 32,424 voters with private health insurance in his electorate. The member for Jagajaga, the ALP spokeswoman for health, has 36,719 voters with private health insurance in her electorate.I see the member for Paterson is sitting at the table. I hope he will be contributing to this debate because the member for Paterson won his seat by 936 votes at the last election. If 936 people change their vote, you are out. There are 41,764 voters in Paterson with private health insurance. The member for Paterson knows what this means because he has had it before. In 1993-96 he was in this parliament and he voted for all of Labor's indirect tax rises without any compensation and in 1996 he stood on his record, he saw the ads about his voting record and what happened? He lost.The member for Paterson needs to stand on his voting record at the next election. This is about the fifth sitting day. It is the second week. We have had the first division and already the member for Paterson has clocked up a vote where he has disenfranchised 41,764 voters in his electorate. I will go through some of the seats: Bass has 24,692 voters with private health insurance; Dickson, 30,000; Kingston, 38,000; McMillan, 23,000; Northern Territory, 34,000; Stirling, 58,000; Chisholm, 39,000; Griffith, 33,000; and Swan, 54,000. All of those people need only 2,000 or fewer votes to change and they are out.The Labor Party think this is like 1969. Kim Beazley is like Gough Whitlam, and they are just going to keep on increasing it. For these people in the marginal seats it is more like 1984; you do not know what you stand for. You need to stand on your voting record and you need to clock up more votes like this, because you are not representing half of your electorate. Half of your electorate were disenfranchised by your vote today in the House of Representatives. (Time expired)16:05:00642Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I do wish to participate in this MPI debate. Actually, I wanted to participate in the debate earlier but, unfortunately, the member for Boothby and his colleagues voted to gag the debate and prevent all those people on this side from talking about health and the provision of health services to the people in the electorate of Paterson and every other electorate who are now being forced to wait extraordinary amounts of time for things like cataract surgery so they can see, so they can read the paper and so they can drive their car and get to work. Or perhaps some of these people are wanting to have a hip replacement or a knee replacement so they can go about their everyday life and do their own shopping. Perhaps they are wanting some other minor type of surgery that is necessary.Maybe it is about the Commonwealth dental health program, from which the other side cut $92 million. That prevented people in my electorate having urgently needed dental health care that would have allowed them to eat ordinary foods rather than having to drink soup through a straw. But let us be quite clear what the government does stand for because no-one else, apart from them, understands their convoluted thinking.Dr Southcott interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Boothby has had his turn.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Thank you very much for supporting me, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let us just go through some of the history of this particular legislation. I would like to go back first to 1996. I know too well I was not here—I had a bit of time on the sideline—but I do particularly remember the Prime Minister's statement after 1996 that he wanted to lift the standard in this place.Well, the members of the government have had that opportunity today. As the member for Boothby correctly says, this is the first piece of legislation of this parliament where members of the government and members of the opposition could really get their teeth into an issue that people of Australia feel strongly about. I support one comment that the member for Boothby made, and that is that health is a very important issue to the people of Australia.I would be quite happy for the member for Boothby and for the minister for health to come to the Paterson electorate at any time and meet those people who are now being denied urgent health services because of the waiting lists in the public hospitals and explain to those people just how this piece of legislation is going to shorten the waiting list for them, because they will not be able to do it. They will not be able to guarantee that $1 will be spent on public health as a result of this legislation that is going to cost the taxpayers of Australia $1½ billion.What do we get from that? We get the answer that the Prime Minister gave today that, for the princely sum of $1½ billion, the coverage of people by private health insurance will go from 30.3 per cent to 33 per cent of the population. They will be covered by private health insurance as a result of this legislation that you have approved today. But what did you vote against? The shadow minister moved an amendment that you voted against. Let us have a look at what that amendment said:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for:(1) increased funding for the public hospital system; That makes it quite clear what the government stands for: they do not stand for increasing funding to the public health system. If you had supported that, you would have voted for it. It is all right for the member for Boothby now to say, `No, that is not what I meant,' but that is not the way he voted because that is on record and will be shown up. He voted to object to increased funding for the public health system. The amendment goes on:(2) measures to promote efficiency in private hospitals and control costs;So he voted against that too. He does not want those measures to be put in place. The third point in the amendment that was moved by the opposition reads:(3) measures to make health insurance more attractive by providing private patients a single hospital bill and insurance to cover the cost of hospital and medical services so that patients don't face large out-of-pocket costs.Many references have been made to my coming back here. I can assure all members who have represented an electorate and lost their seat that if they do want to get back here they should get around and talk to the people and find out what the issues are about. I like to think that one of the reasons I came back is that I knocked on tens of thousands of doors and I met lots of people.I met lots of people who were not being serviced by the health system. What they could not understand was why the government in its first term promised something like $1.4 billion to solve this health fund scheme, yet the fees kept going up. Apart from paying more fees, what happened when they went to hospital? They had an operation and then they were slugged with the higher costs. What made it strange was that people who may be in the next bed, who may be operated on by exactly the same surgeon, who got exactly the same service and who were covered by Medicare did not have to pay those extra costs. I know that the government hates Medicare. They attack Medicare at every opportunity. But one of the things that the member for Boothby has completely and conveniently overlooked is the fact that when you pay your Medicare levy it is not a flat rate, it is a percentage. So the more you earn, the more you pay. That is until you get to $100,000 when there is a one per cent surcharge. And, like the member for Boothby, I will declare an interest. I have private health insurance too; I have always had it. You probably pay the surcharge—no, I don't think you do because you have private health insurance. Let us just look at the one per cent surcharge on an income of $100,000 where you can have a choice: you can have private health insurance and pay out maybe a couple of grand a year, or you can pay the $1,000 surcharge which is one per cent. If, on the other hand, you have an income of $200,000 then you can either pay the two grand surcharge or two grand private health insurance—you can get out of it. Anyone earning over that amount will obviously elect not to pay the surcharge and will take out health insurance—they save money.What is this government going to do to those people? They are going to give them an automatic rebate. They are not going to improve health services for those in need, but they are certainly going to give a rebate to those high earners that are already working the system to their own advantage.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—You are confused.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I know I am confused. I am confused by the actions of people who have come out of the medical system, who have worked in public hospitals, who know the lack of services that exist there, who know the demand for the services and who are prepared to come in and support this piece of Hippocratic—it must have been a play on words; I know he has given the Hippocratic oath—this hypocritical piece of legislation.I would have thought that a Prime Minister and a government that talks about battlers and that is prepared to give service to the battlers would make sure that service is delivered to the battlers. But that is not what this piece of legislation is about. This piece of legislation is purely about looking after the wealthy. I am more than happy to go back to my electorate and tell the people there like me who have private health insurance, `No, I don't support giving people like me a rebate.' I support the battlers waiting for urgent surgery so that they can get on with their life but who are told, `Come back and see us in 12 months.' I have met people who have been waiting three or four years to get dental care. I suggest that the member for Boothby slip out and take an Aspro or some other form of medication. The point is that services are not being delivered now and the government cannot assist that.I appreciate the fact that any speech we hear today is going to be politically motivated. So let us ignore the politics of it for a minute and go to someone who often writes in the columns and does not always support our side. As a matter of fact, I have heard him quoted quite often by the Prime Minister. Let us talk about Ross Gittins's column today in the Sydney Morning Herald. It identifies a number of the problems with the current legislation that we have been debating. He says:The problem, as years of propaganda have schooled us to believe, is the ever-declining number of people with private insurance.The Prime Minister has told us today that $1.5 billion will increase participation by 2.7 per cent. What do the states want? They want $750 million, which is half of what the government is proposing, to solve all the states' health problems. But this government is not even prepared to do that. Imagine all the people in Coffs Harbour lined up waiting to get into the hospital there. We could solve their problems with half the amount of money. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like you to join with me some time and look at the people in Maitland and Port Stephens who need health care. It has been denied, for half the amount of money that this government wants to spend.But what is happening to the cost of fees? They are rising at three or four times the rate of inflation. That is part of the problem. The government is throwing this vast bucketful of money. Can members comprehend what $1.5 billion is? I cannot, and most Australians cannot. Between 1993 and 1996, Deputy Speaker Nehl and I canvassed very strongly for the Pacific Highway to be constructed in a proper fashion between Sydney and Bris bane to make it safe. That is about the sort of money that will do that. It is going to be spent over 10 years, though. We are talking about $1.5 billion each year over a 10-year period. We are talking about $15 billion. What can you do with $15 billion? If you only give the states half of that to solve their health problems, you have $7.5 billion to save. You can build five Pacific Highways from Sydney to Brisbane with that money, and those opposite claim that they are all about financial management. This is not financial management.We are seeing one of the greatest bits of waste that this country has ever had presented to it by an irresponsible government. It is a government that does not know how to govern. It is a government that surprises me. When I came back here, I thought, `What is it going to be like to sit in opposition? What is it going to be like to have a government with its flag up giving us the policies?' All I have seen from this government is that it wants to attack the Labor Party. It is still talking about Paul Keating, Graham Richardson and Ros Kelly. But the ministers are sitting opposite. That is where the people who make the decisions reside. Can they make them? No, they cannot. They certainly cannot make the right ones. There has been no greater evidence than this piece of legislation.Today will go down in history as a day when this government had the opportunity to support the ordinary people of Australia. It had the opportunity to spend money on a public health system to give service. It had the opportunity to give service to people who have private health insurance and to make sure that the bill reflected their needs. It failed. That is the shame of today. The member for Boothby, as I said, is more than welcome to come to Paterson with me. He can bring his ministerial mate. I would love to see him because I have thousands of people lined up who want to know why they cannot get the health service that their lifestyle urgently demands and which the government consistently refuses to give them. (Time expired)16:20:00644Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I am more than happy to support my colleague the member for Boothby this afternoon in this very important MPI.UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—If it's so important, why did you gag the debate?KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—We did not gag the debate. We were willing to debate this subject. We debated some amendments. We did not gag the debate. What we are looking at here is the whole gambit of health. It seems to be something that is beyond the comprehension of those opposite. The member for Paterson said that he doorknocked tens of thousands of homes. If he doorknocked tens of thousands of homes, it would have been clear to him that about 70 per cent of the people in those homes, if we are to believe the Morgan Gallup poll, prefer a rebate system.The cost of health care in Australia is $42 billion. That includes the Commonwealth, the states, local government and the private sector. About $22 billion of that is the Commonwealth's charge. That is a mind-boggling figure by any standard.When Labor came to power in 1983, 64 per cent of Australians had private health cover. When they went out in 1996, that was down to about 33 per cent. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that two-thirds of Australians were substantially looking after their own health care when Labor came to power and one-third were using the public system. At the end of that 13 years of Labor government, two-thirds of them were reliant on the public system and only a third on the private system. The dreadful feature of all of this is that for every one per cent of people who drop off private health insurance, as the member for Boothby said, the cost to the Commonwealth is $83 million.I would like to return to the member for Paterson's proposition—the proposition put to the parliament last night by the Leader of the Opposition—that for about $720 million all the costs that the states are ever likely to need will be met. That was your charge, was it not?UU5HORNEMr Horne—Per annum, yes.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Per annum. Let me put this to you: if eight per cent more people fall off private health insurance, you have im mediately gobbled that up. Eight times $83 million and it is gone. Where do you go them? You are feeding yet a bigger monster, so instead of having about 30 per cent of people privately insured, you would have about 22 per cent and your costs would be growing.It is interesting that you mentioned Ross Gittins, because he had some factual errors in that article today. For example, he inferred that the total cost of the scheme would be $1.8 billion—$1.2 billion a year on top of the $600 million a year for the existing scheme. Actually, the correct figure is $1.38 billion in the first year, of which $380 million is for the current scheme. So I think we can discount his article as being somewhat florid. But one of the things he really missed was this: the Department of Health and Aged Care has done an estimate of what it costs the Commonwealth on average for the health care of every uninsured person, and it is $1,041. The cost to the Commonwealth of an insured person under the current scheme is only $628, or, under the new scheme, $814. So that means that for every person you induce to go into private health insurance there is a minimum saving to the Commonwealth of about $227. I cannot see how you people can miss this. You all know that the Medicare levy, which started off at 1¼ per cent and is now 1½ per cent, covers only 20 per cent of the public health needs of Australia.If you really wanted to have a user-pays system based on our taxation, you would have to raise the Medicare levy to 7½ per cent to break even. Doesn't it make more sense to encourage people to look after their own health care, especially when each person who does go onto private health insurance actually means a saving for the Commonwealth?I think the member for Paterson knows in his heart of hearts—as do all of you in the opposition—that if we do not arrest this matter we will go down either the American way, where there will be one rule for the rich and one for the poor, or we will go down the UK way, where there will be a universal scheme with absolutely no choice; whereas we have had in Australia a very good parallel system. In fact, it was your great pride that in Queensland, when the Labor Party under the Hanlon government set up the free health scheme, we had a public hospital system and a private health system next to it. It worked very well, and subsequent coalition governments maintained it because it did work well. But when the Whitlam government came to power and forced Queensland into the national scheme, it went wrong from then on in Queensland and it went wrong all over Australia because your idea of solving problems is to throw money at them. Let me give you an example.UU5HORNEMr Horne—We are saving $720 million.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—No, you are not. You are not saving it at all. I have just made the point to you that if another eight per cent of people fall out of private health insurance, your $720 million will be gobbled up. It will be gobbled up not in that first year, but in subsequent years. I find it just mind-boggling that you cannot comprehend that. However, let me make another point. When we came to power in 1996, the cost of pharmaceuticals was increasing at the rate of 16 per cent a year. Their cost was doubling nearly every four years. All you did was let that run on. When we came to power we brought in a number of measures, such as increasing the co-payment, putting a premium on certain drugs, and devising a plan of more appropriate prescribing. Over the short period we have been in power, the increase in the cost of pharmaceuticals has dropped from 16 per cent to nine per cent. The point I am making is: whenever a problem like that occurred you just kept throwing more money at it. What we have done, without any great hardship to the Australian people, has steadied the scheme. You do not like to hear—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the chair.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, my apologies. But let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of a very interesting answer which appeared in Hansard on 26 October 1993, where we have Senator Richardson responding to Senator Newman:In my view, we cannot continue to have private health insurance bleed in the way that it has in the past years because this does increase the strains on the public hospital system.Then in 1994, in response to Senator Lees, he said:We have to face the fact that in public hospitals around Australia there are people who are in pain and discomfort and who are waiting too long for treatment.So I support my colleague the member for Boothby. The Labor Party has shown they have no credibility in this matter. (Time expired)16:31:00646Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise today to speak on this matter of public importance because I agree with ordinary Australians that our health system in this country is a matter of public importance. I am sorry that the government saw fit today to gag debate in this place and interrupted the honourable member for Rankin while he was giving a fine exposition of the problems in this area.The real threat to Australia's health system is the ideological opposition of those opposite to having a public health system at all. They are ideologically opposed to universal coverage, and they are setting out not just to defund the public system but to force all Australians to take out private health insurance.Looking at the example of New South Wales alone—New South Wales is my home state—over the last three budgets New South Wales has suffered cuts of over $200 million from its health system. This is a contrast with the Carr Labor government's record. They have increased health funding in New South Wales by $1.3 billion. That is the difference. The major loss suffered by New South Wales is the totally unjustified cut of $103 million from the hospital funding grant. Despite repeated representations, the Howard government refuses to change this decision, which unfairly penalises the New South Wales public hospital system.The abolition of the Commonwealth dental health program resulted in the accumulated loss of $95 million for the New South Wales public dental health system. The withdrawal of these funds has particularly impacted on rural New South Wales, causing hardship for the elderly and vulnerable groups in the community and resulting in the loss of 300 jobs in public dentistry. The Commonwealth cut another $6 million from the New South Wales hospital funding grant as a result of its unfair arbitration of cross-border issues with the ACT. Funding cuts of nearly $4 million have been imposed on a number of specific purpose programs, including on youth health, and so on. The list of cuts that the New South Wales system has suffered because of the Commonwealth government's actions in this area is long.So what is the proposal the government comes to us with to improve the health system in this country? Is it to restore some of the funding it has cut from our public dental care system? Is it to provide the states with the $720 million per annum they have asked for as their ambit claim? This is an ambit claim, mind you. They have put in an ambit claim for $720 million. They say that would fix all of the problems in the public hospital system. Is this government prepared to talk to the states about that? No. What is the government going to do? It is going to spend $1.5 billion to increase private health insurance by only 2.7 per cent, on the Prime Minister's figures put before the House today. How shocking! The real matter of public concern here is that we have a government that is prepared to spend $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money to increase private health insurance coverage by only 2.7 per cent. Hardly money well spent, is it?What is the reason people are leaving private health insurance? This government does not address any of the reasons that people leave private health insurance. People are leaving because of gap payments. They may have been paying private health insurance all their lives. Indeed, I have spoken to many of my constituents who have been privately insured over many years. Particularly in their later years they finally have cause to call on the services they have been paying for all these years, and what happens? It costs them money. In fact, it costs them more money being privately health insured than if they had not been insured. This is the only type of insurance that guarantees that you will have out-of-pocket expenses if you get sick or you have some misadventure. It costs you money if you are sick or you have some misadventure.The other issue—and it is the unspoken issue in this debate—is specialists' fees in relation to gap payments. We all know that this government ran a very hardline ideological position on what they called a `closed shop' on the waterfront. They were prepared to take on the MUA with dogs and mace and balaclava-clad security guards—they were happy to do that with the MUA—but when the AMA raises its voice above a whisper what happens? The government turn to water. That is because the AMA and the colleges, the specialists, are pushing the government.We certainly know what the insurance companies are doing by the fact that the members opposite have a list of every person in our electorates who is privately insured. To suggest that this is a public policy issue is ridiculous when we can see that the government are acting as the unofficial arm of the private health insurance industry. That is all they are doing. They are not making any sort of decision based on the public good, that's for sure.The first reason that people are leaving private coverage is the gap, as I have described. The second reason is the up-front cost of private health insurance, which just continues to rise. Since 1989 the CPI has increased by slightly less than 30 per cent. By what margin do you think the cost of private health insurance has increased? The cost of private health insurance in that same time has increased by over 200 per cent. The comparison is 30 per cent with 200 per cent.When the last lot of private health insurance incentives were introduced, what happened? Every private health insurer jacked up their premiums just as soon as they could. It is absurd, it is naive, to suggest that any further subsidy of private health insurance will not have exactly the same effect. You may as well just give them the money straight out. The Australian Financial Review, which is not normally a paper that I am taken to quoting, particularly its editorials, said: The proposed rebate seems more calculated to elicit the gratitude of voters than a serious attempt to fix the problem. A big part of the money will go initially to people who are already insured—we know that; it will be going to those people earning more than $70,000 a year, 72 per cent of whom are insured already—rather than to the health sector, which makes the rebate a relatively inefficient, and inequitable, means of subsidising private health care provision. Eventually, like any subsidy, it will be shared with suppliers, as private hospitals, specialists and health funds put up their charges.It does not take a genius to work that one out, does it? Ross Gittins writes in similar terms. He says:This additional sum bought off the ire of the mere 30 per cent of the population who remain in private insurance, it bought off the doctors, private hospitals and health funds with a vested interest in the insurance system, and it bought him another term in office without a commitment to deal with root causes.If you've heard of politicians throwing money at a problem, this is the classic case.That is right: $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money will achieve an increase of 2.7 per cent in private health insurance coverage. What could we do with that $1.5 billion? Besides upgrading or building a few more Pacific highways, we could certainly improve the public health system. We could put that amount into schools, universities, child care. But how about dental care? An amount of $100 million has been cut from the Commonwealth Dental Service. People are coming in to see me to tell me that they are waiting two years to get their dentures. They are drinking and eating through straws.What is most obscene about this is that at the same time as this government has cut $100 million from the Commonwealth Dental Scheme it is prepared to provide a non-means tested, non-capped rebate to people who have coverage for ancillary medical services—of course that includes dental services. How much is it going to end up paying out as a subsidy to people to take out private dental coverage? It will be $200 million. For $200 million, you could do an awful lot of work in the area of public dental care for the neediest people in our community. I have got the Sydney dental hospital in my electorate; they have told me that since the cuts to the Commonwealth dental scheme their waiting lists have increased at least fourfold. That is as a direct result of the $100 million cut from the Commonwealth Dental Service. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Bills648The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1998 States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1998 Bills648r598648Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.648Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills648r608648Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.648Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills649r609649Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.649Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills649s184649Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.649Bill (on motion by Mr Scott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills649r639649Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott)—read a third time.Bills649r638649Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.649Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott) read a third time.Bills649r603649Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Downer:That the bill be now read a second time.16:47:00649Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—The opposition strongly supports the ratification of Australia's obligations as a signatory to the Ottawa Convention. I commend the government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs for this legislation. Over 120 countries have signed this convention and Australia will be one of approximately 40 countries to have ratified its signature at this time. Unfortunately, the US, Russia, China, Israel, Egypt, India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Korea have not signed the treaty. On a more regional basis, nor have Laos, Burma, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea or Singapore. Given our future lies in this region, Australia shares an interest in convincing these countries to sign the convention, and I think it is proper that we should use our influence to encourage them to do so.The convention signatories are prevented, under all circumstances, from using, producing, transferring, developing and stockpiling antipersonnel mines or helping any other country to do so. In addition, Australia must destroy its own existing antipersonnel mines within four years. Through this convention, Australia has also committed to provide assistance for mine and minefield clearance, education programs and support, and rehabilitation for mine victims, along with other signatories.In my own life time, I have seen a complete turnabout in Australia's attitude to antipersonnel landmines. In the late 1960s as a member of the Pioneer Platoon, the 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, I was trained in all aspects of mine warfare. That included laying mines and arming them, though it was never a task I had to do operationally. However, by the time I arrived in Vietnam in 1970, Australia was learning, at the cost of its soldiers, the folly of mine warfare. I quote Alan Stretton who, in his book Soldier in a Storm, said:Another tactical error which cost many Australian lives was the laying of 23,000 mines in a minefield from Dat Do to the South China Sea without making satisfactory arrangements for its security. It was naive to the extreme to think that such a minefield could be protected by regional South Vietnamese forces and that they would be capable of stopping the Viet Cong from lifting the mines and using them as a source of supply in their operations against Australians. Some 8,000 mines were lifted from the field by the Viet Cong and caused death and injury to hundreds of young Australians. The situation became so bad that in 1969 more good Australian lives were sacrificed when the remaining mines left in the field were lifted by our own troops.The fact is that the Viet Cong revolutionised mine warfare, and the modern era of indiscriminate mine use really began. Unfortunately, it continues to this day. Based on Red Cross figures, thousands of civilian men, women and children suffer the effects of landmines today.Indeed, to quote the recently produced `Kids at war' Red Cross fact sheet under the heading `Children and landmines', it shows that more than 2,000 men, women and children a month are claimed by landmines. About 800 die, mainly children, and 1,200 are permanently mutilated. The International Red Cross provides 13,000 prostheses a year for amputees at an average cost of $160 each. A child of 10 will need 15 in his or her lifetime. There are an estimated 120 million uncleared landmines laid in 70 countries around the world.That is the size of the task, but, to break that down into a human side, I want to quote from a story written by Sue Williams from the Sydney Morning Herald on 20 October this year. It is under the heading `Landmines girl pleads for help'. The article states:She became the worldwide symbol of Princess Diana's campaign to rid the planet of landmines, but Angolan amputee Sandra Txijica faces being thrown out of school and banished to the tiny mud hut village where she was born.Funds have nearly dried up for the little girl who won the hearts of millions when she was cradled in Diana's arms during an emotional visit to Angola by the Princess, shortly before she died. Angola, along with Cambodia, has the most landmines in the world.Her image is still flashed across the world as a symbol of children's suffering as the scourge of landmines continues, and she appears in the video of Elton John's hit song Candle in the Wind , on stamps and in newspapers and magazines around the world.But the sad truth is that Sandra may soon be forced to call off her quest.Although her sweet face and shy brown eyes have become universally known, Sandra has never received a cent in royalties from those who have used her suffering to publicise the cause or make money for themselves."Many people have promised me money in return for helping them," said Sandra, 14, sitting in a hotel room in Sydney. "But no-one has sent any. It's very hard."She has been relying on the charity of local aid workers to allow her to go to school and stay in the Angolan capital, Luanda, rather than return to work in the fields of her poverty-stricken home village in rebel-held territory.That, however, is rapidly running out."I want to continue my work to help Princess Diana," she said."I feel very bad about the mines. They hurt so many people. I would like them to be finished everywhere."Sandra, whose left leg was blown away when she stepped on a landmine at the age of four, is in Sydney on the start of a three-week visit to Australia, her first trip out of her trouble-torn country.While she is tired and a little bewildered by all the sights she's seen since arriving on Friday night, she is happy to be here to continue Diana's work.She'll be talking to Sydney schoolkids at an Australian Red Cross Kids At War seminar tomorrow about the landmines campaign, how the hidden evil has cost the lives and health of millions of children, and the joy of her day with Diana in January last year."She was so nice to me," said Sandra. "We sat and chatted about landmines and children. She had a simple personality and was very warm. She has helped so many children."She's been visited by 70 journalists and photographers in Angola, who all pledged their help in return for writing stories and taking photos, but very little has been sent to be put towards her education, without which she will never have a future.Local aid workers say it would be cruel to send her back to her remote rural village after her life has been changed so much by Diana's visit, but there may be no other option as meagre funds slowly dwindle."I just want to work to make sure no other children are killed or hurt by landmines," said Sandra."They have hurt me. I know what it can be like."I had the pleasure of meeting Sandra just a few weeks ago when I went to Sydney for the Red Cross. She is a delightful young woman and she puts an extremely brave but compassionate human face on the universal tragedy of landmines. That is exactly why I have referred to it today.Much mention is made of Princess Diana's work of focussing attention on the tragedy of landmine victims, and I certainly appreciate the focus she gave the issue. There are many people in Australia who too should take great credit for the way in which the fight for the ban on landmines has been waged. I refer to people like Sister Patricia Pak Poy, the Australian coordinator of the international campaign to ban landmines, and to the many other people in non-government organisations, including Austcare and the Red Cross, who have worked hand in hand to bring this issue to where it is today.It is these non-government organisations which have been the driving force behind the Ottawa Convention, and I commend them for their commitment and resolute dedication and determination to the position which this parliament is about to ratify. It is through the efforts of these organisations that a path was established and a lead set that governments simply had no option but to follow.I am involved in a number of anti-landmine organisations—among them is the WA Community Liaison and Advisory Committee of the de-mining research project at the University of Western Australia. The research team, under Professor James Trevelyan, is the only team in the world to investigate de-mining problems in depth and to talk to de-miners in the field to learn about their problems. A reflection of their expertise is that they are mainly funded by the United States Defence Department. I sought the views of Professor Trevelyan and he provided the following, and I quote from the briefing notes we discussed:In supporting this legislation, we would like to take this opportunity to raise the issue of mine clearance: a worthy objective to which the government has committed $100 million over the ten years to 2005. This issue is particularly relevant to section 6/4 of the Convention.We are concerned that this money could be spent more effectively. While over 35 million has already been committed, there seems to be no clear strategy to maximise the effectiveness of this major expenditure by Australian taxpayers. Grants are announced seemingly on an ad-hoc basis without concern for overall efficiency and long term objectives.At The University of Western Australia we have researched the practical problems of mine clearance for three years and have achieved wide international recognition for our work. We have solved several practical problems faced by deminers. By closely analysing accident records we have devised light-weight, cheap and comfortable protective clothing and tools for deminers to minimise the risk of injuries.Unlike many research programmes which focus on technology alone, ours is broadly based because we have learned that social, cultural and political factors dictate solutions as much as technical factors.We have discovered that currently there are no ways to accurately assess the effectiveness of a mine clearance programme taking the huge diversity of tasks into account. Simply calculating dollars per mine destroyed is meaningless when one realises that many mine fields may contain no active mines at all. Yet as long as the land is thought to be mined, it cannot safely be re-settled or used to grow food.We have also learned that nearly every demining programme is entirely dependent on foreign aid funding and most rely heavily on ex-patriate experts who cost $200,000 to $300,000 a year and often stay only a few months. Local deminers know more about the mine problem than foreign experts, but have mostly been denied the formal education we all take for granted and have limited fluency in English. Their views are suppressed, leading to frustration and resentment. The Afghanistan Mine Action Programme was set up predominantly by Australians and is now recognised as being the best in the world. Over 4,000 Afghans work in the programme yet only four or five ex-patriate experts are involved in a monitoring and advisory role and they are mostly on long-term appointments. All the major demining organisations are staffed entirely by Afghans.Even the Afghanistan programme is entirely reliant on aid funding. Yet the problems of mines and unexploded ordnance last long after aid programmes cease. Germany is still spending more than $1 billion a year clearing explosive devices left over from World Wars 1 and 2. The only long term solution is to build local capacity to handle the problems which means rebuilding the economies and training people.We know of several people whose expertise is available such as Mr. Bill van Ree who managed the Afghanistan Mine Action Programme until the end of 1997.The long term benefits of our demining commitment will be greatly enhanced by ensuring that it is appropriately supported by a coordinated programme of research, education and training, particularly for senior demining staff. Such a programme would significantly boost local capabilities in all the countries we currently support. This needs to be based in mine-affected regions with local staff. Yet Australia has the resources to ensure senior deminers in different countries learn as much or more from each other as much as from Australian expertise.The University of Western Australia has shown how an in-country research team can work successfully with an Australian university, with much better outcomes for both from a given level of funding. The in-country research team will lead to a locally self-sustainable organisation manufacturing equipment tailored to the needs of Afghan deminers.Finally there are many serving defence force personnel who would gladly spend a year or more assisting demining programmes in our region: many have already taken part in demining programmes before. Yet the Defence Department insists on full cost recovery for their services without taking into account the enormous benefits received. These people enhance Australia's standing in the region, and make personal contacts in regions where the ADF may be called on to operate in future. They learn about the tactics of armed groups, and in particular practice decontamination in real situations, rather than dry and unrealistic training exercises in Australia.Through Professor Trevelyan, I also sought the views of Mr Bill van Ree who, as was mentioned, oversaw the very successful Afghanistan mine action program. Mr van Ree also works in the field for Austcare, and he had this to say:The development of a successful mine action program should be based on the development of four aspects. (1) Education, community understanding of the mines problem and the difficulties associated with clearance and the communities role in the clearance process. (2) Training, this not only includes the development of the technical skills to located and destroy mines and UXOs but, more importantly, the development of the management science of effective mine action. (3) Data collection and the development of information management systems that provide the information needed to identify and make use of opportunities to improve safety, productivity and effectiveness of the program. (4) Victim assistance, including medical support for those injured by mines and assistance in the development of livelihoods for those denied access to safe productive land.. . . . . . . . .One of the areas that we could improve is the application of Army resources to mine action. While it would be ideal to have a percentage of the defence budget allocated to mine action, I understand that this may be extremely difficult to achieve. However, one issue that should be addressed is the employment of defence force personnel in mine action projects. Australian Army staff have a well deserved reputation for excellence in mine clearance. They seem to have adapted to the challenge of working in this field gaining the support and respect of many working in the humanitarian aid sector, extremely difficult to achieve when you are a soldier.Unfortunately, the department of defence charges AusAID "full cost recovery" (as I understand it) for each member of the defence force involved in these projects. I believe that the Army should not charge for these people. Most of the members involved see these projects as an extremely valuable training and staff development opportunity. Members have the opportunity to develop contaminated area clearance skills and a broader understanding on the employment and eradication of landmines. They are exposed to opportunities to develop skills in battlefield analysis and exposure to countries in our region of strategic importance. The Army could get better value from this opportunity by: (1) getting Army volunteers to spend longer periods on demining tours (say 12 months Vs the normal 3-6 months) and (2) tasking the soldiers with self and army development of lessons learned (eg. Papers on battlefield analysis and the employment of mines, and the development of technologies in the location and destruction of mines, the development of mine detection etc). This may not seem to be an important issue but, one of the things that I have noticed over the past few years is that many of the people involved in the development of mine action management at the operational level do not have the battlefield analysis skills needed to reduce the time wasted on checking areas that do not contain mines. We have the opportunity to make a very valuable contribution to mine action and the development of our own Army.Of real concern to me is the issue of how and where we are to spend the $100 Mil announced this time last year, (now estimated to be about $65 mil remaining). The problem here is that AusAID appears to have a glass ceiling for the allocation of funds.. . . . . . . . .AusAID tends to avoid exposure to high startup costs by channelling funds through the UN Trust Funds established to support mine action. This is a good approach, provided you are satisfied with the direction and performance of the supported organisation. I would prefer to seek critical analysis of individual projects and for AusAID to consider the option of channelling funds through an Australian Mine Action NGO that can develop the management and technical technologies that seem to be difficult to develop within the larger Bureaucracies. This organisation should be seen as a catalyst for change in the management of mine action projects in beneficiary communities.I support the views of people like Professor Trevelyan and Bill van Ree. They are on the sharp end of landmine clearance; they command respect. I would like to encourage the minister and the government to listen to and act on the very good suggestions that these people have.In relation to the $100 million, I would also be appreciative if the minister in his response could give the House details of the following: (1) the proposed expenditure of the remaining money; (2) a break down of the money already spent; (3) in which department or departments will budgeted moneys be held; (4) what amounts will be budgeted on a yearly basis up to the year 2005; (5) who will decide how much, and where, the money will be spent, and against what criteria; and (6) if any, what part of the $100 million will be by way of resource rather than financial support?I strongly urge the minister to ensure that this money or in kind support, if that is the case, is channelled through Australian agencies. There is absolutely no doubt that they are among world leaders in the fight against the horror of landmines. For instance, Austcare has now decided that, rather than funding other people, they themselves are going operational and employing their own teams. I say to the minister that it is agencies like the Red Cross and Austcare which will give Australia best value for money. I would urge him and the government to establish a representative body of non-government organisation representatives to give advice on how best to spend the moneys available and to ensure that the greatest possible impact is made in the shortest possible time.I want to draw the minister's attention to part 2, clause 7(3) of the bill. I ask the minister if he could give this House an assurance that this clause will not be used as a loophole to assist countries which are not signatories to this convention. I would also like an assurance that Australian defence personnel will know exactly what their guidelines are in relation to their responsibilities under this legislation. I want to be assured that defence personnel acting in good faith will have sufficient safeguards when involved in or supporting international operations.I join with Mr Bill van Ree and the Western Australian de-mining project in calling on the government to recognise the benefits of our defence forces taking an active role in de-mining programs in our region and making their personnel available at minimal cost. This will significantly enhance our de-mining commitment without increased cost to taxpayers. I also join with them in calling on the Australian government to draw on, as I have already said, the knowledge and expertise available in Australia to redirect Australian resources to maximise the long-term effectiveness of our de-mining commitment.I brought a couple of landmines with me today—and I assure you that they have been neutered—because in my discussions with people, even with some members of parliament, many do not have an idea of what landmines look like. I am sorry that Hansard cannot capture this image, but what I am holding up is a landmine which has been used since about 1970. The smaller landmine that I have is probably a little over two inches wide and two inches deep. It is a mine which is designed not necessarily to kill but to blow someone's leg off or injure them in such a way that their colleagues would be forced to look after and care for them. The great trag edy is that when mines are left in the ground they do not discriminate. They do not know the difference between a soldier and a civilian. They do not know the difference between a man, a woman or a child. When they explode, they either kill or maim.I also have with me a danger sign which is used in places like Cambodia. It is made of a fairly stiff type of plastic. Unfortunately, in the countries and the regions in which they are used, the people are extremely poor, and they have a habit of taking these warning signs and using them for tiles. As a consequence, AusAID and others have been forced to cut a boomerang portion out of each side so that they are no longer useful for such a purpose. These two instances—one, the very small size of the mines and, two, the difficulty in warning people of the whereabouts of mines—are reasons why we have the very high casualty rates that I spoke about a bit earlier—casualty rates that have been identified by the Red Cross.It is a matter of extreme importance that Australia has signed this convention. It is important that we ratify the convention, which is what this legislation will do. It is important that we do not stop there; that we use our money and our resources in the best possible way. In this way we can ensure that the number of Sandras injured—the young girl to whom I referred earlier—is kept to a bare minimum. The unfortunate thing is that there are hundreds of Sandras out there in the community in very different parts of the world. Some have already suffered injuries, and there are many hundreds who are yet to experience them, simply because there are so many landmines in various parts of the world.The great tragedy is that these kids, simply at play doing what every child should have a right to do in any part of the world, set off these landmines and suffer the great injuries that we have seen happen to this young girl Sandra. I am very pleased that Australia is standing up to take its responsibility as a leader in the world on these issues. In closing, I thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to handle this bill for the opposition. 17:14:00654Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I will start my speech on the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 by congratulating the member for Cowan on an outstanding contribution. He obviously has a deep and abiding interest in this subject and a considerable degree of expertise, and I, and I am sure all other members of this House, would like to acknowledge his contribution and thank him for it.I grew up in England—and I date myself by saying this—during the Second World War. As I grew up and went through school, I remember and became quite used to seeing grown men—men who were younger than I am today, some from the First World War and some from the Second World War—walking down the street on crutches, perhaps with a limb missing. It was not a common sight, but it was certainly not uncommon. It was something that, I suppose, one understood happened.Of course, many of those injuries were caused by landmines. I saw the impact they had on many of those men's lives. Whilst today we have in place good social security systems to help people who were affected in that situation, in those days that was not necessarily the case. Whilst some people have the personal characteristics to get over such terrible injuries, not everybody does and the impact can be terrible. One of my own grandfathers lost a leg in that way in the First World War. He died before I really grew up very much, but I remember his being so immobilised in that way.Later in my life I spent some two dozen years in the British Air Force. I served in Singapore during the Malayan emergency and subsequently elsewhere. Again, although fortunately I did not have to experience landmines directly, I certainly saw their effects on others with whom I served. After my military service I left the Air Force. I migrated to Australia 20 years ago and went into business and, probably like so many Australians, it slipped from my mind. It was not there consciously. I did not think about it too much. I was too busy trying to make a quid and put a roof over the family, and I think most Australians would be in that situation.Thankfully, most of our population probably have never had to face, have needed to know about or have actually experienced, landmines and their consequences, and that is a blessing. But it is an issue that we all need to be aware of. In this country it is not a reality perhaps every day, but the reality in so many parts of the world is the impact of landmines—and the ongoing impact of landmines across large parts of the world is very severe indeed.Since I have been in this parliament, I have been fortunate enough to make a number of visits overseas with parliamentary delegations. On two delegation visits to Pakistan, I had the opportunity to meet some of the de-mining teams that the member for Cowan referred to who were operating in Pakistan and training de-miners to go back into Afghanistan. I toured some of the refugee camps and I saw some of the de-mining activity there. Of course, the impact on many of those people was really quite horrendous.On my first visit to Pakistan about six years ago, we actually had Australian Defence de-mining personnel working on the ground training local people to gain some expertise in de-mining. When I went back a year or two ago, we had withdrawn our military personnel from there. We had decided that the priority was in Cambodia or somewhere else—and that may well have been the right decision, but it meant that we were therefore dependent totally on non-government organisations.One of the things that struck me was that most of the expert de-mining personnel who were there in a non-government capacity were former serving officers and NCOs of the Australian forces, some of whom had decided when we withdrew the military from that area to resign their commissions and go back there on a voluntary basis. The commitment was that great. I can well identify with the comments of the member for Cowan about the need or the desire of many of our existing servicemen to take the opportunity to go to those places and undertake that training and very vital work.The government has put a fair amount of money and effort over the years, as have all governments from this country, to try to alleviate some of these problems. Training volunteers is a long and tortuous business, and the depths of expertise certainly is not always there. Only last year I had the opportunity to visit Laos on a delegation led by the parliamentary secretary who is at the table, the member for Moncrieff. Again we visited a de-mining location. I think the member for Cowan has upstaged me because I brought my little demonstration as well.While we were there, we learnt that, for example, the Americans did blanket bombing during the Vietnam War and other conflicts associated with that area. I do not know the technical name, but basically they would drop several dozen, if not hundreds, of these bombs in a single bombing load, the bombs would open up as they came down and some 600 of these little round landmines would come out of each bomb.For the benefit of Hansard's description, I am holding up a wooden copy of the actual thing, but it is really just a little ball no bigger than a tennis ball. It has no real distinctive marks on the outer shell. These were scattered far and wide throughout Indo-China. If you go to Laos, which is a very poor small country, these things and other landmines in a whole variety of shapes and forms are scattered all over the place.But, when you are a little kid of four or five running around the fields and you pick up a little ball like the one I am holding—and there are literally millions of these things all over the country—you do not understand what it is. De-mining signs may not be there. Young kids do not pay attention to warnings. We talk to our kids or our grandchildren and tell them what they should and should not do and half the time they do not listen. So a kiddie will come along and pick this up and start playing with it, or throw it to his mate, and boom—he is blinded, he is dead, he has lost an arm, he has lost a leg or whatever.There are literally millions of these all over the place in many countries of Asia—Cambodia, Laos and so on. It means that, if you go out into the rice paddy, you might not come back because you might walk on a mine. If you want to clear some ground to build a house and get some economic development going, you may find that one of these things is under the ground that you are trying to clear and blows up in your face. So the social impact, the economic impact and the human impact of landmines is absolutely horrendous. It is something which most of us really never come to grips with.It is an everyday risk for people who live in those areas, so I am very pleased that the government has chosen to introduce this bill. The bill is to give effect to our obligations as party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction—in other words, the Ottawa Convention.I am not going to go through this in great detail because time is limited today, but the object of the legislation is to make sure that we do not use land mines in a war situation, that we do retain a small capability within the armed forces for training of people in a de-mining capacity, and that we allow inspections of our country—as others will have to allow inspections of their territory—to make sure that we implement it. There are a number of other technical things there. I am pleased of course that the opposition is supporting this legislation but, frankly, I think that is almost a foregone conclusion because all of us in this place would support this type of legislation, whoever brought it forward.Over 130 countries have already signed the convention, which I think is clearly in tune with the spirit of the times and goes a considerable way towards building a global norm against landmines. I agree with the previous speaker that we, as a country, not only need to put money and expertise into this area, which is so vital, but also need to go out and convince a lot of our neighbours in this region—where, in fact, we have good standing these days because our help in other ways in recent years—who have not signed the convention to do so.The thought of landmines causing death or injury of nearly 2,000 people per month, every month, in this year of 1998—and it will go on into next year and into the new millennium—is totally unacceptable. Therefore, it is important that this country tries to do something about it and that we support the convention.In the last parliament I had the privilege of being chair of the Amnesty group and of being heavily involved with defence, foreign affairs and trade committees in one form or another, and so I have had the opportunity be close to some of these issues. I am delighted that I have been able to be somewhat associated with the ministers bringing in this legislation. I congratulate the government and the minister, and I commend the bill to the House.17:25:00656Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—It is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate this evening on the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 , particularly following the contributions made by the member for Cowan on behalf of the opposition and also by the member for Aston. In both contributions by my colleagues, they have clearly demonstrated the commitment that the whole of this parliament has to ensuring the swift passage of this legislation. I would like to lend my support to the congratulations that have gone to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and to the Minister for Defence in the previous government, who lent his assistance—I am sure the present minister would like to be associated with that—and also to my colleagues on this side of the parliament who have been pushing for this particular legislation for some time.I am sure honourable members with long memories in this place would know that, on our side particularly, it was an issue which had been on the agenda for probably far too long. It was an issue that we could have probably come to in our term in government a little sooner, but nevertheless that should not take away from the fact that we are here this evening in very much a bipartisan spirit in supporting this legislation. At the end of the day this goes to the very heart of issues around the world in terms of both warfare and post-war reconstruction. As both colleagues have ably demonstrated—and regrettably I have not got for Hansard or, indeed, for the parliament something to demonstrate here this evening—the simple fact is that military material, which landmines are, last in places where they have been laid well beyond any of the wars for which their original purpose was foreseen.Any statistics that you look at would tell you something about the breadth of this particular problem: there are something like 60 million to 70 million landmines scattered across 70 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Americas; 50 years is the average life of a landmine; 2,000 people, on average, are killed or injured by landmines each month; $3 to $30 is the cost of producing a landmine; $300 to $1,000 dollars is the cost of neutralising a landmine; $4,000 is needed per amputee for surgical care and prosthesis; one out of every 236 people in Cambodia is an amputee due to landmine injuries; and 20,000 people in Angola are amputees due to landmines. These statistics come from the United Nations and also from the International Committee of the Red Cross. They demonstrate that long after a conflict has passed in many parts of the world the devastation and the destruction continues, and it is the innocents who are the ones most greatly affected.I think recently there was even evidence that suggested, as a result of some of the heavy rains in South-East Asia—some of the storms, some of the very intense seasonal tropical downpours that occurred there—there has been massive land movement, landslip, and all sorts of these destructive landmines have been uncovered. As the member for Aston has described, literally millions of them have just now been uncovered.The most regrettable feature of this is that productive parts of many of these developing countries are still unable to be used productively because of the laying of landmines at different times. In many of these countries, if they are to prosper—the honourable member talked of Laos, but I am sure that there are many other examples as well—they need every square inch of their arable land for development purposes. They need every square inch of their land in outer urban fringes to ensure that appropriate economic development takes place. But if they are subject to enormous costs associated with landmine clearing then, clearly, that is going to impact on the ability of those countries to rehabilitate themselves. Countries like Australia have a genuine and very real commitment to do something about that, as we should.I am very pleased to be Labor's spokesperson on defence issues in this parliament because we do have a very proud record in our defence forces—and I say this very much in a bipartisan way—in respect of mine clearing operations. I think even the most charitable members on both sides of this place would have to say that our former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Gareth Evans, did an outstanding job in respect of Cambodia and that the ongoing relationship that was established between Australia's defence forces in clearing mines was very much part of the process of rehabilitation of that former war-torn country.I think it is also important that we understand that the bipartisan nature of this legislation also has its genesis in the fact that both sides of parliament—and dare I say all political parties—have at some stage in recent times adopted a common policy in respect of this. In the case of the Australian Labor Party, at our Hobart national conference in January of this year we adopted a specific resolution as part of our platform, which states:In response to the global humanitarian crisis arising from the scourge of anti-personnel landmines, Labor is committed to working in all available forums to secure a global and legally binding ban on the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines, and to supporting those efforts through ratification of the Ottawa landmines ban treaty and destruction of Australia's landmine stockpile, with the exception of the minimum stocks required for mine clearance and awareness training by the Australian Defence Force.I think that is the sort of resolution that anybody in this place would live with—whether it was at a Labor Party national conference, whether it was at a conference of the Liberal Party or whatever—because of the destructive and insidious nature of these weapons of destruction, which are not totally dissimilar to large guns or the use of FA18 fighters, F111s, naval bombardments, subma rines or whatever it might be. These aspects of war, as all contributors in the debate this afternoon have highlighted, are there for a long time after the event. For this reason, as I said a little earlier, it is welcome that this legislation is before us today.I noted in some of the information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on Australian de-mining aid projects, which the member for Cowan also reflected upon, that a number of countries serve as very good examples as to how this takes place and why it should occur. I will take Cambodia and Laos as examples. Australian government aid has assisted in the detection and destruction of mines and unexploded ordnance in Cambodia and Laos. Through mine and UXO clearance activities and mine awareness education, Australia is helping the people of Cambodia and Laos pursue the task of reconstruction and development in a safer environment.According to the statistics in this document, Australian soldiers and civilian personnel have been working to provide training and organisational support to help Cambodians clear landmines, using the latest Australian technology, and something like 520,000 mines have been cleared. Yet, as I think we all appreciate, that is only a fraction of the ordnance that was distributed during the term of the Cambodian conflict.Afghanistan is one of the most heavily mined countries in the world. Each day 10 Afghans are killed or maimed by landmines. With 90 per cent of Afghanistan's mined areas in agricultural fields, irrigation canals and grazing areas, economic recovery will be severely hampered until the mines are removed. The Australian government has funded landmine awareness and de-mining projects since 1991 in that country.Landmine detector and sniffer dog teams have cleared more than 152 square kilometres of mine infested land in Afghanistan's eastern provinces since 1989. Even that statistic tells you the size of the task. Since 1989 we have been involved in a project in Afghanistan and yet we have been able to assist in de-mining only 152 square kilometres of that country, which is the most heavily mined country in the world. That illustrates the commitment that we in this country do have and why it should continue. The document goes on to talk about Angola, Mozambique and other countries. It is quite amazing when you look at those statistics.The section of the legislation which says—and which we have all agreed is an important part of the legislation—that the Australian Defence Force can maintain a small supply of these mines for training purposes is very significant. It is significant because we have a proud history in our Australian Defence Force of mine clearance operations. We have highly trained, highly skilled personnel who are carrying out these operations around the world at no small risk to themselves. That part of this legislation provides an enduring opportunity for Australia's defence forces to maintain those significant training opportunities for our service people and also to assist in the economic recovery of many of these countries where we have been sent in the past.That section of the legislation also makes a significant contribution to our regional security and stability because there is no doubt conventional arguments about what is warfare change all the time. Warfare today can be economic warfare. Warfare today can be sending somebody like that stockbroker in Singapore to see what he can do on behalf of a bank to bring the country to its knees. That is warfare in a sense. It is a practised art—perhaps a black art—but it is one which is emerging more and more.The simple fact is that there will always be a need—at the pointy edge of defence—for trained personnel equipped and ready to fulfil Australia's international obligation as part of our regional security and regional stability commitment. I would like to think that the continuing presence of Australia's Defence Force plus the ongoing research and development of how these landmine eradication projects might continue, as carried out by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, might receive the recognition of this parliament that they so rightly deserve. There is a technical component; there is a military component. Both sides of defence have been doing a marvellous job, and they should be commended for it. The government, too, should be commended for this legislation. It is timely, it is welcomed by the opposition and we wish it speedy passage through this place.17:39:00659Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—As the Howard government's Special Representative on Demining, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I speak to the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 . The bill is the culmination of much hard work by many with the single aim of putting an end to a blight that has killed and maimed countless innocent victims around the globe. I have seen the nature of the landmine problem at first hand and have met many of the people whose lives have been changed forever by this terrible scourge. That is why the passage of this legislation will give me particular satisfaction.Last May I had the privilege of leading the Australian delegation at the Global Humanitarian Demining Conference in Washington. The conference provided a unique opportunity to discuss the many and complex issues associated with landmines and I congratulate the United States government for initiating and hosting it.Australia's close involvement in this issue is entirely one of principle. It should be a matter of pride for us that not only has the Australian Defence Force never been associated with the indiscriminate or irresponsible use of landmines, but rather ADF personnel have put their own lives at risk as members of de-mining teams that Australia has provided to countries in need of their expertise.Honourable members are probably familiar with the grim statistics on landmines, some of which have already been mentioned. There are 70 million landmines in more than 70 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Americas. Approximately 2,000 people are killed or injured by landmines each month, half of whom are women and children. An average of 10 Afghanis are killed or maimed by landmines each day. Landmine injuries have made amputees of more than 44,000 Cambodians—one in every 236—20,000 Angolans and 8,000 Mozambicans. There is no doubt that the relatively low monetary cost of landmines—as little as $3 per mine—has contributed to their indiscriminate use in armed conflicts. They can be spread quickly and easily. Some, for example butterfly and dragontooth mines, can be dropped from helicopters at the rate of more than 1,000 per minute. When the time comes to remove these mines, it is a different story. It can cost $1,000 to neutralise just one mine in a procedure that is not only expensive and very dangerous but also tedious and lengthy. It can take an entire day to clear a mere 20 square metres of mine contaminated land. Further, many mines are very long-lived and can continue to strike for up to 50 years after the end of the conflict for which they were laid.One of the saddest stories I have heard relates to Hurricane Mitch, the storm that recently devastated so many countries in Central America and the Caribbean. Landmines laid along the Nicaraguan border more than a decade ago were displaced by the hurricane's floods, killing and maiming rescue workers and those involved in the clean-up—yet another tragic example of how landmines strike indiscriminately. The recent United Nations report entitled The impact of armed conflict on children outlines the nature of the problem. Signs posted to warn of landmines are useless if children are too young to read or are illiterate for other reasons. Children's small and fragile bodies mean that they are far more likely to die from their mine injuries than adults or, if they survive, they are likely to be more seriously injured or permanently disabled. Because children are still growing, their wounds may require repeated amputation and a new artificial limb as often as every six months. Children, with no direct economic or political influence, often lose out on rehabilitative therapy in an environment of scarce medical resources. The human cost of landmines is not limited to deaths and injuries caused directly by mine explosions. The very fear of their presence can render unusable large areas of otherwise productive land, which can have dire consequences for food production and may also prevent refugees returning to their homes. This loss of agricultural land can lead to malnutrition and even starvation. De-mining agricultural land can give people the chance to grow their own crops rather than rely on international aid. Australian de-miners in Mozambique had some first-hand experience of just how valuable that land could be. At one stage, they were clearing narrow strips of land only about a metre wide each day. Each time they came back to start work the next morning, they would find the previous day's cleared strip already planted with crops. I have already mentioned the work done by Australia to assist in worldwide de-mining efforts. As part of our discussion of the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 which outlaws the possession, use of and trade in landmines, I think it is worth putting on the record the significant contribution Australia makes in relation to de-mining and related activities. We can all be proud of it. Australia has always responded speedily and generously to calls for assistance and has been a substantial contributor to de-mining programs in the most heavily mined countries in the world. In December last year, the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced that, for the 10 years from 1995 to 2005, Australia would provide more than $100 million for de-mining and related activities. Already $35 million has been committed, making Australia a major donor in assisting with de-mining, mine awareness and victim assistance. This $35 million comes from the overseas aid budget and excludes any expenditure by the Department of Defence on humanitarian de-mining.Australian assistance has concentrated on four areas: institutional support for mine clearance organisations; physical clearance of landmines and training of indigenous de-mining teams; mine awareness activities focussing on local communities and school children; and treatment and rehabilitation for landmine victims to help restore mobility and employment opportunities. Our assistance is channelled in various ways, including through the United Nations, non-government organisations and Australian Defence Force personnel. The majority has been directed to countries in Australia's immediate region, particularly Cambodia and Laos, but significant support has also been provided to Angola, Mozambique, Afghanistan and now Sri Lanka.Some honourable members may have visited one of our programs during parliamentary delegation visits to these countries and have had the opportunity, like me, to see the great work that is being done. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the magnificent efforts of our de-mining aid workers, often in circumstances of considerable personal danger.Following the Conference on Global Humanitarian Demining in Washington, Australia has been working with other countries on coordination of de-mining initiatives through the United Nations Mine Action Service, or UNMAS, the creation of which has significantly enhanced the coordination of international efforts. In line with the recommendations of the Washington conference, we are looking at support for multidisciplinary assessments of each mine affected country, development of mine surveys, determination of common standards for the development and application of technology to humanitarian de-mining and for the development of information management systems that can both inform donors and promote better coordination.I say to the member for Cowan, who made some comments that perhaps Australia's forward planning was not as structured as it might be—I think that is a fair precis of what he might have said—that this conference was extremely important in that context.83REDWARDSMr Edwards—I was quoting Mr Bill van Ree whom you may know.3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—Yes, in relation to the comments—you did quote them and they are in the record—I need to say that that Washington conference was highly relevant to this very point. Its purpose was that the 30-odd countries that are donors to worldwide de-mining activities could have a better future structure in terms of identifying what the problem really is and its scope, and identifying priority areas—and there are some landmined areas that are not of high priority for clearance—and making sure that in-country there is good coordination of everybody involved. That is the significance of the role of UNMAS.83REDWARDSMr Edwards—It is also the sort of work that the University of Western Australia is doing.3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—I am aware that they are doing good work. A number of universities in Australia have a keen interest in the subject for one reason or another. It is very welcome.I make that intervention in relation to the contribution by the member for Cowan to say that in the past it has actually been difficult for donor countries to find a structure within which they could work. Without doubt, there is enormous goodwill worldwide—and not least in Australia—to do what can be done for poor countries, in particular, that are affected. But there has not been the best-quality information available. We have responded in relation to identified need and tried to make sure that our aid money is put to the best possible use.I want to take this opportunity to particularly commend to honourable members on both sides of the House an initiative in which they could involve themselves within their own electorates—namely, Destroy a Minefield, a mine clearance and awareness program recently announced by the government. This program will allow individuals, schools, community groups, business and associations to participate directly in solving the landmines problem by adopting active minefields which have been selected by the United Nations as having a high priority for clearance so as to return the land to productive use by the local population. This type of project is already under way in the United States and I believe will spread to a number of countries throughout the world.Destroy a Minefield will receive funds from the Princess Diana Trust Fund set up to collect the sales tax revenue from the Elton John Candle in the wind tribute CD in memory of the late Princess of Wales. The government will allocate $200,000 from the trust fund and will also contribute an additional $200,000 from our overseas aid budget. Individual or group sponsors will be encour aged to raise funds to clear their adopted minefield. For every $2 raised by sponsors, the Princess Diana Trust Fund and the government will contribute $1. The Australian community can thus activate $1.2 million towards high priority minefield clearance. Destroy a Minefield will not only benefit poor people who live in daily fear of landmines but also educate and involve altruistic Australians in the landmine issue in a compassionate and productive way.The bill we are considering today will be a major step forward in the effort to achieve a total ban on landmines. Australia, along with the 120 other countries that have also signed the Ottawa Convention, is entering into a legally binding commitment forswearing the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of antipersonnel landmines. This is an achievement of major international and domestic significance. Passage of this legislation will also mean that Australia will be in a position to ratify the convention by the time it enters into force on 1 March 1999. But this is not the end of the story. The list of convention signatory nations does not include key countries in the global landmines equation; that is, some of the major producers and users of landmines. That is why this government has ensured that Australia continues to play a leading role in pushing for complementary negotiations in the UN-affiliated Conference on Disarmament to achieve a ban on transfers; namely, all forms of trading and transportation of antipersonnel mines. Such a ban, if adopted by those major traditional producers and traders in landmines who have not signed the Ottawa Convention, would represent a very important step forward in the global battle against landmines.Some time ago, Australia ratified the Revised Landmines Protocol—Protocol II—to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The protocol involves measures such as ensuring the detectability and self-destructibility of mines and the outlawing of the use of mines against the civilian population. We continue to encourage all states which have not yet done so—and particularly those which have not or do not sign the Ottawa Convention—to become parties to the convention and the Revised Protocol. We are active in promoting adherence to the Revised Protocol in our region.What we are seeing is the development of a number of overlapping conventions and protocols with the ultimate objective of a truly global, comprehensive ban on antipersonnel landmines. The Australian government remains committed to that objective.The Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 will give effect to Australia's obligations under the Ottawa Convention. It will make it an offence to engage in activities prohibited under the convention, with penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment. The placement, possession, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling and transfer of antipersonnel mines by ADF members or Australian citizens will be outlawed. At the same time, an appropriate exemption will allow the retention of a minimal number of mines for anti-mine and mine clearance training. This is an outcome of which all Australians can be proud. It is a result in which honourable members can also take pride, for I know that members on both sides of the House have struggled long and hard for it.While this marks one milestone towards the goal of a world free from landmines, the Howard government is determined to ensure that there will be many more causes for celebration. We will keep pressing these matters in international forums. We will continue our assistance with de-mining and related activities both bilaterally and multilaterally. In that task, each square metre of land returned to production will mark a victory. Each person spared from death or terrible injury will be ample reward. It is therefore in that happy anticipation that I commend the bill to the House.17:54:00662Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—In joining in this debate, I think it is worth commenting on the quality of contributions made by members on both sides of the House. We are all horribly aware of what indiscriminate killers and maimers of human beings antipersonnel landmines are. We are aware that the great majority of their victims are civilians, and a very large percentage of their victims are children. One has to wonder what sort of human being it is that sits down to deliberately design a product to attract a child of the type that the member for Aston showed the chamber today, or what sort of company it is that produces that sort of horrific device.We are all also aware of the massive costs that are imposed upon communities. Tragically, those communities are usually those least able to sustain not only the costs of clearing up mines but also the huge loss associated with the loss of productive land from those minefields. Countries such as Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan seem to face perennial famine conditions with mines preventing access to limited water resources and limited available arable land.The statistics, as other speakers have indicated, are horrific. The parliamentary secretary referred to, I think, 70 million mines in 70 countries. Other people estimate well in excess of 100 million mines.Mrs Sullivan interjecting—QK6Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBE—Is it? Nonetheless, it is an horrific number whether it is 70 million or over 100 million in typically poor countries such as Cambodia, Afghanistan, Angola and Bosnia. In Angola, there is estimated to be more landmines than people. In Cambodia, one in every 236 people is an amputee. In the order of 20 per cent of the casualties are children and it is estimated that 26,000 people—that is, one every 20 minutes—are injured by these horrific weapons.The problems of clearing up have been amply indicated elsewhere in the debate. The cost of detecting and removing these devices is up to $US1,000. These devices also impose a range of other problems on the global community—dangers to peacekeepers, for example. I have seen figures recently that show that 42 peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia have been killed and some 315 injured as a result of landmines.The abhorrence of these devices across the international community developed very solidly during the 1990s and led to the Ottawa Convention. Canada, in particular, needs to be commended very strongly for the leader ship role it played in the development of this process. There have been a number of other very significant personalities throughout the world who have led the mobilisation of community opinion on the question of antipersonnel landmines.A number of speakers have referred to the late Princess Diana, but there are a number of other people who, perhaps more surprising given their backgrounds, have played a prominent role. General Norman Schwarzkopf, the Commander-in-Chief of forces in the Gulf, has spoken out very vigorously on this issue. A person who is visiting this parliament tomorrow I believe—General Fidel Ramos of the Philippines—has also played a most important role in educating the community on these issues.But the most important activity has come from the non-government organisations—the NGOs—and especially the International Committee of Red Cross. In this respect, the Red Cross is following the noble tradition on which it was founded. It was founded in 1859 in the horrors of another period by Jean Henri Dunant after the Battle of Solferino. This organisation has demonstrated its ongoing strong credentials by the leadership role it has played in the mobilising of community opinion on landmines.They have been very successful in stigmatising mines. I think it is worth quoting the remarks of a significant Red Cross official in these matters. He says:Just as law, even international law, is a social creation, so the mobilisation of public consciousness worldwide was a key element in the success of the Ottawa process. When confronted with powerful evidence of the limited military utility of anti-personnel mines, especially in comparison with their enormous humanitarian costs, the public was first appalled, and then persuaded that a total ban was necessary.I think that is a very accurate description of the process whereby governments generally were led along by public opinion on these important matters. So on 3 December 1997 in Ottawa 125 nations signed the treaty and at that signing a number of very important contributions were made. Secretary-General of the United Nations Annan applauded the treaty as a historic victory for the weak and vulnerable of the world. He went on to say:It is an alliance—This is the non-government organisations—that shamed the world and enlightened it . . . It has, for once, made the international community a living, thriving reality.At that same ceremony the Canadian Prime Minister made the following comments:For the first time, the majority of nations of the world will agree to ban a weapon which has been in military use by almost every country in the world. For the first time, a global partnership of governments, international institutions and non-governmental groups have come together—with remarkable speed and spirit—to draft the treaty that we will sign today.The treaty bans the production, use, stockpiling or transport of antipersonnel mines. It requires the signatories to destroy their stockpiles of mines within four years and remove those deployed within 10. The treaty comes into force with 40 ratifications. My understanding is that the situation presently is that there are 133 signatories and 52 ratifications. The treaty therefore comes into force on 1 March next year, as the parliamentary secretary indicated.But before we get too carried away with congratulations across the board, I think there are a range of other matters that we need to keep very much in mind. As the parliamentary secretary indicated, there are a number of countries—in fact, the most major military powers—who are still not on board completely in this process. The United States still has some distance to go. The US State Department produced a report earlier this year called Hidden Killers 1998: The Global Landmine Crisis, and in it indicated that the US plans to sign the convention by 2006 if they succeed in identifying a field of suitable alternatives to their antipersonnel landmines and mixed anti-tank systems. President Clinton has made a number of fine rhetorical remarks on the subject but we are still not quite there in terms of the US being on board.The US continues to perceive a range of problems with respect particularly to their responsibilities on the Korean peninsula. So this seems to me, and I am sure to many members of the House, to be a fine opportunity for Australia, given its special relationship with the United States, to vigorously push the point. Of course, there are a range of other countries, including Russia and China, who are still not on board with the process.There are a range of matters that need to be dealt with also in relation to the process of de-mining. Recently I came across a report produced by the newsagency Reuters in which there is some considerable discussion about the technologies. The report, amongst other things, says:Unless affordable new technologies are introduced, sheer manual operations cannot achieve this goal.That is, the goal of this treaty. It continues:Open tracts of land . . . may be suitable for mechanical mind clearing technologies . . . But they record an operational efficiency of only 80 per cent, making it necessary for a follow-up by manual work.The report goes on to talk about the need for the development of high-technology solutions, including magnetic detectors, ground penetrating radar and so on and so forth, as important necessities for the world to achieve some of the targets it has set for itself. I am somewhat sympathetic to that viewpoint. We need to devote the resources to achieving a more active and a quicker process of de-mining, but this leaves us slap bang up against one of the great and horrific ironies of the whole mining debate, and that is the role of a number of the arms manufacturing companies—in fact, the mines manufacturers—in this process of de-mining.An excellent article appeared in September last year in what I believe is a British publication called the New Internationalist by an author called Paul Donovan. I would like to read a bit of Donovan's discussion on this matter of the technology of de-mining. He says:It was after the Gulf War that arms manufacturers saw a golden opportunity to diversify and make money out of clearing up the mess that their products had caused in the first place. The growing movement for a ban on land mines has spurred more arms companies to take up this practice known as `double dipping'. While highly paid PR departments have sought to portraying double dipping as a somehow virtuous and redeeming activity, the commercial advantages for the transnational arms corporations have often been lost in the small print. The knowledge a company clearing mines that also still makes them can gain in the field can be of inestimable value.In 1988 a company called CMS started developing mines for the US military, but after the Gulf War it moved into the `aftermath' (clearance) business. Today CMS is the largest ordinance-clearing company in the US and makes $160 million profits annually. Fred Dibella, CMS Vice President, insists that in Kuwait `we have not cleared up bombs or mines that were of our own manufacture'. However, CMA is owned by Deutsche Aerospace, whose parent company is the German Daimler Benz. Deutsch Aerospace also owns Messerschunurr-Bol, an arms manufacturer, whose products include a new generation of scatterable bombs.The article goes on:From South Africa comes another proponent of the `cradle to grave' services offered by some transnational arms manufacturers. Mechem is the research and development wing of Denel, the government-owned arms-manufacturing company. Mechem has won multi-million dollar contracts for the clearing of mines in Mozambique and Angola. Vernon Joynt of Mechem, who has helped design landmines for the South African Defence Force in the past, has seized the opportunity and is now a keen advocate of a ban on land mines.The article continues:For 26 years Joynt researched and developed landmines and other equipment, much of which was deployed by South Africa's client groups in Mozambique and Angola. He has proudly boasted that `there are some mines in Angola which no-one will be able to find without our help.' Mr Joynt is also one of the UN's most trusted advisors and well placed to push future technological solutions for the crisis caused by his and other anti-personnel landmines.So I do not for one moment resile from the importance of Australia in actively encouraging the de-mining process to explore all sorts of technologies and to recognise that many technologies other than the manual will be required. However, one also needs to be aware of the stunning hypocrisy on this issue of many of the people involved in the business. One needs to be very careful to ensure that the technology that is being developed and employed is that which is specifically made for the task rather than that which suits the interests of the arms manufacturers who, as I think we have illustrated, are often precisely the people who have been making the mines and are now seeking to clear them.In the very short time available to me, I wish to talk about the importance of the arms control agenda continuing to move forward. I think there would be bipartisan agreement that Australia has had a credible and creditable record in a range of areas relating to international activity on weapons of mass destruction—those horrific nuclear, biological and chemical weapons—on which the international community has had to co-operate. However, the landmines issue does raise the question of the need for initiatives with respect to smaller, more conventional weapons.There is a flood of small arms in the international community that are profoundly destabilising. In aggregate, these small arms other than landmines kill many tens of thousands of people annually. For example, in Albania, where there has been a breakdown of internal security, huge volumes of small arms have flooded onto the markets. Those small arms pop up in many parts of the world. We are aware of the consequences of supplying the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, in the 1980s, with substantial quantities of materiel—some $6 billion to $9 billion worth.Large quantities of small arms are popping up in all sorts of places, including Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Algeria and Sri Lanka. Sometimes quite sophisticated equipment, like Stinger surface to air missiles, pop up, appearing to come from arms supplied to rebel movements in various ways. I am not seeking to comment one way or the other on the morality or otherwise of this. I am simply saying that, in the small arms area, this flood of international weaponry is presenting an increasing problem for the global community.The former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, established a panel on small arms in 1992. That panel recognised the need for some greater transparency in relation to small arms. In 1993 the United Nations established a register of conventional arms, which sought to establish a register of the seven main weapons types, and an increasing number of governments have been participating in that. There have also been suggestions about regional registries of small arms. The Organisation of American States has been one that has taken the lead in that.Although in debate we often focus on weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, biological or chemical weapons impacting on huge numbers of people at the same time—the horrors that are inflicted by smaller arms should not be overlooked. We ought to encourage this sort of bipartisan discussion in the parliament in the future to ensure that Australia continues to play a prominent role in ensuring that pressure is brought to bear regarding not only landmines but a whole range of other destructive weapons that the international community needs to regulate.18:12:00665Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash. How nice it is to see you sitting in the chair. Madam Deputy Speaker, on average, 2,000 people are killed or injured by landmines every month. Fifty years is the average active life of a landmine. 60 million to 70 million landmines are scattered across 70 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Americas. The cost of producing a landmine is $3 to $30. The member for Cowan today showed us one of those small objects that cause so much devastation. The cost of neutralising a landmine is $300 to $1,000. One out of every 236 people in Cambodia is an amputee due to landmine injuries and 20,000 people in Angola are amputees due to landmine injuries. Padraic Convery, in the Guardian Weekly on 4 October 1998, gives a firsthand account of the devastation landmines cause to families and communities in Laos:In one village an entire family was wiped out. The young mother and her four children, aged between two and eight, were all killed by a single unexploded bomb while clearing a field. Only six months earlier her husband had died after striking a `bombie' with his hoe in the same field.I would like to acknowledge the member for Cowan's knowledge in this area, as demonstrated when he gave his speech today. I feel that anything I could say following that speech would be incredibly superficial. I would also like to acknowledge the speech by the parliamentary secretary, who is responsible for this area, and also the member for Aston who, from his travels in this regard, is aware firsthand of the devastation that these types of mines cause.As previous speakers have informed us, the purpose of the bill today is to give effect to Australia's obligations as a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, otherwise known as the Ottawa Convention. Under the convention, state parties undertake to never, under any circumstances, use antipersonnel mines; to never develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, antipersonnel mines; or to assist, encourage or induce in any way anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a state party under the convention. State parties also undertake to ensure the destruction of all antipersonnel mines in accordance with the provisions of the convention.The Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Alexander Downer, signed the Ottawa treaty on behalf of Australia on 3 December 1997, the first day the treaty was open for signature. Australia is one of 121 countries who signed the treaty when it was first opened and one of 130 who have presently signed it. However, as previous speakers have indicated—the member for Maribyrnong and also, I believe, the parliamentary secretary—key countries in the world have not signed this treaty. So while we here today might congratulate ourselves that there is a treaty, that we are ratifying it and that other countries have and will ratify it, we have to note that major countries in the world have not.Canada has signed the treaty, but not China; Iceland has signed the treaty, but not Iraq, Israel or Iran; Portugal has signed the treaty, but not Pakistan; Romania has signed the treaty, but not Russia; the United Kingdom has signed the treaty, but not the United States of America. Yet the countries I mentioned that have not signed the treaty are countries that are involved in conflicts, that have enormous power in the world, and that have the capacity to use that power: that would have to be of concern to us all.The United States has given two official reasons why it has not signed the treaty. It says that antipersonnel mines, APMs, are essential for its defence of the Korean border between South Korea and North Korea. It claims that the danger from North Korea is not its mass of weapons—because, in fact, the US has many more weapons in that area than does North Korea—but the actual numbers of North Koreans who it feels can come over the border. So the US claims that it needs the APMs to keep the North Koreans behind the border. The second reason the US has given for not signing the treaty is that it claims one of its essential weapons is the Gator system. The Gator system is, as I am sure the member for Cowan would know, a system which mixes anti-tank mines with antipersonnel mines. This, according to the United States, is one of its strategic weapons in some areas.As if to bolster its argument, it also comes up with what are, let us say, justifications—not official reasons—for the position it is taking. The first is that banning mines is not the essential ingredient but clearing them up is. It does seem a little odd that the logic of this argument says, `Look, the problem is not that we're making them and putting them in the ground. The problem is we're not clearing them out of the ground fast enough.'This argument is taken up by other people who support the United States. For instance, an article by a British Army disposal officer, Paul Jefferson, supports the United States. I refer to this article because it is of interest in the consideration of this topic. His claim is that the issue of banning APMs, as he puts it, `provides employment for bureaucrats, aid workers, lobbyists, lawyers and administrators.' He claims that the problem with APM casualties is an entirely practical one which can only really be addressed by mine clearance—of course ignoring the problem that if we continue to make these mines we will continue to have more and more problems with mine clearance.He refers to George Soros's foundation, the Open Society. He says that it has put $3 million into the ban campaign but claims that it will not fund clearance mainly because it is seen as too big an issue to get involved in, and at least by promoting the ban they are obtaining publicity. He goes on simply to justify it by saying:Where concerted clearance has been undertaken, casualty figures have fallen off dramatically; more clearance could have been going on if the quick-fix, feel-good solution of the ban lobby did not divert attention and resources.As I said, I find it a particularly strange argument that we do not have to ban the mines because our real problem is getting them out of the ground—of course the real problem is getting them out of the ground—and I have referred to the number that are in the ground. But the obvious corollary is that we have to stop making mines and we have to stop putting them in the ground—even with the modern, sophisticated techniques which enable people to map and locate them.Another unofficial argument of the United States is that it would ban landmines if it could replace them with non-lethal mines. The types of non-lethal mines that have been suggested are gas bombs, teargas bombs, loud noise bombs and one that produces a particularly offensive foam when stepped on. But those suggestions have again been rejected because such mines do not instil enough fear into the heart of the enemy.The US President has been, if nothing else, equivocal on this issue. Feeling very conscious of the fact that the US has not signed the treaty, in May this year he did signal that the US government may sign the Ottawa Convention in 2006 but only if detonators to existing APMs have been developed by then. But the promise is fairly meaningless anyway, as I fear President Clinton will be long gone by 2006.For Australia, the signing of the Ottawa treaty followed the commitment given by the Australian government in April 1996 to support a global ban on antipersonnel landmines and imposed an indefinite suspension on the operational use of these weapons by the Australian Defence Force. Australia is a longstanding contributor to international efforts to help mine affected countries. Most assistance goes to Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Mozambique and Afghanistan—areas where the effects of landmines are particularly severe.In Cambodia, Australian aid has helped cut the number of people killed or maimed by APMs by two-thirds. Over 525,000 mines have already been cleared. Australian soldiers and civilian personnel are working to provide training and organisational support to help Cambodians clear landmines using the latest Australian technology. So vast and time consuming is the clearance task that in the interim Austcare is teaching villages how to live safely with landmines. Using mine detection dogs, these contaminated areas are being signposted and people educated about how to move and live safely amongst them.According to Austcare's mine action consultant, Bill van Ree, there are 1,500 square kilometres of known contaminated areas in Cambodia. At present, Australia is capable of clearing only about 20 square kilometres per year, which emphasises the need we have to increase the technology in this area. Australian de-mining expertise and technology is world renowned. A key to the success of the de-mining program in Cambodia is a mine detector invented by a South Australian company called Minelab.Since 1991, the Australian government has also funded landmine awareness and de-mining projects in Afghanistan where each day 10 Afghans are killed or maimed by landmines. With 90 per cent of Afghanistan's mined areas in agricultural fields, irrigation canals and grazing areas, economic recovery will be severely hampered until those mines are removed.Similarly, in Angola, the Australian government is helping to remove some 10 million landmines still in the ground. Again, in Angola, the sniffer dogs are being used to identify the areas that are mined. In Mozambique, where landmines were used extensively in the civil war that ended in 1992, Australians are working as technical advisers, training nearly 500 Mozambiquans in de-mining techniques. Since the de-mining program began in 1994, over 200 hectares of land has been cleared, with over 15,000 landmines located and destroyed.By 2005, the Australian government anticipates it will have spent more than $100 million on de-mining and related programs. I do recall that the member for Cowan has asked about the spending of that money and for some more information from the minister, which I am sure will be forthcoming. To emphasise the priority it places on building a solution to the global landmine problem, the Australian government appointed a Special Representative on De-mining in March 1998, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Kathy Sullivan MP, whom we heard earlier in this debate.Mrs Sullivan has played a key role in ensuring Australia's de-mining efforts are coordinated to maximise their impact in the field. She is also working to encourage the most effective global coordination of international donor resources to de-mining victim assistance projects and landmine awareness education. On 12 October this year, the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced the government's Destroy a Minefield initiative. This program enables individuals, schools, community groups, businesses and associations to participate directly in solving the landmines problem by `adopting' active landmines selected by the United Nations as having a high priority for clearance.The Destroy a Minefield program will use funds from the Princess Diana Trust Fund set up to collect the sales tax revenue raised from the Elton John Candle in the Wind tribute CD. An Australian non-government organisation will be selected to implement and administer the Destroy a Minefield program. This NGO will seek sponsors in the Australian community to raise the necessary funds to clear adopted minefields. Perhaps collection could be taken by the parliamentarians as a start.The $200,000 allocated from the Princess Diana Trust Fund will be the final allocation of the $793,000 of sales tax revenue raised by the CD. The government will also contribute an additional $200,000 to the program on top of the trust fund allocation. I commend the bill to the House.18:29:00668Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, I congratulate you and, since this is my first speech in the 39th Parliament, could you also pass my congratulations on to the Speaker. I am very pleased to join other members in supporting the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 . In particular, one of our new colleagues, the member for Cowan, who is obviously an expert in these matters, has made a very good contribution, ensuring that all details are raised with respect to questions of this kind.I want to make some brief comments because we have been asked to limit our comments so that many people who wish to speak on the record in relation to this matter are able to do so. I think it is very important that we discuss the two aspects of this issue: the first aspect is to do with trying to prevent new landmines being put down—these bombs are put in place, explode and kill people, the vast majority of whom are innocent people. The second aspect is to try to remove those landmines that are already in place.These two issues need to be confronted by the international community—and that the conference in Ottawa made a very substantial start in doing so is very heartening. But we need to ask ourselves: how did we get into this terrible, dreadful situation where so many people around the world have been and are being killed by these mines?The answer to that question requires us to reflect on the terrible history of the world over this century. Although this century started off with great ambitions for peace and tranquillity for humanity, it has been the most bloody century certainly for more than a thousand years. As a result of that fact, we have developed weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, those weapons include antipersonnel mines—and in some ways they are probably the most vicious of all. Of course, the most horrific weapons are the atomic ones. But the point about atomic weapons is that, even during the balance of terror situation—with the exception of what happened during the Second World War to Japan—they have not been used. The problem with antipersonnel mines is that they have been used extensively and they have maimed and killed many, many people throughout the world in many, many conflicts.It is interesting that nowadays we tend to say, `Well, the enlightened nations wish to sign this treaty.' But we would not have been put in the position of having to sign this treaty if not for the fact that many nations in the world participated, sometimes unthinkingly, in that dreadful conflict known as the Cold War. The conflict over the Cold War was one of the most unnecessary in human history. Even though it did not lead to a world war, having come close a few times, it nevertheless led to many localised wars and many civil conflicts and civil wars within countries.For example, in Mozambique there was a dreadful civil war which was based essentially on Cold War ideologies. As a result of that conflict, many of these antipersonnel mines were put into place, as was mentioned by the previous speaker. The unfortunate situation now is that we are still desperately trying to remove those mines from Mozambique and, even though there now is relative peace in that country, we still have a situation where innocent people are being killed.That raises the question of whether, in fact, we can do something as a civilisation to ensure that in the future, irrespective of the nature of our conflicts, whatever they may be—even if they lead to civil war or war between nations—we can be in a situation in which we are able to say, `We will not have these weapons; we will not use these weapons.' That is the situation that we need to put into place. That is why the Ottawa agreement was very important—but it needs to be signed by all governments, and it needs to be enforced.This is where we are extremely disappointed with the position taken by some of the great powers—the United States, Russia, China, India and several others. Although Australia certainly has taken very important initiatives—and both parties in this parliament can take credit for these initiatives—and has a proud record in recent times in relation to this issue, we need to put it to our allies with whom we have good relations, such as the United States and others, that it is very important for them to sign this agreement.Of course, the military in every country, especially in the big countries, will always have excuses for wanting to have all sorts of equipment and hardware available. It is one thing to have military hardware for use in an honourable conflict—to the extent that such conflicts can possibly exist, and I do not believe that they can in the long term; but let us say that we can at least talk about a relatively honourable conflict—but there is nothing honourable about these mines. It is the most dishonourable thing to put these into the ground and kill innocent people, civilians, on whatever side. These weapons should be banned. We therefore need to proceed to do everything that we can at an international level to push along the process that has been initiated by the Ottawa agreement.Let me make it clear: we are doing some good things in Australia, but we need to use our international muscle in relation to this matter. As I have said, we are facing the 21st century and we need at least to ask ourselves: do we want a repetition of the disasters of the 20th century through resorting to weapons which were found to be unacceptable, such as biological weapons of warfare, chemical weapons of warfare and these terrible mines? The answer is that we do not. Irrespective of whatever differences we have, irrespective of whatever conflicts may arise in the future, we should never resort again to these sorts of actions.That leaves us with the question: how are we going to achieve such an agreement with the big powers? I think that an initiative needs to be taken to push the Ottawa process further—perhaps an initiative at the United Nations General Assembly, even at the level of the Security Council. Why not raise this issue at the highest levels of the United Nations, including in the Security Council, and say, `Look, as an act of showing that we are committed to the universal declaration of human rights, that we are committed to a peaceful world, that we are committed to positive developments in international relations in the 21st century, why don't we, as a very important symbolic act, before the end of this century, put a ban on these weapons that is universal and accepted by all nations?'I think that is a worthy goal that Australia with other nations ought to pursue at the United Nations—and I am sure that Canada would be very, very interested in also pursuing such an initiative. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has done worthy work in this area, as has the parliamentary secretary, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and other people who have been involved; they ought to be congratulated for what they have done up to this point. But we can do more and we should do more; and we should raise the matter at the United Nations and try to use our influence in raising it with the great powers.There is the question of what we are going to do with those dreadful weapons that are in the ground already. There are an estimated 20 million landmines in so many different countries. What is required is a cooperative effort with those countries that have signed the agreement. They all need to be prepared to put in something to help in this process. Some of them are poor countries, so they may be excused. But those countries which belong to the OECD or the so-called First World countries ought to use their finances to help to clear those mines. Because, while those mines remain, children and innocent people are going to be killed.I am not a particular fan of the royalty, but I have to say that Princess Diana was a very honourable woman for taking up this cause. What she did in making this cause known to the world community was very important. But we have to follow through with the kind of work that she initiated through governments and through organisations in our community, including Australian non-government organisations that are wanting to pursue this work. It is very important in the final analysis to do everything that we can to clear these mines and to ensure that people can live in relative peace. It must be a dreadful phenomenon to think that most of your land is covered with these awful weapons.I want to make a point about the situation in Afghanistan. The conflict in Afghanistan has become one of those forgotten wars where people are killed every day. We have been talking about clearing mines, but mines are being put in place in Afghanistan because of the struggle that is going on there. It is time the international community took more of an interest in the conflict in Afghanistan and in other conflicts where people are using these weapons. It is not enough to say, `We should not have them, and we have signed an agreement saying that we do not want to have them.' What about doing something about those conflicts in the world where these weapons are being used here today? I think we need to take in interest in the situation in Afghanistan. The international community needs to take an interest in it. The same is true of those areas of the world where there are regional conflicts of this kind.I am very proud that this parliament has introduced this legislation and that we have taken a bipartisan position on it. I believe it shows that Australia is an honourable country in relation to this matter. Our example needs to be followed by others. We need, as I said at the beginning, to put some pressure on our friends who have not signed the agreement to do so. As I also mentioned, we need to focus on those areas of the world where these weapons are being used today to try to ensure that we get peace in those places and to stop those weapons being used in the future.18:43:00670Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, congratulations on your appointment to the Speaker's panel. I look forward to your fair and reasonable conduct from the high office that you are now holding. I am delighted to take part in this discussion today. Like the honourable member for Calwell, I celebrate the bipartisan debate that we are having at the moment. It is worth reflecting in the course of this debate that a lot of what we have before us came as a result of the creature of this place—that is, the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties tabled in February last year entitled Restrictions on the use of blinding laser weapons and landmines . In that particular report there were many recommendations which have been taken up by the executive government. I congratulate the executive for listening to all sides of politics involved in the treaties committee.The very sobering task of that inquiry has left a mark on me. When I came to this place, I never imagined that I would be talking about or participating in foreign affairs issues. I came here with the basic goal of representing the views and concerns of the electorate of Moreton and the people within it. But being appointed to the treaties committee broadened my horizons a great deal. It also gave me an opportunity to keep a promise that I made to a number of different groups in my electorate—for example, the Social Justice Catholic Committee, the Red Cross, Amnesty and others—that were concerned as are all members in this place about the use of these dreadful weapons.I was particularly pleased to note that on 15 April 1996 one of the very first acts of the Howard government was to announce support for the global ban on the production and stockpile, use and transfer of antipersonnel landmines. That we have signed the protocol in Ottawa and that we have fulfilled our obligations in this legislation here today is a terrific thing. But the use of antipersonnel landmines, as the members for Calwell, Cowan, Hindmarsh and the parliamentary secretary have all made note of, continues.These are easy to make weapons. They are relatively cheap weapons. They are not designed to kill as much as they are designed to maim. They are designed to wreak psychological havoc on retreating armies or personnel that come across these landmines in the act of retreat or withdrawal. These landmines are left behind. Children trip over them. Some are designed, primarily by the way they are positioned, so that children come in contact with them. Some are designed so that an arm is blown off or a leg is blown off or somebody is maimed rather than directly killed as a result of coming into contact with these antipersonnel landmines.They are vile, cowardly and horrible weapons. We all agree with that. It is a great pity, though, that a number of armies in the world and amongst the superpowers continue to keep open the option of using them. The fact that China, the Russian Federation, Israel and major nations would actually keep those sorts of options open to them is abhorrent. Nations such as Iraq and Iran are involved in conflict—I do not think the word `understandable' is quite right in the context of anything to do with antipersonnel landmines, but perhaps it is explainable as to why they may keep the option open. Egypt, India and Pakistan are the sorts of nations that still have access to these particular weapons.The fact that Australia plays a practical role in their removal in nations afflicted by the Indo-Chinese war—nations in our general region—is something about which we can hold our head very high on the international stage. We have gained a great deal of expertise in the task of removing landmines, and we have shown the world leadership on the issue of not using them.Some of the evidence we found in the inquiries of the Treaties Committee is worth revisiting and reporting again to the parliament as a worthwhile contribution to this discussion. As I said, landmines are easily available, low-technology items, made up of a casing, a detonator and material discharged by the detonation. They are cheap to make, buy and lay. They can be made in kitchens, garages or fields. In fact, the committee saw one at work on 6 December 1996.These mines are not designed to kill people; they are designed to injure them. Evidence from Dr William Maley pointed out that a military force can be disabled much more effectively if it has a significant number of injured rather than dead to be concerned about. Leaving the dead in the battlefield is one thing, but leaving the injured is another. Human compassion slows down the progress or otherwise of the army.Consider also this other bit of evidence: for every mine cleared, for every mine taken out and disposed of, 20 more are laid—20 more are laid for every one that is cleared! According to United Nations estimates, it would take 1,100 years to clear the active landmines already in place, about $33 billion to rid the world of them. In fact, antipersonnel landmines continue to maim and kill innocent civilians—normally and unfortunately in too many cases they are children—indiscriminately long after hostilities have ceased. About 30 people per day are killed and up to 60 people per day are maimed in the world today. That is the reality.One example given in the report was that Libyans are still dying from mines that were laid during the Second World War. Between 1945 and the mid-1970s in Poland, some 4,000 civilian deaths and 9,000 injuries were attributed to mines, although some 15 million had already been cleared at great expense. They are the sorts of statistics that are damning, damning especially of those nations that have turned their backs on this particular treaty and this action that is before us today.Yes, they should be banned. The member for Calwell is right in his aspiration that we should just ban them. But, as every member of this House would know, a simple ban takes the legitimate users out of the equation and the illegitimate users continue. The black market, if you like, on landmines would simply grow from a world-wide ban, but the aspiration is right. It is certainly up to decent nations like ours to send the signal we are sending as a result of this legislation.Although I have set the case for why a simple ban is not the simple answer, and while the UN has set the case that $33 billion and 1,100 years would be involved in removing the mines that are currently laid, we should be looking at those simple, low cost ingredients that make up these dreadful weapons and who makes those ingredients. I suspect there is a role for each member of parliament to play if they come across evidence that suggests that the componentry of any of those household electronics companies that we might know, that we might subscribe to or that we might use, are in fact turning up in landmines. We should be prepared to take action against companies who are not taking the responsibility that they should undertake to ensure that their components manufactured and distributed are being used properly. It will take a great deal of time, but perhaps that is one way to bring about the aspirations the member for Calwell has offered today.The parts in the mines are one aspect; those who continue to use them are another—and there is a range of possibilities open to the world community to deal with those nations who continue to snub their noses at decent conduct. While you can negotiate with the United States, with India and Pakistan—I am sure—and with China and Russia—I am also confident—and also with Israel, some nations such as Iraq in current times have shown their complete unwillingness to comply with world demands on their conduct.The challenge is before us. It is a big challenge. It is not an easily realisable result, but what we are doing here today is an extension of what the Treaties Committee recommended 18 months ago. It was a process I was proud to be a part of, and I think all members in this place should be pleased that the government had the initiative to put in place that Treaties Committee process so that the views of people from my electorate and from other electorates all around this nation can be heard on such important matters. By passing this legislation today, this parliament will be sending a signal to the world stage that Australia is prepared to put its name to decency, honesty and integrity and to demand the same from some of its friends who, unfortunately, are a bit reluctant to act.18:52:00672Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am pleased to be involved in this non-partisan debate and welcome the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 . As the member for Cowan and others after him have emphasised, the antipersonnel mine is an explosive device which is developed and designed to maim. Let me reiterate, as speakers have done before me, some of the facts and statistics relating to these hidden killers. These statistics need constant repetition to ensure the banning of all landmines is kept high on the political agenda.There are over 600 types of antipersonnel landmines. They vary in shape, size, material of construction, amount and type of explosive used, and the way in which they are placed—some a few inches underground, some just on top of the ground, and some located above the ground. Detection and deactivation of these mines is a slow, tedious and dangerous process. Most humanitarian operations are done by hand with a metal detector, probes and a trowel.A 1994 report estimated that the world was littered with 80 million to 110 million land mines, and that each year only 80,000 were being detected and removed while 2½ million were still being planted. The conservative estimate of the number of people maimed and killed yearly by landmines is 24,000. That is one victim every 20 minutes. The 110 million mines are lying hidden today in approximately 64 countries, infesting the world's former and contemporary hot spots. The average cost of these landmines is $3 each; the average cost for the search and removal of one landmine is $1,000. The removal of all landmines would cost an estimated $110 billion.As well as the cost involved in the search and removal of these instruments of destruction, there are many unseen costs to human life and our society. These include:The medical costs for the treatment and rehabilitation of victims: even when services are available, this can take years and deplete scarce medical resources in these poor countries.The cost of refugees and the repatriation of these people: the presence of landmines impedes the return of refugees and the rebuilding of war-torn societies, which prolong the consequences of war and armed conflict.Economic considerations: the prevalence of landmines in the majority of these countries prevents the fullest utilisation of farmland, destroys livestock and disrupts markets and production patterns. A further ravaging impact of the proliferation of landmines is the vast areas of arable land which have become no-man's-land.The presence of landmines of course inhibits tourism and other potential investment and development opportunities: by retarding economic recovery and reconstruction in these regions, the presence of landmines increases tensions and instability, and fewer resources are available for reconstruction and redevelopment.Environmental impacts: alongside the immediate and tragic impact on human life, the detonation of landmines also irreparably damages wildlife, forests and surrounding environmental resources, with far-reaching consequences for both economic and social development. Minefields often become breed ing grounds for disease because they are left untended.Security implications: while ever landmines are present they inhibit negotiations between countries which are seeking to restore peace and move towards post-conflict recovery and reconstruction. They also impede humanitarian assistance efforts in the peace process by preventing delivery of urgently needed services and supplies, and discouraging potential investors.Over 70 per cent of landmines in the last 30 years have been laid during civil strife and rebellion in various regions. The landmine has been a handy and inexpensive weapon for terrorists and guerilla outfits. They have been used indiscriminately to cause fear among the civilian population. With the intention of causing disruption in society and in the pursuit of political and economic objectives rather than military aims, the weapons have been planted around water wells, schools, electricity and power generation units, bridges and over vast agricultural areas—making life miserable during insurgency and later blocking the rehabilitation of refugees in the wake of peace settlements.After foreign soldiers, arms suppliers and military advisers have left the scene, the grim reminders of the past in the battlefields of insurgents, guerillas and government forces during the Cold War are the numerous cases of amputation due to injuries caused by landmines in unmarked and unmapped locations.The culmination of the world movement to ban landmines was the signing by 125 nations, including Australia, of a treaty on 3 December 1997 in Ottawa—the Ottawa Convention. Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, who signed that treaty, indicated in May 1996 that Australia would pursue a total ban on the manufacture, stockpile, use and transfer of antipersonnel landmines. It has taken this government over 2½ years to introduce this legislation, which now has the bipartisan support of this parliament to ratify that convention. However, I believe that the complete ratification of that convention by this government is still in doubt. There is no indication either within this bill or from the government that Australia is fully committed to the convention under all circumstances. It seems the way has been left open for the Australian defence forces to use landmines in areas of strategic necessity. In May 1996, the then defence minister, Ian McLachlan, said:Only in case of a substantial deterioration in our strategic circumstances, in which Australia's security was under threat and the denial of an anti-personnel landmine capability to the ADF would result in additional Australian casualties and damage to vital infrastructure would the suspension be reviewed.I do not think that is a complete, 100 per cent commitment, and I am sorry about that.I also have a concern over the ambiguity of section 7 (3), which does appear to provide a loophole for the use of landmines by the ADF. Australia cannot be prosecuted for using landmines if it engages in military action with a country that has not signed the Ottawa Convention. There is also provision for Australia to stockpile landmines to the extent necessary for experimentation in deactivating techniques.The achievement of the 2010 goal of the complete removal of landmines does require significant inroads into the effective application of demining technology. This bill does address in part the necessity to apply resources to the technological challenge posed by these silent killers. While the government seems reluctant to allocate adequate resources toward much needed technological advancement in this area, it must be argued that, if the Department of Defence is to escape the ravages of funding cuts imposed on other areas of spending by this government, as the Prime Minister so proudly boasts it will, all Australians should be assured that there will be no shortage of funding for developing new demining technology.The member for Moreton, who spoke before me, also referred to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled Restrictions on the use of blinding laser weapons and landmines. In that report was the recommendation to the government that the Defence Science and Technology Organisation be funded to assist in the development of safer, faster and more efficient ways of reducing the number of landmines. The government's response to this very worthy recommendation was that `the DSTO's charter does not extend to the development of equipment and technology to the production stage'. So this government seems willing to promote a worldwide ban on landmines, but it is not willing to pursue such practical measures which could significantly contribute to this cause.The parliamentary secretary also referred to the unpredictability and the indiscriminatory impact of antipersonnel landmines, which has recently been highlighted in Central America. These countries and their people, who have been tragically devastated by the fury of Hurricane Mitch, now face a deadly new problem as floodwaters and mud slides have unearthed and scattered landmines downstream and over river banks in Honduras and Nicaragua. I am glad the government has finally brought this legislation to this House. I hope that some of the ambiguities that I have outlined are addressed in the near future.19:02:00674Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—In speaking to the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 , whilst I do not for one moment question the sincerity of the member for Charlton, there are some factual errors in what she has said. The first is that there is not some sort of provision or escape hatch left open for the use of landmines. The mines may be only acquired and used specifically for the training of personnel who might then be used for demining in other countries.In terms of legislation being brought forward, until the Ottawa Convention was agreed to, you could not bring forward legislation to give effect to the commitments that Australia had made. When the initial negotiations were undertaken prior to the convention being signed, there were countries—of which Australia was one at the time—that wanted to leave open the possibility of use for extreme and hopefully unforeseen circumstances. But this bill says quite clearly:(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:(a) the person places an anti-personnel mine under, on or near the ground or other surface area; or (b) the person is knowingly in the possession of an anti-personnel mine; or(c) the person develops, produces or otherwise acquires an anti-personnel mine; or(d) the person stockpiles anti-personnel mines; or(e) the person physically moves an anti-personnel mine; or(f) the person transfers ownership or control of an anti-personnel mine, whether directly or indirectly, to another person.I am sure the minister will also respond to some of these things at the conclusion of the debate.Australia is a signatory to the Ottawa landmines convention and as such we are now one of 130 countries working towards a global culture of repugnance towards mines, those who use them and the human devastation that they produce. Landmines cause death or injury every 20 minutes; that is, during the time it takes each speaker to make a contribution to the debate on this bill, another life will be lost or another body grievously injured—that person being someone's father or mother, son or daughter, brother or sister. Half of the people who are injured or killed by landmines are children. In fact, 10 Afghans are maimed or killed every day.Conflict and wars of one form or another are bad enough, but there can be no justification at all for the continued use of these devices whose victims are invariably civilians, frequently long after conflicts are officially declared over, as the member for Cowan said in his opening address. The convention does allow signatories to the convention to maintain a limited number of mines, as I said, for the development of, and training in, mine clearance techniques. If Australian military personnel are to continue their humanitarian work of clearing mines, there is clearly a need for continued maintenance of the skills base so essential for confronting nations who continue to employ these weapons.It is estimated that between 60 million to 70 million landmines are scattered across 70 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Americas. The average life of a landmine is 50 years. Each is produced for as little as $3 to $30, whereas neutralising a mine costs somewhere between $300 and $1,000. One out of 236 people in Cambodia is an amputee, as are 20,000 Afghans, thanks to landmines.Under this Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 , Australia, along with the other 130 signatories, undertakes never under any circumstance to use, transfer, manufacture and stockpile antipersonnel mines. Recognising that the Ottawa treaty is not the only solution to this global plague, Australia must continue to initiate and support mechanisms that bring the major traditional producers, users and exporters of landmines into the process if there is to be an enduring solution. I think this is one area where Australia, all our governments and all of us who are in this parliament can do more to bring a meaningful resolution.Australia is a longstanding contributor to international efforts to help de-mine affected countries. Most assistance goes, unsurprisingly, to Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Mozambique and Afghanistan. These areas are the most affected and mined. Australian personnel not only engage directly in mine clearance but also participate in the training of local people in most of the major landmine clearance projects around the world. Australian aid—that is, money we send overseas—also works for the United Nations, with Red Cross and non-government organisations working to rebuild the lives of landmine victims. It funds education and awareness programs for farmers and their families. In particular, we play a key role in teaching children about the danger of landmines. Many children mistake them for toys, which is understandable. Again, I refer to the opening address of the member for Cowan. By the year 2005, Australia will have spent more than $100 million in support of de-mining and related programs. That is a significant amount of money. I am reminded of comments made by the former member for Oxley, Mrs Pauline Hanson, and by Mr David Oldfield, who seems to have assumed the role of public spokesperson for her party. I recall how Mrs Hanson, in her maiden speech, said, amongst other things, that we should stop sending money overseas and that we should stop foreign aid. She said that as long as we had unemployed people in Australia we should spend the money on ourselves. Over the last three months, at least on two public occasions, Mr Oldfield has said in relation to the United Nations that for Australia it is `a one-way street'. Mr Oldfield said on radio 2UE and on Channel 9's Today show that Australia gets nothing out of the UN and that we put money in but we get nothing back.This goes to the very heart of what sort of nation we want to be. Do we really want to be people who turn our backs on the rest of the world, be it in providing de-mining programs, education infrastructure, development programs or whatever? I remember Mrs Hanson talking about charity beginning at home. It is important that, as Australians, we understand that charity does begin at home. However, it does not end there. If you really want to measure the strength of human beings and nations, you can do so reliably by looking at the care, concern and compassion they show to those whose needs are greater than their own.When the Salvation Army, Community Aid Abroad, Austcare or any similar charitable organisation knock on our door, we do not try to inculcate in the next generation a value that says, `I am not getting anything out of it this year so I am not giving anything to you.' For that reason, it is essential that we see ourselves as a country that is always prepared, notwithstanding our domestic problems, which are significant, to nonetheless give money generously, cleverly and effectively to countries where people suffer and die from mines, illnesses, malnutrition, a lack of adequate water or war. For us, these are just things we see on television.The reason why the issues raised by Mrs Hanson, Mr Oldfield and those who subscribe to these views need to be answered is that it goes to the very heart of what sort of country we want to be and how we see ourselves and the rest of the world. The subtext of those sort of remarks—in Mrs Hanson's case, they are said out of ignorance; in Mr Oldfield's case, I am not quite so sure—is that we ought to give up. Should we say that it is all too hard and that we have domestic concerns of a much higher priority? They are also saying, in a sense, that we should think only about ourselves and that billions of dollars have been spent. Australia sends, at the moment, about $1.5 billion overseas in the form of foreign aid. By the year 2005, we will have spent about $A100 million on de-mining programs of one sort or another in other parts of the world.Economically, politically and ecologically, things often seem worse. We see famine, war, refugees, mines and the human legacy of mines. We look at countries such as Ethiopia, the Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda and Burundi while we are struggling to pay our mortgages. We worry about meeting our next car payment, whether our kids will go on drugs or whether we can get into the health care or education systems. We see our money going to these foreign places and we really wonder whether it is money well spent. I can understand to some extent the Hansons of this world saying that we ought to be spending it on ourselves.But we should also remember that the media highlights the bad news. We know here also that domestically the Australian media focuses on what we would describe as the bad side of political life. It does not have much interest in speeches that reflect reasoned argument and a bit of intellectual thought. When I think of the time I spent in Africa visiting aid projects for World Vision, my images are of people who in many ways are not unlike ourselves. They are people who are struggling to survive. They give of themselves to others despite having far less than even the poorest of Australians. They have very similar ambitions for their children, though not necessarily materialistic ones.As members of the human race, we should never abandon those in need, for it is in giving to others, of coming to terms with the needs of other human beings, that our own humanity is found. Individuals find their identity through commitments. If you really want to look at people and place a value on them, I suppose that you can measure them by the things to which they commit themselves. But you can also make that sort of judgment of nations. Our destiny, the kind of people we are and, more importantly, what we want to become, will be determined and measured not by the economic indices with which we seem so understandably obsessed but by our values and beliefs. They involve the way we relate to one another and see our place in the world and to the extent to which we are prepared to commit ourselves to programs such as the Ottawa Convention on landmines. It is about not only passing legislation but having the political will to give effect to it. In this place, it is not all that hard to vote for a bill such as this, but it is much more difficult to go out and jeopardise diplomatically our relationship with other countries to really see some of these things move along.In the same way that we would not give up on drug rehabilitation, telling kids not to smoke—I certainly will not give up on that—or supporting families, we should never give up on what Fred Hollows described before his death as human caring, which is essentially placing the interests of another human being ahead of your own irrespective of the other's religious and political views or cultural background. It is a question, though, of how we help. It concerns aid development, education, business development, agriculture and infrastructure. In the end, it is about trying to instil hope in people's lives.If we become a people that no longer cares about the world—if, for example, Australia were to succumb to the political views of Mrs Hanson and Mr Oldfield—it is then that we cease to be true human beings. It is in assisting the aspirations and talents of the world's poor and disenfranchised where the measure of Australia as a nation of caring people is found. For that, this bill and the efforts of those who have gone before it on both sides of politics—in particular, Mr Downer and his department, who brought this to fruition—I offer my congratulations. I also say to those Australians who are actually listening to this debate—I discovered that there are people who must not have much to do who actually listen to all this—that this is very critical. It is not only critical because of the lives that will be repaired and, hopefully, saved. It is also critical to us. It is critical because, by putting our colours to the mast in relation to de-mining, we are making a statement about the sort of country that we are and, most importantly, what we want to become. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak.19:17:00677Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—When I decided to speak on this private member's bill initiated by the member for Cowan, I felt some apprehension. I must admit that I did not know a great deal about this issue, bar what I had read in some of the newspapers. Since I have had the chance to investigate this subject some more, I have found that it is not simply an important issue; it is a vital issue.I take this time to thank the member for Cowan for his assistance in providing me with some of the information about this subject. I know that the member has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of this issue and bring about a change not just in this country but overseas on the issue of landmines. It is rare in this House that a new member can bring such an important piece of legislation forward as one of his first acts.It is also important to mention the work of the shadow minister for foreign affairs, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith. This issue is one that the member has taken up on a number of occasions, not just in this parliament but also in the 38th Parliament. He was one of the first in this House to call for the complete destruction of this nation's stockpile of landmines and to campaign from this House to ban these weapons globally. The member for Kingsford-Smith has led the debate in this House, and I am pleased that the member for Cowan joins him.In 1966, I joined the Labor Party during the Vietnam War. I joined because I saw young men go to war at 18 years of age at a time when they could not vote. They paid a price for a decision they did not have a choice about. I was angry then and I am angry now at the kind of wanton destruction caused by these inhumane weapons that have brought suffering to all but one continent on this planet. These weapons do not discriminate. These weapons do not stop once a war is over. These weapons do not care whether they kill or injure civilians or combatants. A former ICRC delegate made a very apt quote on this:Mines may be described as fighters that never miss, strike blindly, do not carry weapons openly, and go on killing after hostilities are ended. In short, they are the greatest violators of international humanitarian law, practising blind terrorism.These weapons need to be stopped, removed and destroyed.I was moved at the speech by my honourable colleague the member for Cowan. I was proud to think that, instead of debating partisan issues, this House can debate an honourable, decent issue about trying to end the horrific toll that these weapons cause. It is a shame that a piece of legislation this important has had to be brought before this House by a member rather than a government. There are members of the government who are reluctant to fully support this legislation because of how it will affect our armed forces. This legislation is not about disarming our armed forces. We are not replacing guns with flowers. We are asking that antipersonnel landmines be destroyed and not manufactured by this country.The Labor Party has fully supported the process undertaken by the Ottawa Convention. That process, which led to the Ottawa treaty, has only recently had enough countries willing to sign to the agreement to ratify and bring it into operation. Countries such as the United States dragged their heels on this agreement and countries such as Pakistan and China have been very vocal in their opposition. I must sympathise with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am sure that the minister fully supports the convention and wished to be one of the leading countries in the debate. It is a pity that this government could not have been as forthright as the British government's stance and leadership on this issue.The Labor Party is so strong on this issue that it has even made the banning of these weapons part of our platform. I quote:In response to the global humanitarian crisis arising from the anti-personnel landmines, Labor is committed to working in all available forums to secure a global and legally binding ban on the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines, and to supporting those efforts through ratification of the Ottawa landmines ban treaty and the destruction of Australia's landmine stockpile, with the exception of the minimum stocks required for mine clearance and awareness training by the Australian Defence Force.I am proud to be a member of a party that makes an issue of such a global nature part of its platform and policy. The more I look at the figures involved and the more I consider the implications of this problem, the more alarmed I think I become. I can understand why there are so many people worldwide who are fighting to have these weapons destroyed. These weapons go on killing and maiming long after wars have ended. There are people in Europe today still being injured by mines laid during the Second World War—more than 50 years after hostilities ended.Like many others, I cannot help but quote some figures on the problems that are before us with this issue: 110 million landmines in 70 countries; the cost to remove those is currently at around $33 billion, and it would take about 1,000 years at the current rate if no more are laid; 2,000 people a month are killed or maimed; for every mine cleared, 20 are laid; landmines are one of the most cost-effective ways of poisoning an area as they cost between $3 and $30 a unit; more medical care is needed for each victim than for someone injured by a bullet or fragments, they require more blood transfusions and operations which are not available in many countries; and the cost of an artificial limb is $3,000 per amputee, or $750 million for all the 250,000 amputees registered worldwide.Time delays in many countries mean that people injured by landmines spend long periods travelling for treatment. It has been estimated that 24.6 per cent are treated within six hours, 69.4 per cent within 24 hours, 84 per cent within 72 hours, and 16 per cent take more than three days—more than three days to receive medical treatment! The Geneva conventions have listed very clearly how wars should be fought. In Protocol 1, Article 48 states:In order to respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations against military objectives. These weapons do not distinguish or attack military targets. They attack everything: friend, foe, military, civilian, men, women and children. Article 51 of that same convention states that civilians shall not be the object of attack. It prohibits indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population. But these weapons do not discriminate.I must acknowledge that both sides of this House have dedicated a great deal of resources and funding to assist the worldwide clearance and education programs. It does this House great honour that all sides believe in this service to our neighbours and other nations around the world. While many in our community take time to denigrate the work of this House—and sometimes they might be justified—it is unlikely that there are many who will witness this debate or report on it and congratulate the work done here today by the members of both sides of the chamber.There are many Australians from many different areas of our armed services and aid organisations that have worked to rid the world of these devices and to educate people to prevent further deaths and injuries. They never receive the recognition they deserve, and I would like to thank them in my speech for that work. I hope that what the member for Cowan has brought before this chamber can help them in the job they have ahead of them. Yet the struggle goes on. It is a crime that this horror should continue. It is a crime that the world allows this to continue, and it is a crime that innocent victims continue to suffer because of greed, envy and ideology.I would like to take some time now to read some quotes from people involved in this debate worldwide. Their words are far better than mine in this debate, and I think they are more important to place on the record of the House than mine. I quote from a young lady, who said:Sometimes I dream that I have two legs again. Hello! . . . I am a little girl—from a village in Cambodia—. . . and I am twelve years old. Years ago, when I was very small, I went to play with my friends close to my house. All of a sudden "BOOM", cries, terror. The whole of my right leg was blown off. My other friends were injured too. We were taken by ox-cart and then by motorcycle cart to a hospital. There they did surgery. Until two years ago, I walked on one leg with crutches. One day a car visited my village and they told me they could give me an artificial leg. They took me with many, many other amputees to a prosthetic centre and there we received our new legs. I feel more comfortable with my friend the crutch, so sometimes I leave my leg at home.I have one last quote from the address of Pope John Paul II at St Peter's Square, the Vatican. He said:I feel the need to direct a heart-felt appeal to all of those responsible: renounce these weapons of death, and decide on a definitive ban on their production, trade and use.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous679679Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Honourable members will recall that following question time today I was asked to consider two matters: firstly, whether the Treasurer had, by suggesting that he would provide to the Press Gallery copies of representations to him from members of the House, offended against the forms of the House, and, secondly, whether the name of a constituent of the honourable member for Banks, on whose behalf the member had made representations to the Treasurer, could be omitted from the Hansard record.In respect of the first matter, the Treasurer has not offended against the forms of the House because he made no such suggestion. If honourable members wish to view the videotape or listen to the audiotape they will see that this is the case.In respect of the second matter, I accept that the member for Banks inadvertently named a constituent who had made representations on a taxation matter and I also accept that it would be inappropriate for the name to remain in Hansard. As honourable members will be aware, there are precedents where previous Speakers have ruled that material not be included in Hansard and I have agreed to the request of the honourable member for Banks.Earlier today I was also asked by the honourable member for Chifley if questions on notice could be submitted by e-mail. The table office does accept questions by e-mail but also requests that a signed original be forwarded in accordance with standing order 148, which provides interalia that:The question shall be fairly written, signed by the Member and shall show the day proposed for asking such a question.On the matter of signing questions, House of Representatives Practice remarks that:In practice the Member's signature is not insisted upon when the Member delivers the question in person, the main purpose of the signature being to authenticate the question.It is the need to ensure that questions standing in a member's name have indeed been approved by the member which presently limits the use of e-mail as an exclusive means of lodging questions. When the authenticity of electronic signatures on documents lodged from computers is able to be quickly and indisputably verified, the House may wish to reconsider its practice.Adjournment68010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.32 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.68019:32:00680Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Sir. I am very pleased that my friend and colleague the member for Bendigo is in the chamber tonight after his disgracefully parochial maiden speech yesterday, when he had the gall to refer to the difference between Ballarat and Bendigo and, indeed, the further gall to indicate that Bendigo was better than Ballarat. I understand that the member in his maiden speech would feel a great desire to talk passionately about Bendigo, but he knows as well as I do that we have more and better manufacturers, we have better tourist destinations, we have better weather and we drive more tourist export dollars. The one thing that the honourable member for Bendigo hasn't got which I know he desperately wants is Eureka, and that's the reason why I am on my feet tonight.In the early hours of the morning of 3 December 1854 a brief but violent battle took place in the Ballarat goldfields between 150 irate miners, 276 soldiers and police. The battle was shortlived and resulted in the deaths of at least 22 stockaders. I am very pleased that the City of Ballarat has declared the first Sunday in December to be `Eureka Sunday' in honour of those who fought and died for the rights and freedoms of all Australians.The City of Ballarat, the people of Ballarat and the member for Ballarat are anxious to ensure that Eureka Sunday is a national day of celebration. Despite our parochial views on Bendigo and Ballarat, I am sure that the member for Bendigo, coming from the region that he does and understanding the importance of Eureka, would also thoroughly endorse Eureka Sunday as a national day of celebration. He is nodding his head in agreement. I thank him for that because it is very much a regional as well as a Ballarat thing.As 3 December was the actual day of the Eureka Stockade, we have tried to keep the celebration day as close to that as possible. So the closest Sunday to 3 December has become the celebration day. The announcement has been made in Ballarat, and it is my pleasure tonight to do so here, that the first Sunday in December will now be known as `Eureka Sunday', a national day of celebration. I say to the House that I hope all members—who I am sure would hold my passionate belief in Eureka, in what Eureka means, and in what it represents—will go out and say to their constituents: `I want you to celebrate Eureka Sunday, the national day of celebration.' I am hoping that the member for Brisbane, who is at the table tonight, and who I am sure fully understands and endorses the sentiments of Eureka and what it stands for will be anxious for the people of Brisbane to celebrate this national day of commemoration, Eureka Sunday—a very special day for the people of Ballarat, but even more importantly, in my view, for the people of Australia.What will happen on this marvellous day, this national day of celebration, Eureka Sunday, announced in the House tonight and announced in Ballarat in the last week, is that hundreds and, we believe possibly thousands, of people will carry candlelit lanterns down the path that the government troops took on this day, which is now remembered throughout Australia as being—and I don't think I am parochial in saying this—if you like, our day of democracy, Australia's day of democracy. By retracing those steps and taking the oath of allegiance I think that all Australians can be proud of Eureka and proud of what Eureka stands for. I encourage every member and every senator to celebrate their newest national day of celebration.68119:37:00681Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—This government has waged a war on all older Australians. It has attacked every area of aged care. The attitude of this government to elderly Australians is reflected in the words of Senator Jocelyn Newman in a speech she made to the Sydney Institute on 6 July this year. In that speech she stated:There are many older Australians today who, through thriftiness and hard work, managed to save enough for their own retirement.Senator Newman's statement implies that those who did not saved enough were neither hard working nor thrifty. In other words, they only have themselves to blame if they cannot afford the care they need. Unfortunately, it shows a total lack of understanding of the real world and the lives of real working Australians. Senator Newman's statement is an insult to older Australians and reflects the contempt the government has for them.The minimum cost that elderly Australians in need of nursing home care will pay is $4,380 a year. That is $4,380 for essential care, care they need to survive. Those elderly Australians with some private income now have to pay an extra daily rate of up to $347 a week. This is typical of this miserable government, attacking people in our community who are most vulnerable. And who could be more vulnerable than the sickest and frailest elderly people in our community?The Howard government's attack on the elderly is not confined to aged care. There have been cuts to health care funding. We only have to look at what happened here today to see what we have got in store for us in the area of health. These cuts include the complete removal of the Commonwealth dental health care program. If you are an older Australian, you cannot afford to get sick, you cannot afford to have your teeth or dentures fixed, because this government has decided that older Australians do not deserve to have dental care.The assault on health care includes increased costs for prescriptions; restricted access to the newest and best drugs; the withdrawal of free hearing aids for Commonwealth seniors card holders; and an increase in the charges older Australians pay for the home and community care service, as well as a reduction in this service and a decrease in the funding. The Howard government's assault on public housing will cause further hardship for older Australians, with funding for public housing to be decreased by $28 million over the next four years.The Howard government's answer to the problem of our aging population is to cut services to older Australians and increase costs. This makes it harder for elderly people to get the care they need and deserve.Nationally, 8.3 per cent of the population is aged over 70, whilst in the Shortland electorate that figure is 10.8 per cent. It is ranked as having the 15th oldest population based on the 1996 census figures. The percentage of people over age 70 will increase over the years as our population ages. In the Shortland electorate there are 12 nursing homes with 586 beds, and 16,716 people over age of 65, which gives a nursing home bed to person ratio of 28.52. Nationally there are 1,490 nursing homes, with 139,200 beds and 2,150,828 people over the age of 65, giving a bed to person ratio of 15.4. Considering that over 10 per cent of the population in the electorate of Shortland are over the age of 70, a bed to person ratio half that of the national average is completely unacceptable.This is a miserable government, one that attacks all elderly people—particularly those who are most vulnerable. I hear the members on the other side complaining about it too. They obviously agree with me that this is not good enough. In Shortland that assault and the lack of resources is even greater. I demand that the Prime Minister order his minister to take action to redress the injustice his government has forced on older people in Shortland.This government is now set to cause even more pain to older Australians by forcing a GST on them. The new tax will increase the cost of their food, electricity, gas, clothes and all the basics of life. Older Australians do not want this tax. They voted against it, they cannot afford it, and the compensation is inadequate. Once again, this government is determined to cause misery to those people who are most vulnerable: older Australians—the sickest, poorest and frailest in our society. This government stands condemned.(Time expired)68219:42:00682Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I could not help hearing the member for Jagajaga earlier today talk about accountability. My ears always prick when I hear a member of the Labor Party talk about accountability. The argument—a very poorly constructed one, at that—was that the Australian public will hold the Howard government accountable for providing an incentive to take out private health cover. The argument was that we would be held accountable for helping families, people on fixed incomes and low incomes, pay for their private health insurance. Well, we certainly will. But it is obvious that the member for Jagajaga does not—as the previous Keating Labor government did not—understand the meaning of the word `accountability'. That is why they were thrown out so spectacularly in 1996.It is worth while to examine Labor's record on health and to scrutinise their position on this bill in light of their record. Perhaps we can show members opposite just what accountability actually means. The member for Jagajaga takes the view that the money the government is setting aside for the rebate scheme would be better spent on the public health system.The member for Jagajaga, being a true collectivist who wants to deny Australians freedom of choice, believes that the best way to solve the problems that beset Australia's health system is to turn more people away from private health insurance. The logic here says that the way to fix the problem is to put more people into the public system. Labor's policy is obviously premised on a special kind of logic.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—What logic?9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—It is the logic that says that two plus two equals five. That is exactly what happens when you have a policy void such as that which you have on the opposite side; the illogical and irresponsible come to the fore. That is clearly what has happened here. What is more insidious about this position is that the Labor Party actually believes that pouring more money into the public system would automatically solve the problems of the public system. Well, let us look at the record of the Labor Party in health administration. Take Queensland, my home state, under the Goss Labor government.No doubt the member for Griffith will understand accountability when it comes to waiting lists. As Goss's right-hand man, he will no doubt appreciate the message that the voters of Queensland gave him on his appalling record on hospital waiting lists. Over the five years of the Goss Labor government, there was an increase in health funding of $1.1 billion. In that time, waiting lists for category one, the most urgent form of elective surgery, deteriorated to the worst in Australia.Mr Slipper interjecting—9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—Absolutely. How is it that the waiting lists could get worse when there is an extra $1 billion given by a Labor federal government to a Labor state government? The Labor Party believe that the best way to solve the health problems of Queenslanders is to employ more people to shuffle paper, and that is exactly what they did. Let us examine their record. They went into regionalism, and that was a huge catchcry for Labor.Labor claimed that they could deliver better health services to people in regional areas. Did they achieve this? No. Take Nambour Hospital for example. In 1996 when the coalition came to power in Queensland, it had an appalling category one waiting list. Regionalisation did not help the people of Nambour. Under Jim Elder, the now Deputy Premier of Queensland, there was a hospital budget blow-out of $24 million in just five months. Under Beattie, there was a $54 million blow-out.Labor's health policy is about administration. It is not about doctors and it is not about patients. Even the current health minister, Wendy Edmond, has admitted that waiting lists may actually go up in the next three months, even though the Howard government gave Queensland an extra $103.5 million when they signed on as the first state in the new Medicare agreement, an agreement that was negotiated by the former coalition state government which secured an extra $1.2 billion on the previous agreement made between the Goss and Keating governments.The former coalition state government is to be applauded for gaining a record amount of funding for the public health system from the Commonwealth and the Howard government is to be applauded also for providing that funding. It is a pity, however, that the funding is now in the hands of the Labor Party, who will not fix the problem. They will expand it with more bureaucracy and longer waiting lists. Just imagine the health system under the combined stewardship of the member for Jagajaga and the state member for Mt Coot-tha—disaster. (Time expired)68319:47:00683Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—On 20 November, which was last Friday, 148 electorates across Australia had a closing time of 4 o'clock for Federation funding. Mr Speaker, I am sure your electorate, like mine, certainly welcomed the opportunity of putting in an application for sharing the Federation Fund of some $200,000 allocated to those electorates. In my particular case, I have more than 27 applications totalling in excess of $1.5 million, which is going to provide a very difficult problem for my selection committee in trying to put recommendations before the matter is then referred to the minister.Why I am raising this tonight and bringing it to the notice of the House is that on 25 May this year we on the opposition benches were advised of a meeting being put on by the department to inform us of applications that were now going to be made under what was then called the Federation Cultural and Heritage Project, which was particularly to provide projects in excess of $500,000 and up to a maximum of $5 million. I found that very exciting and, I am sure like all members on this side of the House, I worked very hard and very quickly to make sure that councils in our area provided projects that would qualify for those particular schemes.In my particular case, both the Holroyd City Council and the Fairfield City Council put in submissions. In fact, they only had three weeks to do it because that is all the notification we were given. I wrote to the minister at the time expressing my concern that we on this side of the House were given only three to four weeks notification. Not only were those projects completed on time, they were hand delivered to the department and they were receipted. I am sure, as the council is sure, that the department received those applications.Again, some time went by and I heard nothing about it, bearing in mind that these particular projects were very well researched. In fact, Canley Vale—in the electorate of the member for Fowler, and the area of the Fairfield City Council—is where Sir Henry Parkes lived. He is the father of Federation. You could not get any closer to Federation than that. Nevertheless, I at least allowed the minister to have some concern about who was going to get the funding. I wrote to him again on 3 August saying that we had not heard anything. Who was making the decisions? Who was going to give out the money? How was it going to be applied after all of these submissions were submitted? How was it going to be divided up? I have not had a reply to that letter either.I do not know why I was concerned, because, following the election on 3 October, Malcolm Farr wrote an article in the Telegraph about what happened to all this funding and why it has never come to any of the Labor electorates. This is why I said to my councils, `You worked very, very hard but obviously we're not going to see too much of the money.'That is unless, of course, you live up Tenterfield way. Tenterfield is in the seat previously held by the former Speaker, Mr Ian Sinclair—and guess what? They received $2.75 million during the election campaign because the Tenterfield School of Arts, which was a bit run-down, needed funding. The money came out of that fund. We now go to another place, the Oddfellows Hall in Cowra. Naturally, when I looked that up, I found that it was in the seat of the Leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer. That project required $800,000. Malcolm Farr has also informed us that Gunnedah Performing Arts Centre got $1.6 million. It just happens to be in the seat of the Deputy Leader of the National Party, Mr Anderson.The money for all this came out of the $1 billion Federation funding. Even though it was created in 1997, I assume it was supposed to be fairly distributed across Australia. There was one calculation Malcolm Farr commented on, made in the final weeks of the campaign leading up to the October election—29 coalition seats benefited from the Federation Fund while only eight ALP electorates benefited. When we talk about ALP electorates, we should ask how they got their benefits. Money was poured into Capricornia. It received a total of $5 million for the Stockman's Hall of Fame. The coalition thought they were going to win the seat of Capricornia, but they did not. The former National Party member, Paul Marek, was defeated. This is how the Labor Party got some funding. Also three projects in the Tasmanian seat of Bass received a total of $1.5 million. Of course, the then Liberal minister Warwick Smith was certainly facing defeat and was subsequently defeated.What I am really bringing to the attention of the House is that when genuine councils fill in applications they should at least be given the courtesy of a reply. That has not been forthcoming from this government. When the local member writes on behalf of the councils to find out what has happened to the applications and whether any money whatsoever was to be allocated he or she should be given the courtesy of a reply. But that has not happened. At least the govern ment should have the courtesy to reply to a local member who is asking questions on how the money is being distributed and who is making the decisions. What are they ashamed of? We have been criticised about a whiteboard. This is the mother of all whiteboards. (Time expired)68419:52:00684Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—Tonight I would like to pay tribute to a constituent of mine. On Tuesday, 18 November the Central Coast Division of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol lost one of its greatest workers. Eddie (Ted) Wright passed away suddenly on 18 November. He suffered a heart attack. Eddie was a person I had come to know very well over the last two years. I have the honour of being the patron of the Central Coast Division of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol. He was a man who put a great deal of effort, time and dedication into the coastal patrol.He joined the division on 10 October 1991 and almost immediately became very active in the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol. He completed a number of courses: the introduction course, the radio operator's course, the seamanship course, and the basic navigation course. He qualified as a coxswain on 8 June 1992 and completed his coastal navigation course in 1994. In addition to these courses, he also did the first aid examinations.In addition to the courses that Eddie completed and the work that he did, one of the most significant events he initiated—it was his brainchild—was the Fish `n' Ships Fishing Classic, which is a competition that has been running for the past two years. As all honourable members would know, trying to instigate a new event to raise funds for charities is not an easy thing to do. Eddie, through his hard work and dedication, managed to make this a major event on the central coast. In fact, he approached me about getting a letter from the Prime Minister to support his efforts, and I was pleased to get that letter from the Prime Minister, John Howard, in support of it. Part of the letter that the Prime Minister wrote stated:I welcome this opportunity to support the "Fish `n' Ships" fundraising event for the Central Coast Division of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol and Gosford Hospital.It is always wonderful to see Australia's volunteer organisations showing such initiatives in their fundraising efforts and I am very impressed by the degree to which the "Fish `n' Ships" fishing classic has grown in only its second year.Eddie certainly left no stone unturned to make sure that this event was a major fundraising event. The money that was raised from the Fish `n' Ships competitions was distributed between local charities, particularly the Gosford Hospital. So it certainly went to great community charities on the central coast.It was a great shock when I heard of Eddie's passing. As I said, we were unaware that he had not been in good health for some time. He had kept that to himself. None of the patrol members actually knew he was having heart problems. Unfortunately, I could not be at the funeral last week obviously because parliament was sitting and I was in Canberra. I certainly wanted to make note of his passing in the parliament.Without people like Eddie Wright, the Australian community would not be as strong as it is. People like him give up so much time to help volunteer organisations. I would like to pass on my sincere condolences to his wife, Dorothy, and her family for the passing of Eddie. As they say in nautical terms, Eddie Wright has crossed the bar, and he will be sadly missed by the coastal patrol and by all his friends on the central coast. 68519:56:00685Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I would like to add to the weight of concern being expressed about the cutbacks in Centrelink. As honourable members know, this organisation was created with the intention of concentrating the delivery of a number of human services provided by a number of Commonwealth departments into a single modern agency. It was planned to be a one-stop shop, a place where people could get advice on the range of Commonwealth and other entitlements, obtain an assessment for an allowance or a pension, be referred to another service provider, and to work in partnership with the community in fulfilling a critical role at a time of immense social change.Most people working in Centrelink—and I speak to them because I like to know what life is like on both sides of the counter—saw it as a momentous change, liberating them from the constraints which hampered the business of providing a service to a public which many of us, especially on the other side of the chamber, have lost touch with. I am referring, of course, to the retired; to people with disabilities; to young people from less well-off families who are studying or looking for a job; mothers; people between casual jobs; the unemployed, whether they be mature age skilled workers or unskilled, young, professional, or `downsized', `outplaced', `redundant' or `excess' men and women; people from diverse cultural backgrounds who do not speak English; people with psychiatric problems; people in crisis; women escaping domestic violence; families at the end of their tether through no fault of their own; people whose capacity to pursue their rights is often considerably less than yours or mine or the average citizen's.Centrelink was supposed to be a beacon. It was supposed to take the nonsense out of dealing with government, especially for those among the six or seven million Australians less able to deal with red tape. It was supposed to put humans back into the equation by providing a more personal service, a more dignified service, a public service with the focus on the individual for a change. It was supposed to be about quality and program delivery from both the taxpayers' and the clients' view. It was a change welcomed by the staff because—and it is true—many of the staff believe in the work they do. Many are involved in community welfare agencies out of work hours. They have chosen the field, a people-to-people, person-to-person field.Now, suddenly, people do not matter in this new user-friendly customer driven organisation. Suddenly, information systems are going to fill a hole left by removing 5,000 Centrelink people from the people-to-people business. They are not going to be there. Some time in the future, though, there will be an information kiosk. Today the queue is out the door. Today there is an engaged signal because all the operators are busy or because they are short staffed just like yesterday and the day before and the day before that.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—You don't believe that!83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—The honourable member should listen to what I am going to say next.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler should address the Chair.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—Sorry, Mr Speaker. In my electorate there is monumentally high unemployment. There are language barriers. There are large numbers of young people. Tell me that all their problems, all their service requirements, can be met without people: without the 11 people who have been shed from Liverpool Centrelink since August—not to be replaced; without the 10 people shed from Cabramatta—not to be replaced; without the people still lined up to make surplus to requirements over the coming months to meet the astonishing cutback of 5,000 jobs in the name of the 10 per cent efficiency dividend. How, when the technology is not yet there? How, when the existing mainframe operation used by Centrelink is creaking along with regular down time?Mr Slipper interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler may continue for 10 seconds to make up for the interjections of the member for Fisher.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The weight of concern is strongest from the charitable organisations who will be picking up the pieces. They speak from experience and compassion. I call on the community and the board of Centrelink, in light of the expected hardship these cuts will bring, to makecompassion an issue for a government which shows so little.20:00:00686House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices686The following notices were given:Mr Reith to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to workplace relations.Mr Vaile to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Rural Adjustment Act 1992, and for related purposes.Mr Tuckey to present a Bill for an Act relating to Regional Forest Agreements.Mr Hockey to present a Bill for an Act relating to superannuation.Mr Slipper to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums.Dr Wooldridge to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to health, and for related purposes.Documents686The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 25 November 1998:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Exemption 1998 No. CASA 42.Sales Tax Assessment Act—Ruling No. SST 14.Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act—Determination 1998 No. SGD 98/2.Taxation Administration Act—Determinations—No. TD 93/223 Addendum.1998 No. TD 98/26.Ruling—1998 No. TR 98/17.1998-11-25Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.Bills687r598687Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:00687O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The opposition intends to support the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . It basically repeals the Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Act 1978 to end the equalisation of export returns received for dried vine fruits, and it also amends the Pig Industry Act 1986 to take account of the fact that the Australian Food Council's Processed Meat Forum has replaced the former National Meat Processors Association as the meat processors' representative body. With the repeal of the Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Act 1978, this legislation continues the initiative of Labor in 1991 which saw the equalisation for the domestic market abolished.It is very important, especially in this day and age, that producers in all rural industries respond to the market signals that exist where the product is sold extensively on international markets. This particular piece of legislation will make sure that producers in this industry receive better market signals from the marketplace for the products they produce.It is an industry that has undergone significant structural change over the past decade, and it is like many other rural industries at this point in time: it is coming to grips with its commercial and market environment and the changes in that environment. There have been significant structural changes. The number of producers has declined considerably and we have seen Australian production in this area decline as well, but in the international marketplace there is increased competition for the products we sell, even in the face of world production that has increased by 130,000 tonnes in 1998 to 770,000 tonnes.To give you an idea of the change in the production, consumption and export of this particular commodity, in 1988 the production of sultanas was 71,766 tonnes. That has declined to an estimated tonnage of 36,000 tonnes in 1998. That is a fairly significant drop. For raisins there has been a slight increase over the period from 2,265 tonnes to 2,300 packed tonnes. But when you take the total production of sultanas, currants and raisins, there has been a decline in packed tonnage from 78,768 tonnes in 1988 to just over 40,000 tonnes estimated for 1998. The domestic consumption of this particular product, or this range of products, has also declined slightly. In 1988 it stood at 27,877 tonnes. That was down in 1996 to 25,513 tonnes. Exports have roughly been halved over a decade.I noted in the 1996-97 annual report of the Australian Dried Fruits Board some very interesting comments on the crop of the 1996-97 season. The report said that the crop of the 1997 season was the smallest dried vine fruits production for 70 years. It severely reduced the export capacity of the industry. The 1997 year was typified by a light crop, a large intake of product by the wine industry and reduced plantings as growers moved from the production of sultanas to wine grape varieties. What we have seen in this industry over the past decade is an alternative use for land and water in major production areas, which has induced many farmers to switch their productive base to supply the wine industry. That particular industry's growth has been spectacular over the past 10 years.I was at an NFF dinner last night, and the guest speaker was Mr Brian Croser, past President of the Winemakers Federation. He gave a very lucid and entertaining address on the wine industry and challenged the audience not to view his industry as a rural industry but as part of the entertainment industry. By the nature of his address, one would suspect it falls in the latter rather than the former category. It was an extremely entertaining address but challenging to those present, because he outlined the spectacular growth of the wine industry over the past decade and its potential for future growth. Of course, that is one development that has significant implications for the industry which is the subject of this legislation today.The reality is that the market is inducing many farmers out of producing for the dried vine fruits industry and into production for the wine industry. I think there is a danger here for the dried vine fruits industry in that it cannot have too many producers moving exclusively from one activity to the other or else it will lose its capacity to supply quality produce to reasonably lucrative export markets.The industry has undergone significant structural change in the production and marketing areas, and the internal structures of the industry have changed substantially as well. But the future of this industry will be determined by the sorts of factors that are at work in all our rural industries at the moment, particularly market access for the products that they produce and their capacity to enter and sustain viable export markets. Of course, the future of the industry will be driven by continued improvements in productivity and efficiency.Market access issues are very important to this industry, and the industry will be watching very closely the next round of WTO negotiations that we will be preparing for in the course of 1999. The increased productivity and efficiency along the production and marketing chain will obviously be critical to this industry in positioning itself into the new millennium. Issues such as the protection of the land and water resource base are perennial for all sectors in agriculture today. This is an industry that relies on a fairly heavy chemical input into its production processes, and environmental issues are certainly issues that this industry has to grapple with. It is perhaps not one of the big rural industries but it is important to particular regions of Australia, particularly in the state that I come from; the Mildura area is very much dependent on the production in this particular industry.The opposition, in making those few remarks in this debate, supports the initiatives in the legislation. I should point out that the great reforms in Australian agriculture were made by Labor in government over the 13 years that we held the reins of government and I am pleased to see that the government is continuing the process that we began in 1991. I guess that if there is one source of disappointment in all of this it is that the industry really did expect that this legislation would be on the deck for their 1998 season, but it was not. There were good reasons for that.We understand that the government in its first term had a lot of problems with instability, resignations of ministers and the sacking of ministers from their portfolios. In that situation, the legislative schedule of the government got fairly much out of kilter. I have made the point before in these debates to honourable members opposite that it was a source of disappointment to many in the rural sector to see the government go through these traumatic times. The government had some seven resignations from the ministry over a period of 2½ years, and that is the worst record of any government since Federation, certainly in our postwar experience.Of course, one of the sufferers in that situation was the legislative program of government. Industries such as this expected the government to legislate in 1998 for their 1998 season. But we have the legislation here now that is going to prepare the industry for the next season. It is a measure, as I said earlier, that will certainly mean that producers will receive more accurate price signals from the marketplace. It puts the industry on a better footing to cope with the demands that will come upon it as it seeks to make its way in very competitive export markets.We will also be supporting the amendments to the Pig Industry Act of 1986. That act provides some changes to the selection process for the committee that makes recommendations to the minister with regard to membership of the Australian Pork Corporation. The term of the current board of the Australian Pork Corporation runs out on 30 June 1999, and the amendment will allow for a new board to be formed by that date. I understand that the peak industry body, the Australian Pork Council, is generally supportive of this legislation. I am pleased that the opposition will be offering no opposition to this piece of legislation. We will support its passage through the House.10:13:00689Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—It is with great pleasure that I rise in support of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . I thank the honourable member for Corio for the indication that the opposition will support the amendments the bill makes—a pleasant surprise, in the circumstances. They are fairly simple measures. The fact is that the Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Act 1978 is antiquated for present conditions, and the industry acknowledges that.It is interesting to look back, I dare say, over the history of certain industries and see the changes that have taken place. The particular provisions that were within the act were seen as being necessary some years ago, as was so in a number of industries and not just those under the Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Act. Of course, changes have taken place. I dare say that the major change in this particular industry, as with other agricultural industries, was when England decided to join the Economic Union—or the Economic Community, as it was at the time—because Australian industry before then had been tied very closely to supplying that particular market and there was no actual competition, because the market was assured. In return, we bought Bedfords, Morrises, Austins and other goods and produce from England. But that all changed.I also believe that this proves another point about competition, that it is not just the outside forces that are at play. As the honourable member for Corio mentioned, other crops are at play. Obviously, the producers look closely at what they can make a profit from, and some are moving from the dried fruits industry into the wine grape industry. Maybe in a few years time they might even move back to the dried fruits industry, depending on the markets at the time.The Australian wine industry has been very successful, and I note that the honourable member for Corio tried to claim the credit for the Labor Party for all the changes in agriculture. I remind him that most of the controls in these industries are at the state level and while we might have some control over exports—giving some freedom in those areas—the controls are in the state areas.When I was Minister for Water Resources in New South Wales, I clearly recall attending a meeting in Griffith in 1988 after I became the minister, and I looked very closely at what was known as farm maintenance areas. These were very interesting little conditions that were placed on farmers. They were set in about 1915, probably with good reason because the irrigation areas were set up at that time. It was a decentralisation scheme to try to get people involved in those areas.Some boffin in the bureaucracy was given the job of deciding what area was profitable and economic. So we had farm maintenance areas. As a young and inexperienced minister, I stood up in the Griffith town hall and announced that I was going to abolish home maintenance areas. I was lucky to get out of town that night. Change is always difficult and people saw a risk of big companies taking over. I saw that the Department of Water Resources in New South Wales told producers where they could grow grapes, how many grapes they could grow, and what size their properties could be. To me that was absolute interference in the marketplace, and it did not achieve efficiencies. If government gets out of the hair of the farming community, farmers will achieve the efficiencies. There is no doubt in my mind that this has been perceived by the dried vine fruits equalisation area, and they have asked the government if it could put this small change through to allow this to be changed.There has been a lot of debate about the pig industry in recent times. I note that the National Meat Processors Association, with reference to the Australian Food Council Processed Meat Forum, is a meat producers' representative body. This apparently has been agreed. I note that the Australian Food Council Processed Meats Forum is to be defined as an eligible industry body, thereby obliging the Australian Pork Corporation to consult before approaching the minister. That is a very important point because in some of the debate in recent times I do not believe there was enough industry consultation, and certainly not enough consultation with the minister about some of the problems that were involved in the importation of pork.It is a sad reflection probably on the previous government that, while they signed the World Trade Agreement, they did not do anything to implement article 32 of the World Trade Agreement which allows industries to adjust to competition from overseas. That was one of the important factors affecting the pork industry at the time.In these areas there needs to be more consultation. I found during the election campaign that what the Pork Council of Australia was saying was not necessarily what the pork producers of Australia were saying. That is not new. A lot of agricultural hierarchical institutions from time to time do not reflect what the rank and file are thinking. It was fairly clear that the Pork Council was not talking on behalf all of the pork producers—some of them, yes, but not all of them.It is important that that consultation process is available. It is important that the rank and file are heard and that the opinions of the rank and file are brought forward to the minister. These simple amendments are very timely. I have great pleasure this morning in supporting them.10:20:00690Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—in reply—I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . This bill makes two priority amendments to portfolio legislation. It repeals the Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Act and it amends the Pig Industry Act. I accept that we are getting support from the opposition as well as putting our stamp on it in putting it through the parliament.The dried fruits amendments will dispense with the statutory requirement to equalise, effectively pooling and then averaging the return to growers from export of dried fruit vines— sultanas, currants and raisins. Equalisation of domestic returns was dispensed with in 1991 and the export of dried vine fruits is the only statutory equalisation scheme still operating. The amendments were initiated by the Australian Dried Fruits Association and have been introduced following considerable consultation with industry members. The repeal of the legislation will result in less industry regulation, but, more importantly, it will allow individual companies to realise benefits from innovation and marketing in this important industry.The second element of this amending legislation is the amendments to the Pig Industry Act 1986. These amendments result from changes to the industry representative body and will allow for a nominee of the Australian Food Council's Processed Meat Forum to be nominated to the selection committee for the Australian Pork Corporation, in lieu of the disbanded National Meat Processors Association, which is currently stipulated in the act. It also provides for the Processed Meat Forum to be defined as an `eligible industry body', thereby obliging the Australian Pork Corporation to consult with the forum before approaching the minister on a number of issues, such as making regulations, prescribing levy amounts, formulating and revising a corporate plan or annual operational plan and appointing the Australian Pork Council company auditor.This bill introduces legislative amendments which will provide for more efficient operation in two important industries. I appreciate the contributions that members from both sides have made on this legislation. Obviously, it is being dealt with in the Main Committee because it is non-contentious. I urge the House to support this bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills691r608691Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.10:23:00691Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I do not think I have had the opportunity of congratulating you since your re-election to your high office, and I do so. Given the nature of the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 that is before me, I regret to advise that this is probably going to be the most substantive part of my speech.The Telecommunications Act 1997 currently imposes a requirement for telecommunications carriers to notify the Commonwealth where a proposed activity may affect a matter of Commonwealth environmental significance. At the time of drafting the provision, it was envisaged that this requirement in the Telecommunications Act would be superseded by a similar provision in the proposed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998. For this reason, the Telecommunications Act 1997, which came into effect on 1 July 1997, contained a sunset provision of 1 January 1999. Due to legislative and other delays in the environmental reform program of the government, it is proposed to extend the sunset provision from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2001, by which time it is hoped and expected that the relevant environmental legislation would have progressed through the parliament.Whatever criticisms may be made in respect of delay or otherwise of the environmental legislation, so far as the substantive portion of this amendment is concerned in relation to telecommunications, it is a sensible extension of the sunset clause which ensures that telecommunications carriers fulfil their obligations to environmental standards of the Commonwealth. So the opposition has no difficulty with this bill; it supports it. Given its non-contentious nature, I have also taken the opportunity of advising the next speaker that I thought my speech would last about three minutes; I think it has lasted about two. We support the bill.10:25:00692Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My colleague's contribution has left me with a greater challenge, and that is to say something useful for the length of time it takes to get—5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—Or something nice about the Deputy Speaker.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—Yes, we can compliment the Deputy Speaker on his role. A non-contested election, Mr Deputy Speaker, is always something nice. I will share a few thoughts about this very brief Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . It is about a line and there is not too much you can talk about a line, so it is best to talk about why the line is here, I have found. In the meantime, we are hopeful that the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation bolts over from the ministerial wing.The bill before the committee today is a technical one. I compliment the previous speaker, the member for Perth, Mr Stephen Smith, on his attempt to rework the second reading speech—I have had a go as well. It is a technical amendment designed to ensure that telecommunications carriers are still required to notify the Commonwealth where an activity that they have proposed may affect matters of Commonwealth environmental and heritage interest. Under the Telecommunications Act 1997, carriers are required to notify the Commonwealth where an activity they propose to undertake may affect matters of Commonwealth environmental and heritage interest.In essence, section 55 of schedule 3 of the act currently ensures that the Commonwealth has the ability to intervene in matters of special Commonwealth interest. Such interventions must be initially recommended by the environment secretary, known to most of us as the Secretary to the Department of the Environment and Heritage, and involve consultation with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and, where required, the Australian Heritage Commission.Currently, section 55 of schedule 3 of the act has a sunset provision of 1 January 1999. It was envisaged that at this time section 55 would no longer be necessary as similar arrangements would be in place through the proposed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 and subsequent heritage legislation. This package of bills, which I hope to have the good fortune of speaking on in the not too distant future, will enable the Commonwealth to intervene in matters of Commonwealth interest. There have been delays in introducing this legislation but the intention is to introduce the bills into the current sitting of the parliament.The proposed Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 therefore provides for a temporary two-year extension to the sunset provision—from 1 January 1999 through to 1 January 2001. This will provide sufficient time for the whole package of environmental bills to be introduced and considered by the parliament. I hope, in view of the good nature with which this bill is being discussed, that that package might also enjoy the support of the opposition, although I doubt it.The scope of carrier activity affected by the brief provisions in this bill covers: installations not authorised by a facility installation permit, that are not a low impact facility, that are not temporary defence installations or not simply a subscriber's connection that does not cross the street. Beyond obtaining owner consent and the relevant state, territory and municipal approvals, the carrier needs to advise the environment secretary of the proposed works where environment or heritage concerns are involved. If the sunset provision of section 55 is not extended, the Commonwealth will have no powers to regulate relevant matters of Commonwealth environmental and heritage interest.For the benefit of those who have chosen to show an interest in this bill, I did track down a copy of the sorts of installations that have already benefited from this provision that we are seeking to extend today through this bill. Such projects include: the joint Optus-Vodafone tower in the Sydney Harbour Bridge area in New South Wales; Mount Blackwood National Park in Mackay in Queensland; Martin Place in Sydney, where I understand Vodafone have deployed some technology; installations by Vodafone in the Pitt Street Mall in Sydney; Optus's work on Dunk Island in the Whitsundays; and there are others such as Orchid Beach on Fraser Island—those sorts of things. So, clearly, the legislation has been doing what it has been designed to do thus far. The proposed Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 therefore provides for a temporary two-year extension to the sunset provisions, and I feel I have already covered that subject.I have a special interest in the link between telecommunications policy and environment policy, which I will not go on about at this stage. I emphasise that the support of the opposition is welcome. I think, with the benefit of hindsight, we all accept that the former Labor Party telecommunications regulatory regime was perhaps skewed a little too much in favour of installation deployment.The package of measures that the government introduced under its telecommunications reforms included this provision that we are talking about today. There is clear evidence that it is making a difference in finding an appropriate balance between the deployment of new telecommunications technology, and environmental and other concerns that our community has. An example I can point to is where the new regime has encouraged the likes of Optus to work with me and Tony Crosbie of the St Augustine's Primary School and John Burrell of Mount Erin Secondary College to have an Optus tower more appropriately deployed on RACV land rather than on the front door area of those school communities.This is a good outcome that would not have been possible without the reforms that the government has introduced. Extending the sunset provision—as it relates to this particular check and balance in technology deployment arrangements—is a step in the right direction, and it shows that conservation and heritage concerns need not be put to one side in the interests of making world-class telecommunication technology available to our citizens. I commend the bill to the committee. I am sure everyone will be tickled pink that such a comprehensive piece of legislation will pass through the parliament without opposition.10:31:00693McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—in reply—I thank the member for Perth and the member for Dunkley for their valuable contributions to this debate. The member for Perth gave his usual professional performance. However, it was the member for Dunkley who stole the show in my view. He showed a very comprehensive understanding of an at times complex and socially important issue. I thank him for his longstanding interest and involvement in the development of communications and environmental policy.I too share the member for Dunkley's joy at this measure passing through without hindrance from a normally obstructionist opposition that will opportunistically seize any opportunity to frustrate the elected will and mandate—I stress that word `mandate'—of the returned Howard-Fischer government. If they respect our mandate on this issue, why not others such as tax reform?Rather than prolong the valuable time of the Main Committee, I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. Everything that needs to have been said has been said eloquently and comprehensively by the member for Dunkley. I again thank him and the member for Perth for their contributions.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills694r609694Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.10:34:00694Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—The 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 seeks to give effect to some of the social security measures announced in the 1998 budget. All of the measures contained in this bill are essentially beneficial, and we do welcome them. But if members of the government were to be candid they would acknowledge that these positive measures are cast in a very deep lake of shame, especially to elderly Australians.The government will need to do a good deal more to undo the mess which it has created in the delivery of welfare services, before the Australian people will accept that the government's attitude has changed one bit. It must also be said that the opposition is concerned by what the government has left out of this bill. There were several other social security measures announced in the last budget which are not included in the bill, some of which are far from beneficial.This government's track record speaks for itself. Whether it is the betrayal of retirees or families, young people and the unemployed, or the systematic attack upon agencies like Centrelink, the government's form card tells a very perverse tale. They have demonstrated nothing but arrogant indifference to the plight of ordinary Australians and their actions leave nothing but a legacy of shame.During the government's last term, they ripped $500 million out from aged care, introduced nursing home entry fees and extra daily fees and forced many elderly Australians to unwillingly sell their homes. The government cut $800 million from public hospitals; abolished the Commonwealth dental program for seniors; cut $87 million from Home and Community Care, causing an increase in user charges; increased the cost of lifesaving medicines—some by almost $5 per script—and de-listed a number of vital medicines, which now cost the full price of up to $195 per script; withdrew hearing aids for Commonwealth seniors health care card holders; cut $12 per week in rent assistance to older people in shared accommodation; and abolished 50 financial information services. That is the government's track record when it comes to the commitment to ordinary Australians—the battlers whom the government so faithfully promised to help. This betrayal is a perfect reflection of the government's mean approach to social security.For this reason, it is not surprising that the opposition views this bill, and the government's intentions for the future, with some suspicion. This bill has three schedules, each dealing with different subject matter. Schedule 1 of the bill changes the way in which income is assessed and increases the income test limit for the purposes of determining the eligibility for a seniors health care card. First of all, I do support the extension of seniors health cards to a larger cross-section of independent retirees. But the extension of this measure should also be set against so much that has been done to elderly Australians, particularly self-funded retirees, with the nursing home entrance fees and higher daily fees. Self-funded retirees know that this government has not been acting in their interest when it has come to changes in nursing home policy in particular. Nevertheless, I do support this measure. Both before and during my time in the paddock, I was able to listen to the concerns and hopes of various independent retiree organisations, including people like Bill Turner from the Northern Suburbs Independent Retirees, Al Fielding of Burnie Brae, John Bailey of the Sandgate Senior Citizens and many others. They, like most other self-funded retirees, are very supportive of this measure.I know how important the extension of the seniors health care card will be to independent retirees. Holders of the seniors health care card are entitled to eligible pharmaceutical prescriptions for $3.20, with any prescriptions above the 52 per year available free of charge. Under the current provisions, the card is available to people of pension age who are not entitled to the pension because of the operation of the assets test and who, therefore, are not entitled to the pensioner concession card.Qualification is subject to an income test, employing the notion of ordinary income as defined in the Social Security Act. Ordinary income is generally gross income, with a very limited range of deductions set out in the act. Under current provisions, singles earning more than $21,320 and couples earning more than $35,620 do not qualify for the card. This bill proposes to increase these amounts to $40,000 for singles and $67,000 for couples. Our concerns about the effects upon Centrelink notwithstanding, Labor regards this as a very positive measure, and we support it.The bill also proposes to change the income used to assess entitlement to the card to include taxable income plus the value of any fringe benefits and to target foreign income and net rental property loss. The assessment will be based on such amounts received, firstly, in the most recently completed tax year if the applicant has received a tax assessment notice from the tax office for that year or, secondly, in the tax year before the last completed tax year if they are yet to receive a tax assessment notice for the last completed tax year or, thirdly, in the current tax year if the applicant requests this option and provides an estimate of current income which is accepted. This represents a significant departure from the way in which income is currently treated in this context.In the memorandum to the bill, the government says customers complain that the current method of assessing entitlement is too cumbersome and intrusive and that, consequently, many customers do not apply for the card. The financial impact of this change is quite significant, with the estimated outlays being $13 million in 1998-99, $28 million in 1999-2000, $30 million in 2000-01 and $31 million in 2001-02.While the opposition accepts there may be some advantages in the new way of assessing entitlement, we are not convinced that the government has fully considered the immediate impact of these changes in the way in which it is costing this proposal. I accept that we are moving in some instances into the unknown here and it will be interesting to see what the costings turn out to be in the years ahead.So, in the long run, change to assessment based on taxable income may simplify the procedure but it may also have unintended consequences. In the short term, the changes would result in considerable extra work for Centrelink, as it is likely to cause some confusion and certainly, from recent experience, very many inquiries from the public, also from people who may not be eligible but who respond to the general advertising of the measure. This will come at a time, as everybody is aware, when Centrelink—and particularly their staff—are already unable to meet customer demand and are currently facing absolutely massive staff cuts. This is a very important area of concern. It is a very bad environment to be introducing such a worthwhile change into. I will return to that in a moment.It may also raise issues regarding the ability of some people to minimise their taxable income to qualify for the card. That is also a considerable problem for the future, and the opposition will be watching that closely. Schedule 2 of this bill proposes to exempt people living in certain kinds of accommodation from rules under which single people without dependent children who share accommodation can only receive up to two-thirds of the maximum amount of rent assistance available to people who are not sharing accommodation.This is a very pernicious measure which goes back to a previous coalition budget. This two-thirds sharers rule was introduced by the coalition in the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Budget and Other Measures) Act 1996 and that was certainly a budget in which very many Australians were punished by this government. The act came into effect on 1 July 1997. We strenuously opposed that measure at the time. We opposed it because we felt that it ignored the actual situation of those renters in shared accommodation. At the time, the government's justification for the rule was that people who share accommodation derive economies of scale from that arrangement—a very, very shallow assessment and subsequently proved to be so.As we pointed out during the Senate debate, the amount of rent assistance paid is determined in accordance with the amount of rent paid. If people pay less rent because they are sharing accommodation, they are likely to receive less rent assistance. People in high rent areas such as Sydney might well pay more for shared accommodation than people in other areas pay for separate accommodation. Many people on low incomes who live in high rent areas have no realistic option but to share accommodation and therefore originally this was a very pernicious and mean measure. The government's argument that shared renters can derive economies of scale in respect of other costs relies upon questionable assumptions about the ways in which shared renters live: for example, that they share food bills rather than buying food individually.While the current provisions exempt from the rule boarders and lodgers, that is, people who are provided with meals on a regular basis in connection with the provision of lodging, they do not exempt other residents of boarding houses, guest houses, hostels, private hotels, rooming houses, lodging houses or similar accommodation. People residing in such accommodation do not generally derive any financial advantages from doing so and have suffered very significant hardship as a result of this government's sharers rule.Fortunately, and thankfully for those people, this bill proposes to exempt accommodation from the sharers rule if, in the opinion of the secretary, it is a boarding house, guest house, hostel, hotel, private hotel, rooming house, lodging house or similar accommodation. The secretary's opinion is to be formed taking into account a number of matters such as: whether the premises are known as a boarding house or hostel; whether a manager is retained to administer the accommodation on a frequent basis; whether staff are employed to work in the premises; the existence of house rules limiting the rights of tenants; the number of bedrooms and bathrooms; whether accommodation was offered on a leasehold basis and whether it is available only on a short-term basis.The application of the sharers rule to people in these forms of accommodation is no doubt the most unfair aspect of the rule and has created an enormous amount of hardship. I am very pleased the government has finally seen its error in applying this rule to these people and has seen fit to finally correct one of so many very, very bad changes in social security.Schedule 3 of the bill improves the qualification criteria for the parenting payment in respect of single foster carers and extends eligibility for a health care card for children in foster care. Once again, that is quite a beneficial measure. Under the current provisions a child must be wholly or substantially in the care of a single foster carer for 12 months, and likely to remain in their care permanently or indefinitely, before the carer can become qualified for the parenting payment in respect of that child. This requirement does not apply to foster parents who are members of a couple. The bill seeks to remove this requirement in respect of a single foster carer.Under the current provisions of the National Health Act 1953, families who are receiving less than the full rate of family allowance in respect of a foster child do not qualify for a concession card for that child. The bill seeks to extend ongoing qualification for a health care card to a fostered child in respect of whom family allowance is being paid at less than the full amount, provided that the child is a holder of a health care card. It should be noted that the explanatory memorandum to the bill states that, under the measure, fostered children in respect of whom family allowance is being paid at less the maximum rate will now be issued with a health care card if they were included on a health care card or pensioner concession card held by their original family. This intention is not fully reflected by the requirement in the bill that the fostered child must be the holder of a health care card. I do urge the government to amend the relevant provisions of the bill to ensure that the intention expressed in the memorandum is put into effect. That is something we will be watching closely.I said at the outset that this bill contains essentially beneficial measures from the 1998 budget and does not include other measures, some of which are far from beneficial. For example, one particularly harsh proposal included in the budget, but absent from this bill, would treat lump sum compensation payments for pain and suffering exceeding $10,000 as ordinary income spread over 26 fortnights. That is a very, very vicious piece of flagged legislation. In that sense I am pleased that the government has not seen fit to include it in this bill. This would mean that many people receiving such compensation would have a reduced social security entitlement, or no entitlement at all for 12 months. This is very similar to what the government has done to unemployed people aged 55 and over, forcing them to use their superannuation before they qualify for benefits—another very vicious act of social vandalism. Thankfully, as I said before, we are not considering this proposal here and it would be a pleasant surprise if we could hold out some hope that the government would reconsider it. I am sure that the member opposite will take up that cause. Unfortunately, judging from the government's previous record, I regard that as being highly unlikely.I might now return to the opposition's principal concern with proposals contained in this bill, specifically the government's failure to acknowledge the problems of Centrelink and what effect those problems will have on the implementation of these changes. At least in the short term, the proposed changes to the way in which eligibility for the seniors health card is calculated will cause, as a matter of commonsense, considerable extra work for Centrelink. No doubt the proposed change will make it easier for Centrelink to calculate a person's eligibility for the card—that is probably true—but the change will prompt a large number of inquiries from among the large pool of current and potential cardholders. There is no doubt about that.The government has failed to acknowledge this fact publicly and in discussions with the sector, and I suspect probably in any discussions it chooses to have with Centrelink. That is not surprising given the government's complete indifference to the problems of Centrelink and, indeed, its cutbacks to Centrelink of recent times. Centrelink has around seven million people who rely upon its services.I would urge members of the government to follow the opposition's example to get out and take some time to meet with Centrelink clients and the dedicated staff who are very committed to delivering invaluable services to our community. Perhaps then, instead of the rhetoric we get from the minister—who claims she is not responsible—and from her junior minister, we might actually get some realistic assessment of this problem. There is in Centrelink a crisis, almost a gridlock, and you cannot throw a measure like this into the middle of a crisis and expect that it is going to be administered in a competent, efficient and fair way.Centrelink is in crisis, and it is a crisis which is a direct result of this government's obsession with slashing services, cutting budgets and reducing staff. How on earth can you cut $150 million from a budget of an agency such as Centrelink, cut staff by 5,000, and then turn around and say that service is going to increase and that the objective of that organisation is to provide one-to-one service? One-to-one service with 5,000 fewer staff is a nonsense.The government would do very well to remember the debacle and disaster of the implementation of the Youth Allowance in June last year, chronicled in the Ombudsman's report. Do not take the opposition's word for it. Do not take the word of the staff. Do not take the word of the people who were left hanging on the end of phones getting busy signals for weeks on end. Do not consider all the complaints and the letters to the editors of the newspapers. Do not listen to any of that. It is obvious that you have not listened to that. Listen, look and learn from the Ombudsman's report.At the height of the debacle with the common youth allowance, of the 900,000 calls in a single day to Centrelink—900,000 of them—only 90,000 were answered. That is from the Ombudsman. That is where that evidence comes from: 15 million calls in one month, when Centrelink had assigned resources for 18 million calls in an entire year—15 million calls in a month. Two-thirds of all calls to Centrelink currently go unanswered. So, when the opposition moves around the community—even if the government does not—every second or third person that you meet can tell you a story about not getting through on the phone to Centrelink.What do Centrelink say? When they had a press conference a couple of weeks ago to announce the slashing of staff numbers by 5,000, they said that they want people to use technology. They do not want people to see someone behind a counter. They want them to use the telephone. They want them to use the equivalent of an ATM in a kiosk in a shopping centre. But the technology is not working now, and the technology they are forecasting is years away; the crisis is now.The changes in this bill take effect almost immediately. The changes outlined in this bill will mean another massive number of phone calls to Centrelink at a time when there are fewer staff to answer their questions. It is not too difficult to work out what will happen: more delays, more mistakes, more problems, more pain, more chaos and, at the end of the day, more disrespect for government.Ultimately there can only be one outcome of the government's mean strategy. It is just plain mean and indifferent towards the delivery of services to pensioners, families and the disabled. It is mean and indifferent to the sick; mean and indifferent to all the people named, affected and reported upon in this report. Its case studies are real, but any member of parliament who is doing their job does not need the Ombudsman's report: their office is flooded with these sorts of case studies day in, day out. The government is simply mean and indifferent.Of course, the government does have a solution, doesn't it? It says that the business sector and community organisations will have to fill the void, as government cannot do it all and government will not pay for it all. Who is going to bridge the gap? It is going to be business, we are told by the Prime Minister, and we were told this by Minister Newman yesterday.It is completely illogical and irresponsible for the government to propose to financially jeopardise many voluntary and charitable organisations by the application of a GST on the one hand, and then turn around and expect them to pick up the pieces after the disaster of its numerous policy changes and the cuts to Centrelink. When people cannot get through to Centrelink and they cannot get their money or their pay, where do they end up? They end up at St Vincent de Paul. The charitable organisations are facing a growing demand for their services. A report from ACOSS a few weeks ago chronicled that in detail. The victims of this process are increasingly being forced to turn to the charitable organisations and they, in turn, are increasingly turning to commercial operations to raise more money to bridge the gap that the government says they should bridge.There has been a great deal said in recent days of the effect of the GST on charitable organisations—1K6BILLSONMr Billson—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member is having a great deal of difficultly sticking vaguely to the content of the bill before the House. Could he bring his attention back to it, please?UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—I have been listening to what the honourable member has been saying. It is a budget measure, and it is a wide ranging piece of legislation which I am sure those on that side of the House will take advantage of when it is their opportunity to speak.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Groups like ACOSS, and charitable organisations like St Vincent de Paul, have been calling for assurances that community welfare services will not be eroded by budget measures. Allow me to quote some of the comments that have been raised. They say:We will be forced to reduce the level and quality of care, and cut staff caring for older Australians if the Government does not recognise the consequences of some of its tax proposals.That is from Aged Care Australia. They continue:The proposal to tax the commercial and fundraising activities of the not-for-profit aged care providers ignores the fact that their `profits' provide services and care not available from the government or private sources, particularly in rural areas. An extra tax will reduce this care.The Australian Council of Social Service says:The most critical issue about a GST has always been its impact on low income and vulnerable people. Its effect on the community and welfare services they need is a big part of this.What is the significance of this? The significance of this is that these are the organisations that Centrelink works with. If Centrelink is not working, and if Centrelink is implementing measures like this contained in the budget proposals, the whole system falls apart. I am pleased to say that the government has finally decided, in some sense, to come out of hiding on the issues of Centrelink and the GST. Last week in Tasmania Senator Newman came out and said that she was not responsible for the operations of Centrelink. I have got news for her. That is not what the organisational arrangements of the government say. She is directly responsible for a cut of $150 million to its budget and a subsequent cut of 5,000 staff. These measures are producing chaos and gridlock in that organisation and they will make it very hard for the self-funded independent retirees that are supposed to benefit from this bill to actually get through to the organisation which has to deliver those services.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Rubbish!2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—That is very good from the member for Moreton. I will be very pleased to come out and talk to people in his electorate affected by the cuts to Centrelink.We have the problem of the impact on the charities that have to pick up the difference of the GST. This is what the Treasurer had to say on this matter in the House yesterday. He said that charities are actually going to do better. He went on:The argument which is occurring at the moment is in relation to charities which run commercial operations. Where commercial operations are competing with the private sector, we have said that the GST free status extends to non-commercial activity—that is, charitable activity—and not to commercial activity because, by definition, a charity is actually selling a service at a commercial rate in competition with the private sector.That is what the Treasurer said about the delivery of welfare services to the people affected by this bill. Clearly the Treasurer and the government have very little grasp of the reality of community organisations in Australia and the support that they provide to retirees and other welfare beneficiaries. I suppose we should not be surprised.I am completely amazed, however, that the Treasurer and the government should be so ignorant of the situation faced by Australian charities. If you tax the operation of charities, you will impair their ability to deliver vital services and assistance to ordinary Australians. It is as simple as that. Subject charities to any new taxes and, by definition, all you will do is hurt the people who rely on their services. And that is exactly what the government is proposing to do, and not proposing to walk away from.I understand that very few, if any, members of the government will know someone who relies absolutely on the invaluable assistance of charitable organisations. But, on our side of the House, we do. To many of our nation's families and individuals, local charities are nothing short of an absolute lifeline. Make no mistake; if you diminish the ability of these groups to deliver services, you will be attacking those who are in most need.It is the worst kind of hypocrisy for this government to cut Centrelink's funding and staff, announce that it expects charities and community groups to fill the void, and then slap those charities with a tax which will undermine their ability to help those failed by the government. What the opposition understands, and the government has chosen to ignore, is that the difference which needs addressing is not the difference between commercial and non-commercial activities. It is the difference between profit-making and charitable organisations—a completely different concept.The simple fact is that profit-making and charitable organisations engage in commercial activities, but they do so for diametrically opposed reasons. By definition, charities are dedicated to supporting those members of our community who do not enjoy the benefits from profit-making organisations. Their activities have nothing to do with market share, shareholder profits or rationalisation, and everything to do with helping those in need. Despite the Treasurer's obvious confusion, the truth should be fairly self-evident. Hurting charitable organisations will hurt first and foremost those in need. To justify such an attack with platitudes about competition is disgusting, nonsensical and damaging.The government's ignorance, or perhaps indifference, to these issues speaks volumes to all of us who await the next round of GST debate. Let us face it: this government's community and welfare blind spot is exactly why there has been such an impassioned plea for a decent investigation into the GST. Those charitable organisations need it and they need it absolutely and desperately. If the government has failed to grasp such an obvious and serious point, why should the people of Australia trust the rest of its vague assurances? The short answer is that they should not.The cost of applying a GST to the operation of charities is clear. I will once again quote Aged Care Australia:Time after time the Government has demonstrated its complete lack of interest in the situation faced by ordinary Australians. The Government goes into hiding every time it is asked a question which has anything to do with the plight of families, pensioners and other welfare recipients.We saw it yesterday when the Prime Minister refused to say one meaningful word about runaway bank fees. We saw it again when the Treasurer missed the point about the effect of the GST on charities. While we support the measures contained in this bill, we condemn those opposite for their repeated betrayal of Australians and those who assist the most vulnerable in the community.11:02:00701Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I apologise in advance that my address is actually going to relate to the 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 . In that sense it is probably going to seem a little out of place here. In responding to the member for Lilley, I make the point that, in terms of charitable organisations, the best thing we can all do as a society, and governments included, is to reduce the potential demand that is placed upon charitable organisations. I suppose we all dream of the day when there will be no need for the Smith Family, the Salvos or St Vincent de Paul. Even Jesus Christ prophesied that there would always be poor people. Like most of his prophesies, it was fairly accurate.In terms of reducing demand on charitable organisations, there are things that governments need to do. The member for Lilley was a member of a government that governed at a time when over a million Australians were unemployed and 60 businesses a day were going broke. I worked in an area where houses were being repossessed. They are things that none of us wants to revisit. In terms of minimising the future risk to our nation and the economic welfare of people whose lives were literally destroyed by the recession that we were told we had to have, what we need to do is to reduce, as much as we can, the problems that Australia has in trying to compete with the rest of the world. We also need to set up a tax system which effectively finances social infrastructure in a country that has got rapidly collapsing age dependency ratios.However, the 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill does a number of things. First, it changes the income test for the seniors health card to one that is based on taxable income and introduces more generous income limits for it. This was one of the issues that we considered in some detail in the previous parliament in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs.The second thing the bill does is to exempt people who live in hostels, rooming houses, boarding houses and other similar types of accommodation from the operation of the sharers rule for rent assistance. On that point, if any honourable members really want to see poverty, just visit some of the boarding houses that are throughout this country. I think it remains an indictment of our society, and of governments of all political persuasions, that people still continue to live in these circumstances, paying the price of deinstitutionalisation from mental institutions, apart from anything else.The third thing the bill does is to align the treatment of single and partnered people by removing the restriction that requires that a single person needs to care for a foster child for at least a year before they qualify for parenting payment. Finally, it will enable a health care card to be issued to foster carers who receive family allowance but who do not currently qualify for a health care card, provided, of course, that the foster child was eligible for a health card or a pension concession card when they were with their original family. Again, this is certainly another group of unsung heroes in Australia. Over the years, I have never ceased to be amazed by them. At times when you feel despondent about the way our society is going, you see the selflessness of people who frequently have a lot of problems of their own and who take foster children into their homes.Changing the income test for the seniors health card to one that is based on taxable income, and introducing more generous income limits, is something that is long overdue. One of the thematic representations that I receive, particularly from self-funded retirees, is not that they resent people who are on age pensions, but that they worked very hard, they worked at a time when they believed that it was important not to rely on the government—many come from a period when they would have felt some sense of shame at going on an age pension—they saved, they went without holidays, they went without the luxuries that they saw others having, which often in those days was having a car or getting a television set or things like that, and then they finally reached retirement.In my electorate they are living in homes where they have been for 40 or 50 years and they have had relatively modest incomes throughout their lives. But now property values have escalated enormously and they find themselves living in half-a-million dollar houses but on incomes of $25,000, $27,000 or $28,000 a year and they are finding it extremely difficult to survive. They continually approach me and say, `If only we could get a concession card of some sort.' So this is an extremely welcome measure.The current uptake rate for the seniors card is only 15 per cent of the estimated 240,000 people that are potentially eligible. It is estimated that about 70 per cent of those eligible will now access the seniors card, assuming the legislation is passed. Feedback has suggested to us that the low uptake is because the application process is too complicated. It is also quite intrusive for the benefits that are received—on average, the card is worth about $216. The people who currently apply for the card have to have their assets examined. The process was originally inserted in legislation to determine eligibility for pensions and concessions; it was not originally intended for approval for the seniors card.The measure means that, from 1 January next year, the income test for the card will be based on taxable income for nearly all claimants. I take on board the comments made by the member for Lilley in relation to lump sum payments and I presume the minister will also examine Hansard in relation to this. It will only be adjusted for those people with foreign income and certain employer provided fringe benefits. A person will just have to show their previous tax assessment notice supplied by the Australian Taxation Office, which I think is perfectly reasonable. The income limits for the card—and this is a significant thing—are going to increase from $21,232 to $40,000 for a single person and from $35,620 to $67,000 for a couple.One of the groups that I think we all have some concern about are those who retire early, who retire before pension age—at 55 or up to the age of 65. Some of my constituents have said, `I have retired and I am 59 and I want to get the seniors card.' One way to put it to them is that the pension age is the benchmark for income support and that, while all governments would obviously like to give as much as they can to everybody, unfortunately there is a limit to what we can actually do.By the years 2000 and 2001, the budget estimates on this measure are $31 million. You would love to extend it to people in younger age groups who have retired but, unless we are living in a country that is growing at six or seven per cent or unless we cut services in other areas, if we want to finance social infrastructure on something other than debt and asset sales, we have to limit the extent to which we provide these sorts of supports. The measure will greatly assist self-funded retirees, especially in relation to pharmaceuticals, which I know will be welcomed in the electorates of all of us whatever our political persuasion.I think there are many things upon which the major political parties ought to agree. We ought to be constantly looking for common ground, not just trying to fight one another and engage in ideological posturing. But every now and again someone says something in the Main Committee, in the chamber or in the committee process which really stops you dead in your tracks and reminds you that there is an enormous difference between the Liberal and National parties and the Australian Labor Party.In the process of writing our report for the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs in the last parliament, we were debating the need to provide a seniors card for self-funded retirees and how high up the income scale we ought to go. One of the Labor members, whom I will not name, because I think he is one of the good people, said—to the acclamation of his Labor colleagues, I might add—`Of all the people in my electorate that I worry about, self-funded retirees are at the bottom of the list.' He went on to say, `When I have families who are earning $25,000, $30,000 or $35,000 a year, with two kids, why should I worry about someone that has $400,000 in the bank and already owns their car?'In one sense I can understand people having that view or attitude but I think it brings into stark contrast some of the different philosophical attitudes of the two major political parties. I asked him if he minded being quoted on that, and he said he did not, but sometimes people need to be protected from themselves, particularly when they are otherwise good human beings.Finally, I can tell you that, of all the groups that I worry about in my electorate, self-funded retirees are either at the top or very close to the top, particularly when 30 per cent of my electorate are self-funded and not working. We also need to recognise that there need to be rewards in life for people who make sacrifices and strive very hard to care for themselves and their families. I know $31 million is a lot of money but it is not a lot really when you think of the savings that these people have given to government and future taxpayers by providing for themselves.11:13:00704Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Firstly, I would like to associate myself entirely with the comments of the honourable member for Bradfield. I think his reflection upon the role of self-funded retirees in this nation was a very worthy one, and that is why I want to be associated with them. The measures contained in this bill are not just about rewarding the efforts of self-funded retirees; they are also about sending a signal to others who may aspire to follow in the footsteps of self-funded retirees.There are many people in our communities who, when they look at things such as the forced acquisition of retirement incomes under superannuation compulsory savings measures—which were set up under the previous government and continue under this government—say, `What is the point? We are not very confident that the value of our efforts with regard to saving for our retirement will be valued by government and government measures.' In fact, it was not until the advent of this government that we finally saw some administration in place that wanted to send good, strong signals to self-funded retirees and those who aspire to be self-funded retirees.This bill confirms the government's word as written. This is a government that puts forward a proposition and fulfils on it. We work very hard on the negotiation process in the other place, in particular, to make sure our word becomes law. But there is the effort of those opposite, day in and day out, and their constant negativity, their constant effort to tell us everything that they oppose rather than to state in any constructive way what they stand for. It is this government which is proactive, which is producing some strong results for this country, and which promises to do so much more, if given the chance to pass this bill.I welcome the support from the Australian Labor Party for this government measure. This is a government which has listened to older Australians, which helps older Australians, and which is giving them what they want. The member for Lilley, in his own words, is now back from the paddock. I am not sure exactly what grass was in that paddock. I suspect there were some varieties of clover there, because I think he is not listening to his constituents—and has not been listening—as well as he should. It is unfortunate that the member for Lilley is part of an opposition which is so vigorously opposing the government's private health insurance rebate measure.If you want to talk in the context of this bill about providing something that self-funded retirees want to see, it is private health insurance rebates extended to 30 per cent. I suspect they would love to see rebates go to 100 per cent, but 30 per cent is a measure that is supported strongly by them.So I would recommend to the honourable member for Lilley that time in the paddock has not been spent as productively as it could have been. He came to this place with a `party first' approach. He was tossed out after one term by somebody who had a `community first' approach—the former member for Lilley, Mrs Elizabeth Grace. I would welcome the return of Mrs Grace, because she was a strong advocate for the people first, not the party first.I find it always disturbing when the Australian Labor Party continue to try and unravel history. But the member for Lilley in his contribution today has yet again shown that rewriting history—in fact, drawing a line pre 2 March 1996—is his style. He wants to hide the fact that he was part of an administration and part of the Labor Party machine that produced the administration which did so little for self-funded retirees in this country.Having dealt with the member for Lilley, let us get onto the positive notion of this proposal. A seniors health card given out a lot more universally than it has been is something that self-funded retirees in particular want. Self-funded retirees copped it pretty bad under Labor. It you talk to self-funded retirees on a pretty constant basis, as I do, they know all too well that this government has at least delivered on what it said it would do.The tool for changing the particular arrangements that have been the case with regard to the health card is simply the changes to the taxable income ratio. In fact, the income test levels will increase from $21,320 to $40,000 for a single income person, and from $35,620 to $67,000 for a couple. In addition, we are streamlining the system that the Australian Labor Party left behind. They left a cumbersome and intrusive system. Even the member for Lilley confessed that in his contribution. The system was all over the place. It borrowed from many parts. There was a very small take-up of this health card of some 15 per cent. The paperwork was confusing. It was intrusive; it was cumbersome. It was the sort of thing that people gave up on rather than try to negotiate. So this government is doing something about tidying that up.This is all about implementing a number of the 1998 budget initiatives. Now, in the Family and Community Services portfolio—it was previously Social Security—220,000 self-funded retirees are going to benefit as a result of this bill. We will be exempting people living in commercial boarding and lodging accommodation from the application of the sharers rule for their rent assistance payment. We will be extending the eligibility for health care cards to children in foster care. We will be aligning eligibility requirements for parenting payment for all foster-carers. Essentially this is good news. It will mean that cardholders will be eligible for pharmaceuticals at the concessional rate of $3.20, with any prescriptions above 52 a year being free of charge.This is the good news signal to self-funded retirees in particular that their effort is to be rewarded. It is the good news signal to those who aspire to apply effort to their conduct as citizens in this nation that their effort will be rewarded. We have had a problem in this country where those who have sacrificed, those who have put something away for tomorrow, have been discriminated against just by the way the legislation works. Self-funded retirees are completely generous in their nature. They do not begrudge—and nor does anybody, I think, on either side—for a moment the older pension recipients. People who need benefit should get benefit, and this government is right behind that proposal and in fact is improving the range of benefits available to people. But it seems to me that it is not true at all levels of government. The member for Lilley might be well placed through his machine contacts in the Australian Labor Party (Queensland Division) to try and influence the Brisbane City Council. They can smile and laugh but this is real life. I have constituents in my electorate who reflect upon the fact that the Brisbane City Council gives a rates rebate to pension recipients but not to self-funded retirees.What they are saying to self-funded retirees is the same thing the Keating government—and the Hawke government before that—was saying to self-funded retirees, and that is, `We are not going to encourage you to be a self-funded retiree.' This measure is unpicking a lot of that as far as federal government matters are concerned but the Brisbane City Council would be very wise to look at extending their rate rebate to self-funded retirees as a show of support. You could literally end up in a situation where somebody could go off to work for 40 years and live next to a bloke whom he goes off to work with for 40 years. Both earn the same amount of money. One bloke blows the money on a weekly or monthly basis and rightly receives a pension because he has no means to support himself but the bloke next door has put the money aside and saved for his retirement—1K6BILLSONMr Billson—Frugal.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—And has been frugal, as the member for Dunkley suggests, but nevertheless, I think, also responsible, which may be another good word. He has done something to take the pressure off those who have not been able to look after themselves. That particular self-funded retiree, living in exactly the same street next door to somebody who is not a self-funded retiree, will not get an incentive measure like a rate rebate from the Brisbane City Council. They will, though, from 1 January get a seniors health card, which is what this bill before us is all about today.The other thing that both those little anecdotal examples are looking for is the private health insurance incentive rebate that we are offering from 1 January provided the Australian Labor Party passes the measure in the Senate. In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is worth reminding the member for Lilley that there are 33,394 constituents of his that he is ignoring by being part of an opposition that is prepared to say no to the government's private health initiative. That is 39 per cent of his electorate. I know he is pretty good on numbers but there are 33,394 people in his electorate who the member for Jagajaga said yesterday are the rich and should not be encouraged—and should in fact be ignored. They are being ignored by the Australian Labor Party. I would remind him that those 33,394 people in the electorate of Lilley are not likely to be impressed by his particular stand on that matter.1K6BILLSONMr Billson—Obviously they were in a different paddock.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Obviously they were in a different paddock. The member for Dunkley is right that the member for Lilley was in one paddock and 33,394 were clearly in another.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—I thought the member for Dunkley was going to take a point of order about relevance to bring you back to the bill.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I welcome your intervention, but reflecting upon the member for Lilley's speech you may find that he ranged so far and wide that the question of relevance went off the map about half an hour ago.1K6BILLSONMr Billson—He grazed.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Grazed, I think, is an excellent interjection in fact.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—That was why I was so generous.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Mr Deputy Speaker, you were known for your generosity until this particular moment. Nevertheless, I welcome the support of those opposite for this fine initiative from the government to provide a seniors health card to a greater range of people, 220,000 extra people, including a lot in my electorate of Moreton.In closing, I would just simply ask that those opposite reconsider their quite stupid, naive and ignorant stand on the matter of the private health initiative.11:25:00707Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your support and guidance on matters of relevance.The package of measures before the Main Committee today in this bill, the 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 , flow as a direct result of the coalition's 1998-99 budget that was delivered so eloquently and thoughtfully in May of this year by our federal Treasurer.Despite all that the member for Lilley had to say, a snippet of which actually related to the bill, this bill is actually about beneficial, thoughtful, good-hearted measures from the coalition that have been made possible by a sound fiscal approach. With the budget back in shape, back in the black and back on track, which was the slogan at the time, that provides new opportunities to implement policy measures that help and support those who need encouragement and support.In my first term as the federal member for Dunkley I spoke often about the importance of the self-funded retiree community and how the coalition government would look after them. That is exactly what happened in the first budget, although not quite to the same degree in the second budget, but very much so in the third budget. This bill we are discussing today is implementing the most recent bits of good news for the self-funded retiree community.In 1996 we opened the batting with what I call tax justice for self-funded retirees, for those low income self-funded retirees who found themselves treated quite nastily by the tax system when compared to pension recipients, people who arguably were in some cases in an equivalent, if not better, position in terms of the funds or discretionary spending power available to them. Over those two years we have seen that improvement embraced by the self-funded retiree community, and the bill before the House today is a further step in looking after that important section of the Dunkley electorate.The budget in 1998 included a proposal to extend the Commonwealth seniors health care card to around 222,000 self-funded retirees. I am pleased that a good many of those benefiting from that measure are in the electorate of Dunkley and I am sure they will be pleased that this bill is being introduced today. The thing that troubled a number of them, and troubled them to the extent that they contacted me during the election campaign, was the fact that the Labor Party had been so wishy-washy on many of the government's good proposals, and this one in particular. They were uncertain about what would happen with this measure if the coalition was not returned to government. I am delighted to see the Minister for Community Services has returned and I can now get right to the nub of my speech. The good news from that election was the return of the coalition. That meant that this measure that had been introduced by the coalition in the budget was certain to receive the continuing support of this side of the House. The bill enacts that proposal and is another step towards turning around the distaste that the Labor Party showed to self-funded retirees. The coalition has been left with the task of restoring an incentive to those people who are in a position to provide for their own retirement.Something that so often comes up when I speak with self-funded retirees, particularly those who are not at all wealthy, those who are on modest incomes and fending for themselves, is how little encouragement they got from the former government. This coalition government is turning that around and is in vivid contrast to the former Labor government that seemed to detest self-funded retirees.The 1,500 self-funded retirees in the Dunkley electorate, enjoying the coastal environment of Dunkley by the bay that stretches from Seaford down to Mornington, will benefit from the extension of the seniors health card. Many of them will remember how the complex application procedure for this card under the former Labor government meant that 70 per cent of applicants missed out on low cost pharmaceuticals. Retirees just did not understand what Labor's requirement of ordinary income actually meant. The coalition has now changed the criterion for the card to be taxable income, a simple, straightforward, clean approach, and it is accompanied by vastly increased thresholds.I listened to the member for Lilley talking about Centrelink. The two Centrelink offices in the Dunkley electorate are staffed by outstanding professionals who work very effectively with us, and where we have a concern or they have a concern we work quite effectively as a team. In fact, as my office is next door to the Centrelink office in Frankston, we often refer to my office as `the complaints desk'. If someone leaves Centrelink unhappy with the service, occasionally we will get a phone call saying, `So-and-so is coming in the front door. Here is the story. Can you help us with this particular matter?' So there is a very constructive and positive relationship between coalition members and Centrelink employees, and I am pleased that my office and I and the local Centrelink staff have managed to work in a cooperative and supportive way through a number of the changes that the government has implemented.The member for Lilley also talked about tax evasion. I would guide him towards the coalition's tax plan. We are the only team in town actually talking about a comprehensive review of the tax system. I am not quite sure how the Toorak tractor tax or the very short-lived capital gains tax idea—the only two ideas about tax that came out of the Labor Party during the election campaign; those absolutely insightful ideas—would go any way towards addressing the member for Lilley's concerns about tax evasion.If the member for Lilley is genuinely concerned about tax evasion and draws a rather spurious link between that and the use of taxable income as the basis for receiving the seniors health card, I would suggest to him to get on the train that is actually going somewhere in terms of reviewing the tax system to minimise tax evasion—and that is not your side of politics; that is the coalition. You guys think the tax system is just fine, except for taxes on four-wheel drives and hopping into pre capital gains tax assets of self-funded retirees.I appreciate the fact that, in the paddock in which he has been grazing and has kept his form—congratulations on your return—the member for Lilley has not heard about those issues that the coalition is tackling head-on. I am sure his support within the caucus for what the coalition is doing will mean that the member for Werriwa is not the only thinker on the opposition benches. So apprise yourself of those tax reforms and what a constructive contribution they make towards reducing tax evasion.But the link goes further. The member for Lilley was talking about vaguely linking some other related matters that the coalition has had to take to fix up the $10,500 billion bankcard bill the Labor government left for the Australian community. You were in the fortunate situation of having a virtual spending spree in the dying months leading up to the 1996 election, almost a Christmas sale on government outlays, trying to purchase support within the community, and then you left the coalition with the bill and we had to do something about it.While you were grazing in the paddock we were trying to work out how to pay the feed bill for those millions of people who rely on income support, for those millions of people who rely on government services and for the worthwhile activities undertaken by the Commonwealth. Someone has to pay for it. It is not satisfactory to leave debt and deficit to our kids. That is intergenerational theft.This government has tackled that issue and, as a result of its prudent examination of expenditures, it is now in a position to introduce worthwhile measures, such as the ones that we are talking about today, that benefit people who deserve the support, warrant the assistance and will benefit from the encouragement the government is providing in these new measures.Probably the saddest thing I see when I talk with some of the members of the opposition is that they cannot connect policy ideas. The warm-up speech by the member for Lilley, the theatrical overblown angry rhetoric that the Australian electorate are sick and tired of—but he has not heard that message in the paddock either—the dry run for the speech to the CPSU that he delivered as a substitute for a contribution to this debate, ignores the connection between elements of government policy.While you are talking about your portfolio—and I admire the gusto with which you pursue your responsibilities—there are a whole lot of other interrelationships. A simple one I would ask you to consider is that, if you do not have the cash, you cannot implement the programs. If you do not do the tax reforms that the coalition is supporting, how do you provide for the 2.2 million aged people that will be in this country in the next decade—half a million more than we have now, if my memory serves me correctly? How do you provide for those people? The stuff does not grow on trees; cash does not grow in paddocks.The interconnection between policy is something this side of the parliament takes seriously. I would encourage the member for Lilley to consider those things and to fold that broader picture into his remarks so that they might be more worth while and so that we might be able to get something out of them.In terms of the restoration of incentives for self-funded retirees, the proposition put before the government is good news for seniors and veterans. As the Prime Minister said in an interview on 13 May, this welcome extension provides some recognition by the coalition government of how this older age group came from a generation that was often thrifty, saving for their retirement. But we need to put the encouragement and the incentive back for those people so that they can see that by going without, by being frugal in their working life, by perhaps not having that holiday—though maybe I would be encouraging them to have that extra holiday on the Mornington Peninsula and enjoy the Dunkley electorate—by putting that money aside or by putting it in a retirement savings investment account, they will be able to comfortably live on their own means in their retirement. This is something we should be encouraging. This bill is about encouraging that.Retirees of pensionable age with incomes of $40,000 if single or $67,000 if a couple will receive the Commonwealth seniors health card. These income limits are almost double what they are now. This part of the bill represents a $103 million commitment by the government over four years. The minister will know that $103 million is a big commitment—again, a commitment you cannot make unless you have your fiscal house in order.The National Seniors Association does excellent work. I know Nancy Field, the representative of the Frankston National Seniors Association and with whom we often have contact, is quite pleased to see that things are happening for the seniors community, particularly the self-funded retiree community. On 15 July, the NSA's Chief Executive Officer David Deans said:NSA has had great success in lobbying the Federal Government to give older people a fair go.I think they could probably count this as one of their successes. A second aspect of the bill is a measure that will assist lower income Australians. This bill proposes that the sharers rule relating to rent assistance will be abolished for those who share in boarding house accommodation. This will mean higher levels of rent assistance for residents of boarding houses. The amount of additional spending involved will be $20 million over four years. Again, that is another example of how, if you do not have the resources, you cannot implement these worthwhile measures.I am reminded of the number of people with intellectual disabilities who are forced to seek some form of supported accommodation in these sorts of boarding house facilities. It saddens me that many are forced to get what is not the most appropriate residential care in these sorts of facilities, and this, I hope, is a measure that will assist those families that have an awesome task of caring for a family member with an intellectual disability. It is one of the issues on the unmet needs reference group that former Minister Smith and current Minister Newman have asked me to convene to look at these issues of unmet needs for disability services. Just by way of example, in the region that I represent there are about 229 people with intellectual disabilities on the supported accommodation waiting list. I think we have nine places through to about the turn of the century, and many of the family members caring for those people have long passed retirement age. It is an important issue and, hopefully, this will make a contribution in the right direction.Foster parents will be assisted by the bill. Carers who receive family allowance at less than the maximum rate will now be eligible for a health care card to be issued to their foster child, provided the child was previously eligible for a pensioner concession or health care card when with their original family. Almost 4½ thousand carers will benefit from this measure. Again, it is another example of how, if your fiscal house is in order, you can do worthwhile things for our community.About 900 single carers of foster children will be pleased that the 12-month waiting period for parenting payment will be abolished. Sometimes, for instance, a relative cares for a child, and that 12-month period represents a financial burden that can act as a disincentive for some choosing that courageous and selfless role of a foster parent. To my mind, these people are some of the unsung heroes in our community, and this provision aims to encourage the awesome service and selfless contribution they make not only to their community but to the lives of the young people they take under their wings. They deserve the recognition they are now receiving from the coalition government.In closing, I would like to return to the self-funded retirees issue. I am mindful of the sometimes awkward situation that early retirees face—those who are caught in the halfway house of being under pensionable age but deemed by other policy measures to be retired. As the government's improved financial position continues in the future, that is an area I would like to see a bit more attention given to. In some instances, we find that these people are treated as if they have retired, for purposes of calculating eligibility to income support; but, when it comes to other retiree related benefits, they are outside the loop.I hope the minister is taking these comments in the good-natured way in which they are intended. Certainly, down the track there are a few things we could do to recognise either the retired or the not retired status of those people and to look at extending some of the concessions that are available to retirees over pensionable age to that early retiree group within our community. I commend the bill to the committee and I am pleased to see that the opposition is not opposing it. I congratulate the minister on his appointment and the continuing good work that he is doing for the constituency he represents.11:41:00711Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—Firstly, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, I commend you on your appointment to the Speaker's Panel, wish you every success in the position, and assure you of our cooperation in the important office that you hold. I thank the honourable members who have contributed to the debate on the 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 , in particular the members for Bradfield, Moreton and Dunkley, who all demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of these matters and also addressed important social policy issues that are addressed in the bill.The legislation is unambiguously good news, and so it was very disappointing to see the mean-spirited approach of the member for Lilley in responding to this legislation. Even when he had to acknowledge that everything in the bill was good and that the opposition would not be opposing it, there was certainly no demonstration of any compassion or caring for those who are benefiting from these measures, but just naked political opportunism. I thought that was particularly disappointing, particularly since many of the things that he actually said in his prepared address were in fact not even accurate. A lot came straight out of the ALP propaganda machine, in which the honourable member has obviously been a keen player over the years; but in fact you cannot substitute party political propaganda for meaningful policy development, and there is only one person on the opposition benches who is prepared to address policy issues. The honourable member for Lilley still prefers political propaganda over an honest assessment of the issues, and that is somewhat disappointing.The reality is that these measures provide real benefits to a large sector of the Australian community and to many people who had been missing out in the past. The government's response and policy approach to self-funded retirees contrasts markedly with the 13 years of Labor administration. I felt that the crocodile tears of the member for Lilley in relation to self-funded retirees were particularly hypocritical, in view of his government's response in their 13 years to the needs of self-funded retirees. Frankly, they did nothing; in fact there was even an aggressive attitude towards self-funded retirees, a suggestion that these people should be punished for having put aside during their working careers funds for their own retirement. No benefits were ever provided.The government has in fact responded positively. We gave them the tax free threshold equivalent to that for pensioners on the same income—the first time that any positive action had been taken in that regard—and now we are offering to extend fringe benefits to self-funded retirees in a way that they have asked for for years, which provides some degree of equity in our society.As the member for Dunkley said in his remarks, if we do not in fact encourage people to put aside during their working career funds for their retirement, the burden will fall inevitably on taxpayers in the future. As the proportion of retirees in our society grows—firstly, because people are retiring at an earlier age; and secondly, and perhaps most significantly, because they now live for longer periods in retirement—the burden on taxpayers becomes all the greater; indeed, it becomes unsustainable in the future. So it is important that there be incentives provided by governments in the long term.I trust that the opposition comes on board and accepts the importance of providing incentives for people to put aside funds during their working careers so that they can adequately care for their own retirement. It is important that there be benefits available also for self-funded retirees. I noticed a number of comments were made during the debate about Labor's incredible decision to oppose the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance, which is one of those measures that provides support for low income earners and those who put aside during their working careers for their own retirement. It benefits both groups evenly, and also provides benefits to the taxpayers in the longer term.The honourable member for Lilley also made a number of comments about health care, and particularly aged care. I draw to the attention of the Main Committee that the government spends about $4 billion a year in subsidies to support the 130,000 residents in aged care facilities. We have demonstrated a real commitment to improving the quality of care that was simply not evident under Labor. After 13 years of Labor, 40 per cent of nursing home residents still shared their bedroom with four or more people, 13 per cent of homes did not meet fire regulations and 11 per cent of homes did not meet health standards. Labor had that information at their disposal. They commissioned a report which delivered that sort of information but they did nothing. They just left the bill. They left this government to fix up the mess, as has happened in so many areas. We have moved to provide improved capital availability to the nursing homes sector to ensure that something can now be done to start upgrading nursing homes.The honourable member also had quite a lot to say about tax reform. It is quite extraordinary that the ALP should be opposing tax reform measures, particularly the benefits to pensioners. One of the contrasting features of the last election campaign was that one side of politics was offering real pension increases, real benefit increases, while the other side was offering nothing. The government—the coalition parties—are offering real increases in benefits above the anticipated CPI impact of the goods and services tax—a guaranteed 1.5 per cent increase in pensions in perpetuity. All pensioners, all welfare beneficiaries, are better off under the coalition's taxation policy than they ever would have been under Labor. All Labor wanted to do was tax Toorak taxis and introduce a capital gains tax on jewellery or family heirlooms. That was their response to the needs of pensioners.We are not only offering major tax reform which will improve our national economy—and that, naturally, has flow-on benefits to the whole of our society, particularly those who are dependent upon welfare benefits for their income—but also providing real increases in those benefits. It comes as something of a surprise therefore that Labor, the party that like to go around pretending that they represent the downtrodden in our society, and who claim and feign some interest in those who need particular benefits, are now opposing the potential for real benefits for the welfare sector. I find this quite remarkable. It is a clear demonstration of the emptiness of what the Labor Party have to say about social security and about benefits for those in need. They are crying crocodile tears. When they have an opportunity to actually support real benefits, they complain.The Labor Party are supporting this legislation somewhat begrudgingly. They have found it within their means apparently to oppose a 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance—an unambiguously good measure to help people with private health insurance, yet they are going to oppose it. Perhaps it is not surprising because in that same mood they also opposed extending fringe benefits to self-funded retirees. They are not quite that mean-spirited, it seems, but they certainly are prepared to stoop to fairly low depths.The honourable member for Lilley was also critical of the announcement by the board of Centrelink to introduce a new service delivery model to improve the quality of service to Centrelink customers. Again, Labor opposes improved services.The board of Centrelink have announced a new more personalised service delivery arrangement for customers. Centrelink customers—6.2 million of them—will now have better access to the people who control their files, a more instant point of contact with the decision making process and the capacity to talk to the person in their town who is dealing with their file. There will be a broader range of access options, an expanded point of contact with decision making, more Centrelink offices around Australia in more convenient locations and an improved back up for the call centre systems, which often become overloaded, particularly at times when there are changes in benefits or when some problem occurs in the system.People will only have to tell their story once to a Centrelink officer because they will have dealt with the same person previously. These kinds of radical improvements in the service which Centrelink wants to offer to its customers are deserving of community support. Those people who have been frustrated at the fact that they had only talked to machines and those people who have been frustrated at the fact that they had to retell their story to different Centrelink officers will welcome these improvements.I will be monitoring the performance of Centrelink in the delivery of this improved service network; it certainly has the potential to deliver improved customer satisfaction. What is more, it will also provide greater job satisfaction for Centrelink staff. I am sure they will appreciate the opportunity to case manage files, make decisions promptly and deliver the quality of service that Centrelink is committed to and which is so important to its customers. Real benefits and real reform measures are being proposed by the government to improve the quality of service. We are looking to Centrelink—the government's one-stop shop agency—to demonstrate that it has this capacity to deliver personalised service, quicker decisions and, indeed, a caring and compassionate response to its customers' needs.Turning particularly now to the elements of this bill which implement a number of the government's 1998 budget initiatives for the Family and Community Services portfolio, the most prominent feature is the extension of the Commonwealth seniors health card to an additional 220,000 self-funded retirees. Currently, the combination of eligibility and application requirements has meant that the Commonwealth seniors health card is not taken up by many retirees who are currently eligible. Customer feedback has suggested that this low take-up is because the application process for the card has been complicated and intrusive. This legislation will greatly improve and simplify the application process for the Commonwealth seniors health card.More importantly, in recognition of the significant contribution that self-funded retirees make to the community through self-provision for their retirement, the government has lifted the eligibility requirements for the seniors health card by lifting the income limits for the card from $21,460 to $40,000 for a single person and from $35,858 to $67,000 for a couple. This will mean that the major benefit for those who take up the Commonwealth seniors health card will be that they will be eligible for pharmaceutical benefits at the concessional rate of $3.20, with any prescriptions above 52 for a year being free of charge. This is an outstanding new initiative that has been taken by the government. It will certainly be welcomed, and has been welcomed, by self-funded retirees. It delivers a degree of equity to the fringe benefits available for those living in retirement.There are changes to the sharers rule. Single people, living in boarding houses, hostels, rooming houses and similar accommodation, did not receive the advantages normally received by people living in shared accommodation. This measure will benefit about 12,000 recipients.The legislation also extends access for fostered children to the health care card. This measure is aimed at encouraging people to foster children. A health care card will be available to foster carers who receive family allowance and who do not qualify for the health care card, provided the child being fostered was eligible for a health care card or pensioner concession card when they were with their original family. It is expected that this measure will benefit the carers of around 4,400 foster children.We are also aligning the parenting payment for all foster carers as a further measure aimed at encouraging people to foster children by removing an inequity with access to the parenting payment currently existing in the legislation between single and partnered people. It is expected that 900 single foster carers will benefit from the abolition of the 12-month waiting period.I believe these measures are unambiguously good news for those people who are in receipt of benefits and, indeed, it extends benefits to people who in the past have not been eligible. It is a demonstration of this government's care and concern for those in need of assistance. It also recognises the importance of rewarding those who have put aside in their working career for their own retirement by ensuring that they also receive benefits that are provided to other sectors of the community.I commend the legislation to the Main Committee, and look forward to implementing these measures and seeing the benefits that will flow from 1 January, in most instances, as a result of this legislation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.UNKNOWNMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills714s184Consideration resumed from 12 November.71411:58:00714Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The data-matching program is an important aspect of the continued efforts of this government to ensure the integrity of Australia's social welfare system. Over the past seven years, the data- matching program has been conducted under the Privacy Commissioner's scrutiny with careful regard for individual privacy, and is an important control on personal financial assistance schemes, helping to keep them free of abuse and fraud. It has been proven over the past two years that it can achieve substantial savings in public expenditure.The data-matching program is also valuable in encouraging voluntary compliance with the rules in place to ensure payments are targeted to those in need. It reminds the community that it is not a case of if fraud will be detected, but when. It has now become an important feature of the review mechanisms that are helping to build the integrity of the system and the confidence of the public that the system is, in fact, secure from fraud.There are ongoing review and reporting arrangements in place to allow the parliament to maintain its scrutiny of the program. The present government, when in opposition, argued successfully for continuation of this scrutiny. The Privacy Commissioner continues to play an important role in ensuring that the government agencies participating in the data-matching program abide by the strict conditions already set down in the legislation to protect the privacy of individuals.In addition to the Privacy Commissioner being able to seek information and scrutinise the activities of the agencies involved in the data-matching program, there is a requirement that those agencies report annually to the Privacy Commissioner. The act also requires that these reports are laid before the parliament. There is also a triennial report to the parliament covering the three previous financial years. The first triennial report is due in the second half of this year.In 1996 the Australian National Audit Office, ANAO, conducted a follow-up of its 1993 audit of data matching within the Department of Social Security. This review was in keeping with this government's 1996 election commitment to review the data-matching program. It can be noted that the ANAO's audit opinion given in its 1996 report was as follows:Overall the department has made substantial achievements through implementing legislative changes, improved reporting procedures, savings collection, better targeting and project evaluation processes. These changes have resulted in both substantial increases in savings generated by the program and in efficiency improvements.When the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990 was first enacted it incorporated a sunset clause to take effect in January 1993. That sunset clause has, however, been extended by the parliament on three separate occasions. The latest occasion was in 1995 when the sunset clause was extended until 23 January 1999. In part, the sunset clause was kept in place because of concerns in the parliament that the data-matching program would not achieve the expected savings and in part as an attempt to allow the parliament to maintain scrutiny of the program.The data-matching program has now proven that very substantial savings can be achieved, and the parliament has been regularly informed of the operation of the program in addition to its deliberation of bills previously introduced to deal with the sunset clause. The program has become an important feature of the overall social welfare system and one that needs to be given a permanent place in the continuing efforts to maintain and improve that system. In the event that the sunset clause is allowed to come into effect, the loss of savings that could be achieved would be in the order of $560 million over the four years from 1998-99. Accordingly, this bill seeks to remove the sunset clause. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.12:03:00716Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—The Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 (No. 2) seeks to make the data-matching program a permanent feature of the social security system, and the opposition welcomes this. The approach of the opposition in these areas is one which does give great emphasis to responsibility and to incentive but also to compassion. There is a lot of rhetoric thrown around using those words and it depends on how they are put into practice.In an earlier debate, we heard discussions about the ethic of incentive and how people who worked hard were entitled to get additional benefits. I think that is true whether you are dealing with self-funded retirees or low income families. People who work hard to make this country great are certainly deserving of support from the government. That could be nowhere more true than it is with elderly Australians. Someone mentioned the concept of intergenerational theft before. There could be no greater intergenerational theft against elderly people than the imposition of double taxation on them through a GST, for example, or the passing of legislation to take away their family home when they require essential nursing home care.Of course, in this bill we are dealing with another form of theft. We are dealing with theft from the social security system—something which the opposition regards as an extremely serious topic and which must be dealt with as effectively as possible. I am sure that members on both sides of the House will recall that the data-matching program was introduced by Labor, just as was the seniors health card, which was discussed earlier.The Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act of 1990 gave effect to measures announced in the 1990-91 budget. Now, of course, the government does not seek to highlight that fact. This Labor initiative introduced a method for detecting inconsistent payments being made to a person by two or more agencies and the detection of possible tax evasion. An independent person listening to members of the government, particularly the minister, could be forgiven for thinking that the government invented measures to catch social security cheats. But it is a matter of record that it was the Labor government which first got tough on social security fraud after the total neglect by the previous coalition government, the government in which the current Prime Minister was the Treasurer and should have been concerned with matters such as that.Labor's original act defined the method of data matching and placed a limit on the number of data-matching cycles. It gave force to data-matching guidelines that have been used by the Privacy Commissioner. The act permitted the use of tax file numbers to assist with the verification with the tax office of income information provided by social security recipients. It also increased data matching between a number of government departments, including Social Security; Veterans' Affairs; Health, Housing and Community Services; Employment, Education and Training; and the tax office. Labor's initiative placed Australia in the enviable position of being recognised as a world leader in fraud and review work. In fact our approach was copied and adopted by a number of other nations.Today I want to signal that protecting the tax revenue that pays for social security from fraud and abuse is a very important priority of the opposition. We all need to take responsibility. It is a very important word, responsibility—for ourselves, individually, but we also need to take responsibility for each other. We as a community have to reach out to those who are not able, for whatever reason, to get by on their own. That is Labor's historical and contemporary commitment to the social safety net: to look after those who cannot get by on their own.The coalition have a different view. They would actually prefer a system where people did not have access to a decent social safety net. Only last week the IMF recommended that Australia cut the level of unemployment benefits and kick people off at a certain period of time. What was the minister Senator Newman's response? It was very interesting. She said that the government would look at these recommendations to see which ones they could adopt. She is yet to reject the policy prescriptions of the IMF, which were presumably originally written by the government anyway.Labor knows that just knocking people off welfare unfairly does not solve the heart of the problem. The problem in the end can be solved only by creating sustainable jobs and greater opportunity and making sure that people have the skills to get decent jobs.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—What has this got to do with it?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—A hell of a lot, because absolutely essential to that commitment is the maintenance of the credibility and sustainability of the safety net. To maintain the credibility and the sustainability of the safety net you have got to stamp out fraud and abuse. It is just not one without the other. You have got to work at both ends of the spectrum. You have got to have both a commitment to opportunity and jobs on the one hand and a commitment to the safety net on the other—and essential to a commitment to the credibility and support for the safety net is stamping out fraud and abuse and error.The opposition is delighted the government has taken up the important work that we began. We are pleased the government is so enthusiastic about the mechanisms that we created. But the opposition is somewhat bemused by the government's claims of leadership in the area and by attempts to claim that we are unconcerned by social security fraud. We do welcome the opportunity of speaking to the amendment bill. We are pleased to remind the government of some of the facts about social security fraud.The original act contained a sunset clause which was to come into effect in January 1993. That sunset clause has been extended three times, most recently in 1995 when it was extended to 22 January 1999. The bill before us now seeks to remove the sunset clause altogether.The data-matching program has proved to be very effective in maintaining the integrity of the social security system. When in government, Labor was running between five and seven data-matching cycles a year for each of the years 1991 through to 1996. Savings in 1993 were $80 million, in 1994 they were $84 million, and in 1995 they were $92 million from that measure alone.Awareness of data matching and the use of tax file numbers by the public have also increased voluntary compliance with the social security system, so the effective savings resulting from data matching are certainly greater than the figures that I have just quoted. When the Australian National Audit Office reviewed the program in 1993 it found it was `a valuable compliance and control technique'.It is important for us to have on the record the history of the program as it was an important part of Labor's overall effort to put in place a social security system which was effective at identifying and preventing incorrect payments. In 1990-91 when the data-matching program was put in place, the annual report of the Department of Social Security said:An effective social security system makes it as difficult as possible for incorrect payments and fraud to occur, has systems in place that minimise the risk of such occurrence, detects it at the earliest possible stage, deals decisively with the cases which are detected, and creates a public recognition of the risk involved in attempting to defraud. This is a system that Labor put in place and one that the current government are so keen to score political mileage out of, and I am sure they will continue to do that.It is not the system that Labor inherited in 1983, for example. In 1983 our social security system did not have a systematic method of identifying and collecting incorrect payments. When Labor came to power the only method of monitoring the system which was reported on concerned the negotiation of fraudulent cheques. That is the way that most social security payments were made then, by cheque. In the last full year of the Fraser government there were just under 11,000 reported fraudulent negotiations of cheques, with a value of $1.35 million. I am pleased to say that it did not take Labor long to begin the reform of the system. By 1984, Labor had embarked on a major project to convert most payments to the direct deposit method—payments straight to bank accounts—with the goal of reducing the incidence of fraudulent negotiation of cheques.It was also Labor that put in place the range of review mechanisms including mobile review teams, the use of employment declaration forms, the extended use of duration reviews, and the data-matching program. By the end of Labor's term in government, in just over one year, 237,176 overpayments were identified thereby saving $42 million a fortnight, or just over $1 billion a year. That was a far cry from the $1.35 million in 1982. All these initiatives should sound very familiar to the government because they are almost identical to the fraud catching and review mechanisms which they have been crowing about in the media.This government has not been too interested in the historical facts when it comes to the issues. It just believes there is political mileage to be gained out of focusing on a media strategy of claiming to be tough on fraud. But the fact is that, if you look at the government's cutbacks, particularly its staff cutbacks in Centrelink, it is very soft on fraud because it is actually undermining the mechanisms to implement the strategy; it is undermining it systematically.The government's cost cutting and job cutting agenda is actually undercutting the very effective system that it inherited from the last Labor government. Before it even began its savage 5,000 job cuts, Centrelink's resources were already stretched to the absolute limit.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I remind the member for Lilley that the sole purpose of this bill is to repeal the sunset clause and I would be grateful if he could try and be a little more relevant to the bill itself.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is not the sole purpose; it is actually a data-matching bill to eliminate fraud, and what I am talking about are the mechanisms to get rid of fraud. I have spent the last 10 minutes talking about those various mechanisms.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Having read the explanatory memorandum, the second reading speech and the bill itself, I would still maintain that the purpose of the bill is to repeal the sunset clause.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I will endeavour to be as relevant—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Lilley.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—You have only to read the Ombudsman's reports about these matters of fraud to know that there is a crisis in the implementation of the mechanisms to solve fraud. Of course, if you slash the number of people in jobs concerned with the detection of fraud—from head office, area offices, or local offices, including all of the review teams that you have out there—then detection of fraud is severely undermined. I have already begun to receive an enormous amount of anecdotal evidence that Centrelink is being forced to redirect resources away from its review area.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Lilley will resume his seat.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: we have had a good debate dealing with this bill, which is—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, I do not need you to speak to it. What is your point of order?SD4CADMANMr Cadman—The member is now way off the mark. He is getting involved in staff cuts and a lot of things unrelated to the substance of the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the member for Mitchell. The honourable member for Lilley will of course do his utmost to remain relevant to the bill.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am indeed trying very hard to be as relevant as I possibly can, because we regard the detection of fraud as a very serious issue. It goes to the heart of whether we have responsibility in our social security system. Consequences flow out from there that impact upon a whole range of aspects of social security, including the incentives for people to get into work.I was making the point, before the point of order, that the mechanisms to detect fraud are extremely important and relevant to the heart of this bill. I was saying that I had received a fair bit of anecdotal evidence, from people at the front line of fighting fraud, that indicates that their efforts are being undermined. I would like to paraphrase from—SD4CADMANMr Cadman—You are going to make it up.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Mitchell will remain silent.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—No. There is no need for anyone to be unaware of this issue. Any member of parliament has people walking into their office every day to talk about these problems. We may disagree about how and why they have come about, but the problems are there and are real. The fact is that customer service centres are coping with dwindling resources.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I do not want to interrupt the honourable member—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! You have not got the call yet.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—My point of order is on relevance. This bill is a narrow bill concerned with the sunset clause and data matching in social security. It is not concerned with the staff cuts. The honourable member has plenty of opportunity to talk about other issues, but he should stick to the subject of the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member. I do note that, in the first sentence of the minister's speech, he does refer to the continued efforts of this government to ensure the integrity of Australia's social welfare system. On my reading of that, I would believe that the member for Lilley has a certain limited scope to speak about the integrity of the social welfare system. The honourable member for Lilley has the call.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is about integrity. If we are going to have a data-matching system to detect fraud, the people at the front line in implementing the data-matching system must be there in order to implement the systems that are being put in place. I am finding—as I am sure other members of parliament from both sides are finding—that there are fewer staff at the front line in the customer service centres. There is growing pressure to ensure payments are made to customers—that is, that the work is turned around—but because of the staff cuts there are fewer people on the other side, actually out there detecting fraud. That is the problem.Anyone who works in these organisations, and any member of the public and any member of parliament, ought to be extremely concerned about this situation. If fraud escalates as a consequence of staff cuts, that undermines the credibility of the system. It is not just a question of a political debate here between sides over staff cuts in Centrelink; this goes to the heart of service delivery.If these concerns are not heeded, then we are going to have a growing fraud problem. I appeal to the minister to have a look at this again because at the end of the day it is not the board of Centrelink that is responsible for the integrity of our system; it is the government. It is the minister, Senator Newman, and Mr Truss, the member for Wide Bay, who are directly responsible for this. In the end, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the board of Centrelink. So if Centrelink is less able to conduct reviews, then it is less able to catch social security fraud.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. He might claim relevance. This bill is a very narrowly cast bill which deals primarily with the sunset clause that is going to be removed from data matching. That is the purpose of the bill. It is a very narrow bill, a very small bill. It has got nothing to do with personnel or with capacity; therefore the member's remarks are irrelevant.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the member. Before I call the honourable member for Lilley, I will again refer to the minister's speech in which he made the point that it is an important control on personal financial assistance schemes, helping to keep them free of abuse and fraud. I think that opens the way for the honourable member for Lilley to talk about fraud. The minister also said that it reminds the community that it is not a case of if fraud will be detected, but when. He also said that it has become an important feature in the review mechanisms that are helping to build the integrity of the system and the confidence of the public that the system is, in fact, secure from fraud.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—The Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, loves talking about fraud and welfare cheats. I just want to make it clear again that there is an absolute commitment from this side to weed out whatever fraud or abuse there is in the system. What we do not hear a lot about from the government—and I would like to hear a lot more—is about putting in place opportunities for people to move forward, to move off welfare and into work. Governments have to do both. They have to look at how they maintain the integrity of the social security system, but, just as importantly, they have to provide opportunities for people to move ahead, to get off welfare and into work.Australia needs a government that will do both of those things: that will protect the integrity of our social security system from fraud and abuse, but will move people off the benefits and back to work so that they are not actually in the system. Look, for example, at those dependent on unemployment benefits, particularly those dependent upon unemployment benefits for 12 months or longer.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Lilley is now getting away from the—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—It is something like a quarter of a million people and the number is rising, with more people being caught in the system, and the government seems to be unconcerned about it. Labor has a very positive agenda in this area. We believe you have to provide the incentives; hence our emphasis upon tax credits and so on. Labor wants to do much more than just make sure the system is not open to abuse. We will support any legitimate means of stopping abuse. We want to make sure the system does not trap people into a cycle of poverty and dependence. Labor intends to make sure that the social security system provides the security of knowing that if you lose your job there will be an unemployment benefit to make sure that you do not fall into poverty.Our system will also offer the opportunity to make sure that, when you do get a job, it will be worth while. So we are pleased to support this bill today. We call on the government to recognise that social security has to do so much more than just prevent fraud and abuse, important as that is. It has to provide the opportunity for those who are looking for work to find those jobs and, when they do, to be able to hold onto those jobs and take home much more than they currently do.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the honourable member for Mitchell, I encourage him to remain within the same limits of relevance that he was so keen to apply to the honourable member for Lilley.12:24:00721Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I was anxious to have the previous speaker, the member for Lilley, Mr Swan, stay within those limits because that is the area that I want to confine my remarks to. The government has a very strong social conscience in many of the matters that were referred to by the member for Lilley, and which will be matters for other debates in other places. This government is concerned for people seeking jobs and for those who are on welfare.Every act of this government has demonstrated its compassion and concern for the people, as described by the member for Lilley. Today we are dealing with the control of fraud and the abuse of welfare. The government has decided to remove a sunset clause from the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 (No. 2) . When in opposition, this government opposed the removal of the sunset clause. The honourable member was right in that regard. We were not sure that there were going to be the gains that the government of the day said there would be by going into data matching.When in government, the Australian Labor Party's program for data matching started slowly. They were so revved up at one point that the Australian Labor Party felt, as a government, that they should introduce the Australia card to make sure that everybody was tagged somehow or other through the taxation system, social security and unemployment benefits. They felt that people should be tagged and identified under a single system which could be data-matched across departments and easily administered by bureaucrats. That is certainly a simple data-matching process but it moves into another matter, and that is the matter of privacy. It is a matter that the member referred to, but not at great length, and I believe he should have done that if he has the concern for people he seemed to express.The conflict in this area is always how much information will be gained and stored in one place; how much information will be cross-matched, and from which agencies; how that information will be held; and whether it will remain private. That is what part of this debate is about. Of course, the other part of the debate is whether or not the removal of this sunset clause removes a capacity for greater personal privacy of the clients of various departments.Whilst we were in opposition, we opposed the removal of the sunset clause because we felt that the government of the day had not demonstrated a worthwhile yield from data matching, in catching or dealing with fraud.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.27 p.m. to 12.51 p.m.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—A quorum not being present, the Main Committee will resume in two minutes.Sitting suspended from 12.51 p.m. to 12.53 p.m.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—We are debating a bill which seeks to remove a sunset clause from data matching where it applies to the Department of Social Security, that department being the main agency in charge of data matching. The department is given access to a range of files across the spectrum of information held by government, including tax file numbers and other matters.The removal of the sunset clause was proposed by the current opposition when it was in government in 1995, but at that time it was rejected by members of the current government. However, since then we have had an assurance that the results from data matching are successful and that the privacy provisions that worried us at that time are now adequately attended to.I will refer to comments made by an Australian National Audit Office report in 1996 that said that overall the Department of Social Security had made substantial achievements through implementing legislative changes, improved reporting procedures, savings collection, better targeting and project evaluation processes. It said also that these changes had resulted in both substantial increases in savings generated by the program and efficiency improvements.I refer the House to an inquiry commenced in 1993 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs resulting in a report in June 1995 entitled In confidence. That report dealt with the ever increasing amount of confidential information held by government and the information being obtained quite properly so that the government could provide benefits for those enrolled, so benefits could be paid and grants could be allocated.People who provide information to government have a right and an expectation to think that that information is going to be retained in a confidential manner. A report that was prepared for the New South Wales government by the ICAC group in New South Wales identified the sale of confidential information by New South Wales agencies for huge amounts of money, and there was a concern by the House of Representatives committee that that may be occurring in Australian government agencies.There was no indication that that had happened, or is happening, but the inquiry became aware of some very cavalier attitudes amongst Commonwealth government agencies—in particular, Telstra, which seemed to think nothing of tapping its clients' lines in order to gain information about their operations. We need to look at that privacy invasion process when we look at data matching. If my memory serves me right, at that time the Department of Social Security held something like 12 million matches on databases ready for access, and nobody was taking any care of the possible future of those matches and the information held.I think those days have changed. The government has assured itself and, as the Privacy Commissioner has identified, the process has now become clearer. The Australian National Audit Office has said, `You have clear goals; you are managing this area better,' and the government is satisfied with the results of dealing with fraud. There have been some spectacular gains by the government in dealing with fraud, and that is very pleasing.I would have liked to have dealt in some detail with the Audit Office report on data matching. Suffice it to say that generally the ministers have presented the details accurately, but I do consider there is a factor of ongoing privacy that must be safeguarded. The removal of a sunset clause is a protection that was put in place so that the parliament could be aware that we were about to extend the data matching for another three years—that it was going to go on automatically. Yes, I know that my time limit is 12 minutes.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Mitchell might address the chair.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—Yes, I certainly will, Mr Deputy Speaker. We need to be assured that there is going to be attention to the privacy factors with the removal of this sunset clause. I am satisfied at this point that that will happen, but the government needs to be aware that there will be numbers of us in the parliament that appreciate the need to attack fraud. But we are also aware of the high commercial value of the information held by government, of the fact that it can be sold and that it should be retained in such a way that the clients of the government have a right to expect confidentiality. I would like to conclude my remarks by supporting the bill and a splendid government which so assiduously attacks fraud but also has a compassionate heart.12:59:00723Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—in reply—I thank the honourable members for Mitchell and Lilley for their contributions, particularly the member for Mitchell, whose experience in this field and the work that he has done in this area in the past is recognised, I am sure, on both sides of the House. I acknowledge freely the importance of protecting privacy in these matters. He rightly recognises that there are permanent procedures in place, and they need to be there not just from the point of view of data matching but in relation to the whole management of personal information by governments.The honourable member for Lilley involved himself in quite a bit of historical revision to try to make out that this measure was somehow all to the credit of the Labor Party. I acknowledge that they certainly introduced the legislation initially and that they at least paid lip service to the idea of stamping out fraud in the social security system. But it has really been only under this government that rhetoric has become action, and we have in fact been successful in saving currently around $46 million a week as a result of stamping out social security fraud and improved compliance.There have been 4½ thousand prosecutions under this government, so we are really serious about getting rid of the cheats. Social security fraud is not only cheating on the taxpayers; it is also cheating on genuine beneficiaries. Most people receiving social security benefits do so because they are entitled to them and because they are in need. Those who cheat on the system are in fact placing suspicion on all recipients, and doing so unjustly. So there is strong community support for stamping out welfare cheating, and I think that is an important social objective as well as one that is important from the point of view of maintaining the integrity of the system.This bill will help in that regard. If the sunset clause were to take effect, there would be lost savings of up to $560 million over the next three years; no-one wants that to happen. I commend the bill to the House and thank the opposition for giving it speedy passage.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 this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Main Committee adjourned at 1.02 p.m.