1999-10-213914REPS1209501999-10-21Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous12095Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999 Personal Explanations1209509:31:0012095Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER—In an article in the Adelaide Advertiser on 7 October, journalist Mr Phillip Coorey quoted comments by Mr Greg Barns, National Director of the Australian Republican Movement, that I had distributed misleading antirepublican material in my electorate. I absolutely refute any suggestion that I have distributed misleading material to my electorate in a general mail-out promoting either a yes or a no vote in the forthcoming referendum on a republic. I consider the comments made by Mr Barns and repeated by Mr Coorey to be defamatory, irresponsible and erroneous.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Makin can indicate where she has been misrepresented and she has done so.Bills12095r84912095Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.1209509:32:0012095Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This is one of five bills designed to give effect to the government's new Tradex scheme, a key initiative in the Investing for Growth industry statement. The other bills which comprise the Tradex package, and which were introduced in this place on 14 October 1999, are the Tradex Scheme Bill 1999, the Tradex Duty Imposition (General) Bill 1999, the Tradex Duty Imposition (Customs) Bill 1999 and the Tradex Duty Imposition (Excise) Bill 1999. The effect of this particular bill is to provide a `free' rate of duty for goods imported under a Tradex order. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Miscellaneous1209509:34:0012095McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:Excise Tariff Proposal No. 2 (1999)Customs Tariff Proposal No. 6 (1999)The tariff proposals which I have just tabled contain alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Excise Tariff Proposal No. 2 (1999) and Customs Tariff Proposal No. 6 (1999) formally place before parliament proposed changes to the excise and customs duty on tobacco products.The alterations contained in these proposals implement from 1 November 1999 a per stick rate of excise and customs duty on most cigarettes, lightweight cigars, bidis and any other lightweight tobacco products marketed in stick form. These arrangements replace the current complex arrangements that were introduced as a measure to shore up state revenue, when business franchise fees on tobacco products were held to be unconstitutional by the High Court.Existing tobacco excise arrangements encourage the manufacture of low value, low weight cigarettes packaged in large packets. This taxation advantage has skewed consumption towards higher volume lightweight cigarettes, which experts consider more harmful on health grounds. The per stick arrangements are similar to those used for taxing tobacco in most other countries.A definition of tobacco has also been inserted in the schedule to the Excise Tariff Proposal. This will clarify when tobacco leaf becomes classifiable to item 6. This definition, together with legislation already in place, will restrict access to tobacco leaf to registered growers, dealers and licensed manufacturers, and therefore should assist in addressing illicit production.A consequence of this definition will be that imported tobacco leaf meeting the definition will be subject to the full rate of customs duty. Concessional by-law arrangements will effectively allow licensed excise manufacturers to defer this duty payment until the leaf is further manufactured and entered as excisable product. A summary of the alterations contained in these proposals has been prepared and is being circulated. I commend the proposals.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills12096r90712096Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.09:37:0012096Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—This House ought to roundly condemn the government for what it is attempting to do with the bill before the House. The Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999 is in fact the renamed Life Insurance Conduct and Disclosure Bill, or LICD Bill, which was introduced by the government before the 1998 election but which lapsed when the parliament was prorogued. What the government has done now is to rename the bill and re-present it as the Choice of Super annuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999, which might seem like a pretty non-controversial thing to do. However, in so naming the bill, what the government is trying to do is to link this bill to the choice of superannuation fund bill which is sitting in the Senate and which gives effect to the government's broader so-called choice of superannuation funds policy.We have seen the government's choice of funds bill in this House, as I recall, three times before. It is a highly politicised bill. It is a flawed bill. It is one which has not enjoyed an easy passage through the parliament for good reason, and that is because the government's choice of superannuation funds model provides the power to employers in choosing a fund and puts very little power in the hands of employees or workers. Notwithstanding that, it is such a complicated bill that it does not enjoy the support of employers either.By contrast, Labor has proposed an alternative choice of funds bill which not only will allow employees to have access to member investment choice, the preferred choice model by the leading commentators in the industry, but also will allow workers to opt out of their current fund and choose a fund of their own—and not be stuck with the choice of fund or funds offered to them by their employer. That is the situation which we believe would happen if this bill were to pass through the parliament. My purpose in raising the wider choice bill is to highlight what is going on here—that is, an attempt by the government to trick the parliament and to mislead the Australian public.This bill was called the Life Insurance Conduct and Disclosure Bill. It was called that for very good reason. In that form, it went to the issue of regulating the life insurance industry on issues such as disclosure of products and remuneration of sellers and advisers involved in the sale of life insurance products. In that form, it was an appropriately named bill and was indeed a bill dealing with important issues. I was talking with my brother recently. He was telling me about a superannuation product which he had been sold a number of years ago. When he had made inquiries about transferring out of that superannuation product, he discovered that there were enormous financial penalties for him if he wanted to do that. The reason why those financial penalties existed was that the life insurance company involved had paid a very large commission to the person who sold him that product. Of course, they were contractually bound to try to recover that money. So there are significant issues that we have to deal with in this legislation.However, if the bill has changed in name from the Life Insurance Conduct and Disclosure Bill to one dealing with consumer protection for choice of superannuation fund, you would expect that the content of the bill would have substantially changed to focus much more on superannuation. Well, it has not. The opposition has been through this bill thoroughly and it contains the word `superannuation' only four times—just once in the actual title page of the bill, again in the short title of the bill on page 1, again on page 3 of the bill in the definition of a group scheme and finally on page 45 of the bill, the final page of the bill, in relation to an amendment to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 to change the reference to the title of the bill.So not once is the word `superannuation' mentioned between pages 3 and 45 of this bill, which are of course the pages which contain the guts of the provisions of what this bill is all about. The government has changed the title of this bill to make it refer to choice of superannuation rather than life insurance conduct and disclosure, but the bill mentions superannuation only four times and then only in relation to the name changes.What about the explanatory memorandum to the bill? Surely that must mention the word `superannuation' more than four times. Well, we went and had a look at that too. It does mention `superannuation'—it mentions it eight times. However, seven of those references to the word `superannuation' are actually title references. Again, even in the government's explanatory memorandum we can see that superannuation is not the focus of this bill in the slightest. A strong case can be made that this bill has nothing to do with superannuation at all but is much more to do with life insurance, the original intent of the bill.If we look at the evidence in support of that argument, we see for example that the long title of the bill on page 1 states:A Bill for an Act relating to the conduct of, and the disclosure of information by, life companies, life brokers and life insurance advisers, and for related purposes.That is quite a reasonable statement of what this bill is all about. There is no reference to superannuation. Similarly, item 3 of the bill contains the object of the act which states:The main object of this Act is to ensure that, as far as possible, owners, and prospective owners, of life insurance policies, and beneficiaries and prospective beneficiaries of certain group policies, receive sufficient relevant and accurate information to enable them to make informed choices relating to life insurance.So the long title of the bill and the object of the bill fail to mention the word `superannuation'. Given that, we ask the question: why has the bill been renamed? What if we apply the same test to the number of times that the words `life insurance' appear in the bill? How many times do the words `life insurance' appear in the bill? The answer is 36 times right throughout the heart of the bill. Indeed, they appear over 20 times in the first few pages of the explanatory memorandum.The evidence is clear. In linking this bill with the choice of funds debate by renaming the bill inappropriately, the government is trying to mislead the public and mislead the House. We talk about consumer protection in this legislation. Frankly, the parliament and the public need some consumer protection from this government in its attempt to mislead them about what this bill is all about.I challenge the government: if this bill is about superannuation, where is it mentioned? Where are the words describing how this bill will provide increased protection for persons in superannuation funds? Against that background, I move as a second reading amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for misleading consumers in pretending that this bill addresses consumer protection issues concerning choice of superannuation fund when in fact it does nothing of the kind".This is clearly a misleading bill. The real reason the government has renamed this bill, as stated in the explanatory memorandum—it gives the game away—is that:This Bill will support the Government's member choice of superannuation fund legislation. The Bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to having in place an appropriate compliance regime to support the initiatives in the choice legislation.So we have the government here spilling the beans on the real reason why this bill has been renamed. It wants to try to convince the parliament that its flawed choice of superannuation funds bill, which has been languishing in the parliament since November 1997, should be passed if this bill is supported. That sort of deceit ought to be roundly condemned.Without even debating the merits of the bill before us, the government is trying to sway the argument away from its flawed choice of funds model by pretending it is acting in the interests of consumers. If the government wanted to advance the choice debate, it would withdraw its bill from the Senate, go back to the drawing board, sit down with all the parties and be prepared to develop a sensible choice of funds model that gives employees—workers—real choice, not the false employer choice offered by the government's model.So how does the government think the bill before us is going to advance this debate about choice of funds, as its title and explanatory memorandum would suggest? How is it going to fix the fact that there has been no education campaign to educate not only workers but also employers of their rights and obligations under a genuine choice environment? How does this bill address the issue of default funds? How does it address the government's woefully inadequate timing for introduction of choice? What the government wants to do to all the employers and small businesses around the country is say, `We know you've got this issue of Y2K compliance, we know you've got the introduction of the GST coming, we know you've got the business tax review, the Ralph proposals, to deal with, but what we actually want you to do is put all of that to one side because we have this brilliant idea about your employees' superannuation that we want you to address.'How does the bill address the issue of death and disability insurance cover and the fact that thousands of employees would lose their insurance coverage were the government's model to come in? The point is that, even after this legislation passes, the government's flawed choice bill will still be flawed. It does not do one thing—not one single thing—towards advancing the choice debate. It is nothing but a sneaky attempt by the government to mislead the Australian people and to mislead this parliament.The bill does a number of things which the opposition supports in principle. But I indicate at the outset that we wish to have this bill examined by a Senate committee to look at the detail against the background of what is a significant attempt by the government to mislead the parliament.To turn to the detail of the bill, it is designed to ensure as far as possible that current and prospective life insurance policy owners, beneficiaries and prospective beneficiaries receive all the information they would reasonably require to enable them to make an informed choice concerning a life insurance policy. It achieves this by: first, improving the information flows by placing product disclosure requirements on life companies; second, improving the conduct by life companies, advisers and brokers when dealing with consumers by requiring them to adequately disclose the capacity in which they act and any benefit or advantage they receive in giving advice; third, increasing avenues for redress available for consumers, including civil and criminal sanctions; and, finally, providing scope for the existing non-legislative instruments which regulate disclosure and conduct to be given statutory backing.The bill differs from the Life Insurance Conduct and Disclosure Bill in four significant ways, and I want to express my appreciation to the government's advisers for drawing these differences to the opposition's attention. First, the due diligence defence provisions relating to the provision of misleading information have been extended from directors to other persons involved in the provision of that information. This is a significant change from the original bill. It could result in a weakening of the investor protections built into the original Life Insurance Conduct and Disclosure Bill. Second, the criminal liability on advisers or brokers has been removed, leaving civil liability in place. Third, the reverse onus of proof provisions have been changed and, fourth, the up-front disclosure of commissions and fees associated with the sale of risk insurance products has been included. These are significant changes which the opposition would like to see fully examined in a public committee process, which we expect will occur.We give, right at the outset, our in-principle support to any sensible measures which boost consumer protection. However, as I said before, given the government's attempt to mislead the House with the title of this bill, we will be paying close attention to its operation.In relation to financial implications, the explanatory memorandum states that this bill is not expected to have any impact on the Commonwealth. However, the bill places more tasks on ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which may require additional funding. This is something which we think should be examined in the Senate committee and which the opposition will seek to explore fully.The bill essentially applies to the conduct of life insurance companies and their agents when dealing with life insurance policies. It does not directly relate to superannuation funds, although some life insurance advisers and companies do also sell superannuation.The government argues that the passage of this bill will establish an appropriate disclosure and protection regime and thus clear the way for the Senate to pass the choice of superannuation funds legislation. However, given that this bill is related more to the regulation of life insurance than superannuation, this is not a convincing argument. In addition, this bill does not alter the inherent flaws of the government's choice of funds model.Some in the industry argue that this bill is not necessary and will only create an additional compliance burden on life companies prior to the more far-reaching disclosure and licensing reforms contained in the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program—CLERP 6—discussion paper. We did deal with CLERP legislation yesterday. I rather hoped that we had seen the end of it but, looking at CLERP 6, I see that there is more to come. The bill raises many questions which, from our point of view, are not answered by the explanatory memorandum. We would see the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation as the appropriate forum to provide a more detailed examination of this legislation.Notwithstanding what is said in the title and in the explanatory memorandum, this bill does not go to issues of consumer protection for both consumers and employees in relation to where their superannuation money goes. There is a particularly unsatisfactory example in my own electorate about superannuation not being paid to workers and the management of the company apparently ripping off workers' superannuation. I point out to the House that this bill, far from providing a proper consumer protection regime as it purports to do, does not address these sorts of concerns, and they are very serious concerns.I have mentioned in the House on previous occasions the activities of Mr Alan Jorgensen and the set of companies that he has been involved in the running of, generally known as the Townsend and Parker group of companies, although they do rejoice under many names, given his number of company changes. I have been informed recently that at his Coburg plant the superannuation has not been paid now to Townsend and Parker employees for a number of months. This is a repeat performance in a sense because the superannuation fund of one of the previous Townsend and Parker companies was flooded, causing the entitlements of long-term, hardworking employees to be reduced from $900,000 to $500,000.When I raised this in the House previously, I did call on ASIC to try to address this issue. To its credit, ASIC has pursued the issue. It issued proceedings in November 1998 to have Mr Jorgensen banned as a director for three years. Those proceedings were successful. Mr Jorgensen appealed unsuccessfully to the Federal Court and then sought leave to appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court. That case has not been heard.In late June, Mr Jorgensen was arrested at the airport as he attempted to leave Australia. He was charged with two offences: attempting to leave the country while the subject of a court action and acting as a managing director of a company when he was not entitled to do so. He was bailed on the condition that he report regularly to police. I understand that he is now in Mauritius, with a magistrate having allowed him to go to Mauritius, ostensibly on business. This application was opposed strenuously by ASIC, I understand. I am most concerned about this sort of situation. I think we have another Christopher Skase in the making, and we await developments on his medical condition. Indeed, we will be pleasantly surprised if he returns.That is against a background where the superannuation payments of his employees have not been made and where those companies have run up very substantial liabilities to business creditors and to their own workers. Given that he has been the subject of these charges, to allow him to go to Mauritius was an extraordinary move on the part of the magistrate. I certainly hope for his reputation, not to mention Australia's reputation for proper corporate governance, that Mr Jorgensen does return.When the government is looking at this issue of consumer protection for choice of superannuation, I do urge it to be mindful of those cases where employees have not had their superannuation paid. We have had a number of cases of companies going bust—the Woodlawn type examples of companies going bust—with superannuation liabilities outstanding. I do urge the government to pay greater attention to this issue when it is endeavouring to address consumer protection issues.As I said at the outset, we do not oppose the content of this legislation. We think that the title of it is misleading and deceptive. As a result, I have moved a second reading amendment, which I hope the House will support. In relation to the detail of the legislation, we look forward to its being considered by a Senate committee where various parties would have the opportunity to comment on it in a more detailed way.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?2V5SWANMr Swan—I second the amendment.09:58:0012100Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Those who may have been listening to the shadow spokesman from the ALP may have gained the impression that the Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999 , which is before the House today, represents the sum total of the government's package to provide workers with a choice of where their retirement income savings go. The choice of superannuation bill—the workhorse piece of legislation dealing with all the issues that the previous speaker spoke of—is part of a suite of measures that comprehensively provides for choice of superannuation for Australian working men and women. It is their retirement income savings, and the government believes—and I strongly support the view—that, when you are providing for your own retirement, you should be entitled to have a say in how you want to provide for that entitlement because, at the end of the day, they are your retirement savings.The other issue that needs to be pointed out, again, to correct any misconceptions created by the ALP's shadow spokesman, is that the prudential arrangements covering life insurance are very well covered in the Life Insurance Act 1995. Just to set the record straight, the bill we are discussing today, the Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999 is but a part of a broader mosaic that comprehensively deals with the issues the previous speaker spoke of.The Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999 aims to ensure that all people who shop for, own, or expect to benefit from life insurance products receive information that enables them to make an informed choice about life policies. It pursues this objective by mandating the production and provision of relevant information by life companies and how this information is made available by life companies, brokers, insurance advisers and their agents. As a result of the bill, life companies will provide policyholders, prospective policyholders and beneficiaries with sufficient information to permit them to make informed decisions about life policies.The bill seeks to achieve this in a number of ways. Firstly, it provides for consumers to receive more information through improved disclosure requirements in life insurance industry products. Secondly, it clarifies the roles of life insurance companies, advisers and brokers—recognising that there are many people acting on behalf of life companies who also need to be aware of the responsibilities to their clients and future clients. Thirdly, it strengthens and expands avenues for consumer redress where things go wrong, including a range of options—injunctions where the law has been contravened, civil remedies for people who have suffered damage and criminal sanctions, in certain circumstances.Financial products, including life insurance products, continue to become more and more complex. Individuals are exposed to life policies both as separate financial planning, income protection and family benefit products, and as members of a group policy offered as part of a superannuation scheme or workplace arrangements. The reason this is called Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999 is that we are making sure that the whole area is covered, regardless of how the life product is offered to the policyholder or the beneficiary.Those listening would probably occasionally trawl over their superannuation statement and see a number of boxes and a number of things included on that statement—expected retirement income that is available to them, whether it is a bulk payout, when they are eligible for it, how much of it is their own resources, how much has been contributed by their employer. There is also an area that is often described as death and disability cover. That is what this is about. Death and disability cover is a life product, but it is tacked onto the broader retirement income package that is made available to superannuation policyholders.While it is tacked on, often it does not attract the sort of rigour and attention that other parts of the retirement income product attract, but it is there. It is there as an added benefit of being a part of that superannuation scheme but it is a life product. The bill makes sure that that type of life product, delivered in that method, is covered by consumer protection provisions. That is why we are here today and that is why the bill is presented in this way. It is not one bit misleading. This bill is absolutely clear in its purpose and the reason for it, and I will go into that in a little more detail in a moment.The government has a commitment to providing people with a choice of where they invest for their retirement income purposes. That is adding to the competitive pressures in the life insurance market which also means it is adding to competitive pressures in the superannuation market. Let us say someone comes to you with a superannuation policy that says, `Invest with us; place your retirement savings income with us. If something happens to you, you are covered as well.' That is the way superannuation products are presented to people—`If something happens to you, you are covered as well.' The agent or superannuation salesperson, or whoever it is making those representations to you, then points you to that death and disability provision in the policy, but that is a life product. Just as we need to make sure we cover the anticipated retirement income stream from your savings, the way it is invested, the prudential arrangements that govern the management of the money as you continue through your working life, we also need to make sure we cover that other part of the offer. That is why we are here today talking about this bill.An employee's selection of a superannuation product may be influenced by the group life policy providing death and disability benefits incorporated as part of the superannuation scheme. Selection of the product that best suits an individual's needs and a clear understanding of what the life policy provides for need to be facilitated by improved the level and quality of information available to the consumer and beneficiaries. These measures aim to help consumers better understand these products and make informed choices regarding the products.The life insurance industry is currently regulated by non-legislative mechanisms such as a code of practice, circulars, policy statements that cover conduct, product disclosure and information provided by advisers. The bill provides statutory backing for these approaches through legislation. This action is necessary for a number of reasons that go not only to the nature of the product but also to the changing market dynamic accelerated by consumer choice for superannuation products. The first of these reasons is that there is a serious information problem faced by consumers purchasing life insurance products, which generally involve long-term contractual obligations—you are locked in and you are along for the ride for a long time so you might as well be, and you should be, fully informed of what you are committing to.A second reason for these changes relates to the shortcomings in the written and the oral life insurance information and advice, including sales material. I gave the House an example of that before—`if something happens to you, you are covered as well.' It is not that simple and I will go into that in a moment. A third reason is the marked disparity in knowledge and information between the insurance suppliers and consumers, placing consumers in a weak bargaining position. If we are going to support the superannuation market, we at least need the participants informed about their options so that it can function properly. The bill aims to enhance life insurance consumer protection through increased life company accountability, statutory remedies and sanctions, disclosure and other requirements to improve the quality of information provided to consumers, and to enable them to make informed decisions when purchasing or maintaining life insurance products. The bill complements the government's choice of superannuation fund legislation, which I mentioned earlier. That bill knocks over the arguments that were coming to us from the shadow spokesman from the ALP.Reforms based on the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program or CLERP 6 will eventually supersede the provisions of this bill and lead to a consistent regulatory environment across all financial services. My colleague has spoken about the gestation period of CLERP. I trust that those heavily involved in it continue to enjoy their involvement. The CLERP 6 consultation paper was released in March 1999. Submissions on the paper have been received, and draft legislation is being prepared. That draft legislation itself will be subject to a further three-month consultation period, and so there is more CLERP to come. Given the gap between the commencement of the choice of superannuation fund provisions and CLERP 6, it is necessary to introduce the provisions of this bill to ensure a legislatively backed compliance regime that is effective when the choice of superannuation fund provisions comes into effect. Since its introduction prior to parliament being prorogued for the election, there have been a number of amendments designed to ensure that the standards of conduct and disclosure for the life insurance industry broadly coincide with the reforms to the financial services industry proposed under CLERP 6. Key principles guiding the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program are market freedom; investor protection; information transparency; cost-effectiveness; regulatory neutrality and flexibility; and appropriate corporate behaviour backed up by swift enforcement provisions.The introduction of greater market freedom and the corresponding gathering in pace of financial product development will open up greater opportunities for life insurance companies to provide innovative life products to their customers. Such freedoms also present an opportunity for zealous or overzealous companies and their agents to represent their products in the most favourable light—often not the full light. While the last few years have seen a number of industry sponsored bodies set up as complaint resolution systems—such as the Life Insurance Companies Complaints Service—to administer voluntary codes of practice, there are both gaps and overlaps in the system.A number of these bodies report significant referrals of complaints to other bodies at the same time, adding to the concerns expressed by consumer groups that it is often difficult to access complaint procedures in the most appropriate way. The Australian Consumers Association has in the past complained about the size of awards paid by complaints bodies, their lack of independence, poor promotion of some services and a lack of access to third parties. The government is moving, through the reform process and this bill, to streamline and clarify the role of life insurance and other financial service providers, to ensure that consumers get the information they need about various products.The bill also introduces statutory protections for consumers, who currently experience different levels of protection and redress, depending on which complaints body they direct their complaint to. The changes introduced in this bill will ensure that there is minimal disruption to the life insurance industry during the move from the current framework to the framework proposed by this bill and finally to the CLERP 6 arrangements.The bill addresses identified market failures, such as information imbalances between life insurance companies, advisers and brokers, on the one hand, and consumers on the other. The market failures at times have led to instability and higher rates of policy cancellation, because people find that they have not signed up for what they thought they had undertaken to commit to. Because life insurance often involves a retirement income stream, industry instability impacts on the government's broader retirement incomes policy of encouraging people to save adequately for their retirement. The bill will lead to better disclosure by life insurance companies to consumers, increasing accountability by players in the life insurance industry and better targeting of statutory remedies and sanctions regimes.My strong support for the bill being debated today is a product of my first-hand experience in helping Dunkley constituents overcome the types of problems the bill seeks to address. Vietnam veterans have been let down by many life product providers. My two-year campaign to get something done about it is being taken seriously by the Howard government. It has been my good fortune and duty to help many Vietnam veterans pursue their entitlements to incapacity benefits primarily incorporated as a complementary element of a group superannuation product.I mentioned earlier that tacked on to many superannuation products, particularly employer provided, industry based products, is a death and disability component, a life component. At the heart of the veterans' difficulties is how far their actual experience in claiming against those benefits is from what they have been promised. I have had a number of examples where veterans have been advised by doctors and counselled by medical specialists provided through the Department of Veterans' Affairs that they are just not in a position to continue to work. They are told: `We have been looking at your circumstances; we have been treating you—and counselling you, in some cases—for a generation, and you are not in a position to work.' The person then turns to their superannuation product and sees this death and disability product cover where they are entitled to payment because of their incapacity to work in positions for which they are qualified.Often, their employer or their advisers will say, `Make an application. That will provide you with some resources to help you through this difficult time.' In some cases, employers have actually advised Vietnam veteran employees that they are being not `favoured' but perhaps `selected' in downsizing exercises because they have this other avenue to get some resources to help them through what is often early retirement.Having been advised and comforted that if a veteran is not able to work there is that benefit available to them, the veteran then applies. That is where the talk falls over. That is where the talk of the representatives of the superannuation funds, who often transfer the problem on to their associated life company, does not carry through to the actual experience of the veteran. Ten, 15 or 20 years of medical supervision and support by the Commonwealth and the taxpayers of Australia for a veteran through the Department of Veterans' Affairs is just ignored by a doctor engaged by the life insurance company, who might conduct a 30-minute interview and say, `No, no. Look, Joe: you're fine. You can go and work. It doesn't matter that the DVA has recognised that you're totally and permanently incapacitated. We think you can work.'The veteran then has to go through some experiences that they would much rather have left behind in their life. They have to go through the agony of what they have had to do in service for this country and how it has impacted on their physical and psychological well-being. They have to go through that trauma again, to convince the doctor engaged by the life insurance company that they actually cannot work—even though the Commonwealth may have accepted that fact for a generation.That is a classic example of where the life product does not walk the talk. It is an exact example of why this bill is important, because in many cases that life product is tacked onto a superannuation product. The expectations and the benefits available to the beneficiary—in this example, the veteran—do not materialise. Some of them are then faced with the toughest battle of their lives. They have gone through serving our country and now they have to take on a doctor they have never seen before—a specialist engaged by someone who is maybe a little predisposed to not paying money—and argue with them that they cannot work, even though the nation has accepted that for 10 years in some cases. That is wrong and that is an example of why this Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999 is necessary: because that is real life, that is what is happening at this present time.Time after time I am involved in trying to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies in the recognition, treatment and compensation benefits available to former service personnel compared to how they are treated by the superannuation funds. It is as though the Department of Veterans' Affairs and that team of specialist medical practitioners, counsellors and support staff who have been looking after our veterans, after they have looked after our interests, are wrong—and somebody that the life insurance product hires for one interview that might last not much longer than my speech today is telling the veteran and the DVA that they have got it wrong. That is outrageous, and that is why this bill is needed here today.I have met with government ministers and Treasury officials to illustrate the extent of the problem and to provide some specific details of examples of cases. We are working cooperatively to identify a way forward to overcome the conflicting and inconsistent assessment of total and permanent incapacity as accepted by the DVA and as deemed to be the case—and I say `deemed' advisedly—by some life insurance companies. They do not like having an argument about these things; they just say, `No, we don't agree with you.'For the interest of members and those listening, one of the ways we can deal with that is by making sure that the fund member is aware of what they have actually got—so that when they see that superannuation product and it says `death and disability benefit' they know exactly what that means. Death is pretty clear—you cannot argue with that. But disability runs through so many different points of view and legal arguments that there should be an obligation—and under this bill there will be an obligation—on those offering those products to explain exactly what they mean, what benefits are available, how you access them, what the process is for accessing them. That is something I am very keen to pursue.As an add-on to that and as a separate but complementary measure to this, I am arguing for the government to work with the superannuation industry to develop a complementary code for the veterans. It would mean that the DVA, with the consent of the veterans who have this history of care, treatment and monitoring of their medical condition as part of the Department of Veterans' Affairs records, would make that material available. If the medical professional engaged by the life insurance company comes to a different view, let's have a chat about it, let the people who have been looking after our veterans' health for 20 years have a yak to someone who has heard about it and taken an interest in that veteran for 20 minutes and let us see if we can have a medical conference to sort out the inconsistencies.So that is happening. Things need to be done. I am entirely supportive of this bill. There is more we can do, in my view, to support the particular circumstances faced by our veterans. Our veterans are all heroes to me. They have protected our nation; they have done what our country has asked of them, and they deserve better treatment than some of the life funds are giving them. I thank the government for its interest and support in my work as it affects the Department of Veterans' Affairs. (Time expired)10:18:0012105McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—This bill is a misnomer. Its title—Choice of Superannuation (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999—suggests that it is a bill that deals with choice of superannuation. Let me clarify this now. The bill does not deal with superannuation; it deals with life insurance. What is the motivation behind the misleading title of this bill? This bill is simply a rehash. It is a renamed version of the old Life Insurance and Disclosure Bill 1998, which was introduced into the last parliament. This bill lapsed when parliament was prorogued. It deals with the conduct of life insurance companies and their agents when dealing with life insurance policies. It does not directly relate to superannuation funds.When the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation read this bill for a second time on 23 September he made the following statement:This bill will strengthen consumer protection in the life insurance industry, enhance the accountability of life companies and brokers, and promote regulatory neutrality by bringing the regulation of life insurance advisers into line with that of securities dealers and their representatives.As strange as this may seem, I actually agree with some of this statement made by the minister. It is true that this bill attempts to bring the life insurance industry into line with the protection offered to consumers of securities by Corporations Law.However, this bill does not deal specifically with superannuation. The minister admitted this himself in his second reading speech. I will again quote the minister:In addition to promoting consumer protection and promoting consumer sovereignty, this bill will specifically support the government's choice of superannuation fund legislation.The government needs more than this bill to support its choice of superannuation legislation. The legislation that the minister refers to is the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998. The minister is certainly engaging in a smoke and mirrors trick if he thinks that by passing this new bill the fundamental flaws in his superannuation choice bill will disappear. This will not happen.I am not opposing this bill. I support the protection of consumers in the area of life insurance. I do not think that anyone on this side of the House would wish to see consumers who invest their hard-earned dollars in life insurance ripped off. What I do oppose is this government's attempt to use this bill as leverage to help pass another flawed piece of legislation. I read with some amusement the explanatory memorandum provided by the minister. According to clause 34 of his memorandum, general administration of the bill is to be carried out by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission—ASIC. This sentiment is admirable. However, ASIC will need extra funding to adequately police the industry. I must admit I am extremely sceptical of this government's commitment to providing consumer protection.As an example I will use one of my constituents, Mr Marcus Ogborne, and his struggle to be paid his superannuation guarantee. This guarantee is supposed to be compulsory and paid by a person's employer. In Mr Ogborne's case, his compulsory superannuation was not paid. A letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation regarding Mr Ogborne's case to Clive Brown MLA, a state colleague of mine, stated the following:On a more general note, the Commissioner informs me that although the results of a recent survey of employers revealed that around 94% of employers are complying with their superannuation obligations, the ATO has developed a more pro-active, better targeted compliance strategy. It is anticipated that this will result in more efficient compliance checking to ensure superannuation for all employees.This statement made by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation is at odds with an article in the Australian Financial Review this year which estimated that up to 20 per cent of employers are not paying the compulsory superannuation that their employees have earned. In my mind this is tantamount to stealing, stealing a comfortable retirement from hardworking people. Out of interest I researched this topic. Mr Ogborne did the right thing and lodged an `Employee Notification of Insufficient Employer Contributions' over three months ago. On the Australian Taxation Office web page is an enlightening question and answer information sheet on this issue, which lists the following points:1. What will the ATO do with the information I provide?The information will be added to a database which the ATO use to guide audit and other compliance action. The database includes information from a range of sources however information of this kind from employees themselves is a particularly valuable source of intelligence about non-compliance.2. Will the ATO investigate my employer directly?The ATO will record and analyse all the information they receive regarding non-compliance by employees. In some cases direct audit action will be undertaken. In others they will inform the employer of their obligations and the penalties for non-compliance. They will not necessarily investigate your employer directly.3. Why doesn't the ATO audit all cases?In many cases the failure to pay superannuation can be addressed through information and restating the penalties for non-compliance. In others audit action is more appropriate.The ATO will analyse all the information they receive and this, along with other risk indicators, forms the basis for setting the audit and other compliance priorities. The decisions on what form the basis for setting the audit and other compliance priorities and the decisions on response warranted are directed to maximising compliance with the superannuation law.As can be seen from this information on the ATO web site, there is little protection for the superannuation consumer. Why can't the ATO take action? The answer to this is simple: this government has systematically cut staff levels to the Australian tax office. I asked the Treasurer in August about staff cuts in the Australian tax office in Western Australia. The Treasurer's reply to me was that in the period from 1997-98 to 1990-2000 127.68 FTE positions have been cut. No wonder Mr Ogborne is having no joy with his claim for his superannuation. The ATO cannot audit these legitimate claims due to a lack of available staffing resources. This government pays lip service to consumer protection.A question I will put to the minister is: how many staff will the government provide to ASIC to police this legislation? In the past this government has been full of empty rhetoric and platitudes about consumer protection. It needs to specify how it will resource enforcement of this legislation. If this government cannot provide protection for compulsory superannuation, how does it think it can provide protection on superannuation choice and life insurance?I will touch again on Mr Ogborne's case. Under an award system of compulsory superannuation payments into an industry fund an employee is protected. The so-called industrial reforms passed by this government in the last parliament allowed for workplace agreements. So how are these so-called reforms actually working? I will give the example of Mr Ogborne's workplace agreement. I must admit I was appalled by what I was given. Before I quote the entire workplace agreement that Mr Ogborne was employed under, I will describe its appearance to the House. This document was written on a scrap of paper of the type which is usually used to quote for jobs by this employer. I will not name this employer in the House, but I must admit I am tempted. The workplace agreement was handwritten on the piece of paper I had previously described:Marcus Osborne—sic58 Hope St North BeachAs per our discussion yesterday regarding full time employment with myself xxx & xxx we agree on a wage of $25,000 per year. We will also pay the superannuation payments. Hours of work 7.30—5pm 5 days a week. Overtime & Saturdays are available if required, a rate is to be discussed. Hope you have a long future with us.Signedxxx`Hope you have a long future with us.' That would be funny if not for the fact that Mr Ogborne left the employ of this firm with over $5,000 worth of superannuation owing to him. Mr Ogborne is in his early 20s. You do not have to be a genius to work out that this sum earning compound interest over the rest of his working life will amount to a sizeable sum. So this is protection under this government, a government that has said that no worker would be worse off and that we would all be relaxed and comfortable. Thank you, Prime Minister! How many young Australian workers have been screwed by unscrupulous employers and have been unable to get recourse due to your government's cuts to regulatory watchdogs? What will the cost be to the Australian taxpayers when these young people reach retirement age? Who will pay for their retirement? How do we compensate them for the hard-earned money they have had stolen from them? Get your priorities right. Provide protection for compulsory superannuation before you foist your choice upon the Australian people.This bill states that ASIC will be the watchdog. It is obvious from the example I have given in this speech that this government cannot provide adequate protection for consumers without significant costs. ASIC cannot cope with the extra workload this bill will create without significant injections of resources. The government claims that they can achieve their aims without significant impact on the Commonwealth. I dispute this assertion. This bill was referred to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation so that the true cost could be assessed.This bill has noble intentions. In his explanatory memorandum the minister states that the bill will improve information flows by placing product disclosure requirements on life companies. This information is again similar to the information a broker has to provide to his and her clients in order to make an informed decision about purchasing securities. This noble intention is fine, but in the real world we deal with practicalities.As a community worker for 25 years, I bring to this debate a concern for those in the community who do not always have the resources or the ability to assess and comprehend expert information and advice. Many of my constituents in Stirling find superannuation a confusing subject. Let us be honest: superannuation and life insurance are a tangled amalgam of pieces of legislation which even industry professionals and accountants have trouble keeping up with.For older workers superannuation is a reasonably new facet of their lives. Some do not understand the impact it will ultimately have on their retirement. I speak to people all the time who admit to me that they have no idea how much money they will need in superannuation to have a comfortable retirement. I know for a fact that very few people have any idea how their superannuation calculation is actually made.Choice of funds, more information on life insurance and more transparent information are fine concepts. As I said before, these are noble intentions but we are dealing with realities. The nature of the financial industry in regard to managed funds, superannuation and life insurance is that practitioners sell a product. These products are often sold to consumers, even though they are not tailored to consumers' actual needs. This is the nature of a commission based industry.This bill deals with issues such as material omissions, incorrect information and misleading information. However, it fails to recognise one thing: people are relying on expert information. I put this argument to the House: you are a life insurance salesperson. You have not yet made your monthly quota of sales of a prepackaged insurance product that your company is promoting. Under the provisions of this bill you are required to make correct statements about this product. You disclose the commission you make and all the costs. However, the consumer is relying on your expert advice to make an informed decision. What is to stop a practitioner recommending a product that is sound yet does not perfectly fit the consumer's investment requirements?I again focus on choice. This extends both to life insurance and superannuation. A recent Four Corners program examined the effect of choice on consumers in the United Kingdom. What a disaster that turned out to be. The Senate committee received evidence on superannuation choice in the UK which showed that 570,000 people were sold inappropriate products, many of them commission based. The danger we have with the superannuation legislation that is stalled in the Senate is that employers can pick and choose the default fund for their employees. This is an employer choice driven model rather than an employee choice driven model. This raises issues of informed choice. Take the case of Western Australia where similar legislation was introduced in July last year. The result was confusion. Many employees had been happily paying money to their industry fund, receiving—and ignoring—annual reports and statements. Basically, they relied, and still do, on the legitimacy and credibility of the big, managed superannuation funds to protect their money. When choice of funds was introduced the marketing gurus went crazy, producing attractive brochures that offered wonderful pictures of luxurious retirement. Commission based products are generally more expensive to enter and exit and also to manage via ongoing fees and charges. The returns before fees look extremely attractive and, with a persuasive salesperson selling the product, consumers can easily be influenced.I will now refer to a speech made by the member for Wills regarding superannuation choice, and expand on the dilemma of a switch to commission based financial products, especially superannuation. The Stirling electorate has a large number of people who speak English as a second language. I am extremely concerned that a shift to a choice model for both life insurance and superannuation would present these people with difficult choices, choices that are made harder by their limited communications skills in English. It is these people, along with those elderly residents who have little understanding of how the system works, that could be exploited by unscrupulous salespeople. Their understanding of their legal rights under this bill would also be limited.I notice that the maximum penalty for criminal liability is 12 months imprisonment. I have a number of constituents whose retirement futures and current livelihoods were devastated by the actions of the directors of Global Finance. My personal opinion is that this penalty is too soft. Many of the people burnt by the actions of Global Finance who have contacted my office would also agree with this sentiment. They now face a retirement in poverty. Clause 73 of the explanatory memorandum states:This clause provides that if a person (or group policy owner) suffered damages because they engage in a life insurance activity on the basis of a statement made by a life insurance adviser and the statement is materially false, misleading or there is a material omission from the statement, then the person may seek to recover damages by taking action against the life company in court.The civil remedies that are outlined in this bill all assume one thing: the complainant is fully versed in their legal rights and has the financial ability to mount a legal case. My experiences working in community legal centres over the years have shown me that the majority of people who have a grievance do not have a clear picture of their legal rights. Also, the people who are most vulnerable are those who do not have the financial resources to enter into protracted legal proceedings. Some would not have the money to pay the application fee to the court. These people invariably end up as victims. I concede that the legal remedies outlined in the bill are an improvement over the current disclosure requirements for the industry. It is obvious that regulation is preferable to conduct and disclosure that is governed by self-regulation. I do not want to be seen to be criticising the industry for their practices. The majority of life insurance brokers are honest and conduct their business dealings with the utmost propriety. These honest practitioners do not want to have their everyday business dealings hindered by excessive regulation. Non-legislative instruments such as a code of practice, circulars and policy statements are mostly effective. The aim of reinforcing these instruments with regulation is a positive step. We must be aware that this sector employs a considerable number of people. The effect of this bill on industry operations needs to be closely examined before implementation. I am relatively sceptical of the comments made by the minister in his explanatory memorandum. In the memorandum he states:The Bill broadly follows reforms proposed as part of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (CLERP 6). This Bill is a transitional measure in the move to achieve consistency in the regulation of all financial service providers. The Bill by anticipating the level of conduct and disclosure that is proposed under the CLERP 6 framework will minimise the disruption to participants in the life insurance industry when moving from their current regulation to a final uniform regulatory regime.Terminology such as `broadly follows' and `minimise the disruption' is non-specific. The industry will be given the opportunity to test this argument in the Senate committee.One of the underlying arguments in this speech is that of the power of information in the hands of both the consumer and the industry. I have identified a number of scenarios where lack of information could cause a problem. I notice that in the minister's explanatory memorandum there is a section entitled `Identification of Alternatives'. This section proposes three alternative regulatory mechanisms for consumer protection. These are: (1) no specific action, (2) information strategy and (3) Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999 .I am extremely concerned that this government is blindly pursuing option (3) by itself. Without sounding cliched, I would like to remind the House that information is power. The aim of this bill should be to empower the consumer in respect of their rights. If this government thinks that, by pursuing option (3) by itself, it will provide acceptable levels of consumer protection it is wrong. This bill, if passed into legislation, will fail in all its aims unless a comprehensive government information program aimed at enhancing consumer awareness of life insurance is run concurrently.In conclusion I would like to return to the point made at the start of this speech. This bill does not deal with superannuation. The motivation behind the resurrection of this bill under a new name is not to provide consumers with protection in life insurance matters. No, it has to do with confusing the public. It is a crass attempt to try to link this bill with this minister's inherently flawed superannuation choice legislation—legislation that no-one in the Senate wants to touch. It is a piece of legislation that, if passed, will contribute to a massive rip-off of the Australian worker. Using the words of the member for Wills, it is an `extremely risky public proposal to force on the Australian people'.There is no question that Labor supports market diversity and superannuation. What we do not support is the hard-earned retirement dollars of the Australian people being gobbled up by fees and charges. The government of this country is pushing a wanton ideological agenda for ideology's sake only. This is a country where young people are being ripped off every day. This government cannot even recommend that they be paid their compulsory superannuation—money that these people have worked hard for and that should guarantee a comfortable retirement after a long working life. How can this government expect the Australian people to believe their legislation will guarantee better returns when they fail to aggressively pursue employers who are, in essence, stealing their employees' hard-earned money? Minister, fix the problems before you create any more.22:38:0012109Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—The Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999 introduces a range of consumer protection initiatives for the life insurance industry and complements recent legislation to provide choice for consumers in regard to superannuation. Both initiatives will empower consumers with freedom of choice and flexibility while, at the same time, offering protection and guidance to ensure safeguards in the industry. The Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999 will ensure that sufficient, relevant and accurate information is received by owners and prospective owners of life insurance policies and by beneficiaries of certain group policies to enable them to make informed choices about life insurance.This bill aims to improve the conduct of life insurance companies, advisers and brokers when dealing with consumers. Life companies will be subject to a general requirement to disclose all material information that a consumer reasonably needs in order to make an informed decision. Advisers and brokers will be required to disclose the capacity in which they act and any benefit or advantage they receive in giving the advice. This commonsense measure also appears in the recent superannuation legislation that I mentioned earlier.Importantly, consumers will have various avenues of redress under this legislation. Injunctions will be available when a life company or broker contravenes the requirements of the bill. Civil remedies will be available for consumers who suffer damage because of misleading or deceptive statements made by a life insurance company, broker or adviser. Criminal sanctions will also be available where a person suffers loss or damage as a result of misleading statements made to customers and prospective customers of life insurance policies. These measures will allow consumers to better understand and compare alternative products that can be complex and unfamiliar to most of us at the best of times. Currently, conduct and disclosure within the life insurance industry is regulated by non-legislative instruments such as the code of practice, circulars and policy statements. This legislation provides a statutory backing to these measures.This bill follows reforms proposed as part of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program, better known as CLERP 6. As a transitionary measure, this bill will help minimise disruption to the life insurance industry when moving from their current regulations to the final uniform regime of conduct and disclosure proposed under the CLERP 6 framework. The extent of the consultations with industry to prepare the measures outlined in this bill has resulted in an excellent piece of legislation, and that should be roundly supported in this House.There is a general acceptance by the stakeholders who took part in the consultations, including the Investment and Financial Services Association, the National Insurance Brokers Association, the Financial Planning Association, the Consumers Federation of Australia, the Australian Consumers Association, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. As with the Ralph review, this government has shown that, by listening to the wishes of key stakeholders and through inclusion in their consultative process, the end result is workable, effective and widely supported legislation.The advantage of this bill is that it will lift the standard and quality of life insurance services and advice, improve transparency and ensure the safeguards are in place for the protection of consumers. While a small number of life insurance advisers argue that the proposed measures are intrusive on life insurance selling practices, most of the industry sees considerable benefits in the legislation. These measures will foster and improve the image of the industry, raising industry standards and reinforcing consumer respect and trust.In the past, a consumer may have put life insurance in the too-hard basket or shied away for fear of being taken for a ride. Under these new measures, they will feel much more confident purchasing a life insurance product. It is unfortunate that the reputable brokers in the industry suffer from a couple of bad apples and often gain publicity as being financial mercenaries ripping off people. On the other hand, I feel for those in my electorate who have suffered financially through a deal with an unscrupulous agent.I believe this bill will be mutually beneficial to both the reputable brokers and the consumer. Life agents and brokers have a very worthwhile role in this industry. If an agent or broker has done their job properly, they will ensure that their financial security is provided to consumers in times of grief or need. One concern of life agents is the trend for clients to cancel their $40-a-month life insurance policies to lower cost policies of $20 a month that will pay only in the event of death by accident.These reduced cover policies are actively marketed without agents by various financial institutions. Because a broker agent is not involved, the consumer is often not aware that they are reducing their coverage substantially by purchasing a policy that is inadequate. Widows who have lost their husbands through death by illness rather than accident are going unpaid. As the number of life agents in this country has dropped substantially in recent years, there is now a growing trend of underinsurance or no insurance coverage at all. This development should be a concern of governments that encourage self-sufficiency before relying on welfare.Many people have had their tax returns completed by a tax agent because they know an agent knows all the rules and is able to claim every deduction that the client is entitled to. They see it as worth paying a fee for their expertise. This can also be applied to life brokers and agents. In addition to correctly evaluating the personal life insurance needs of their clients, life agents and brokers are continually being trained in the plethora of changing legislation that affects their clients. They also assist at the time a policy has to be claimed—a time that is usually very distressing.I believe this legislation will help to eliminate the mistrust that people can feel about brokers and the industry in general. Transparency will allow consumers to assess both the product being offered and the services they are paying for. Keeping consumer protection in mind, it is worth noting the existence of the Financial Services Consumer Policy Centre. In the words of its director, Chris Connolly, the centre is:. . . a non-profit consumer research and advocacy organisation that conducts policy research on national issues affecting low income and disadvantaged consumers of financial services.In his 60-page discussion paper, Connolly's foreword comes from the same commonsense perspective as the Wallis inquiry. It states:. . . that choice of fund will play a positive role in enhancing the rights of consumers to choose a fund which best suits their circumstances.Importantly, the paper also states that choice should proceed only when important consumer issues such as disclosure and consumer protection are addressed. Finally, now that the government is legislating such consumer protection in the life insurance industry, we would anticipate a faster passage for the superannuation legislation which is still in the Senate. I commend this bill to the House.22:46:0012111Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank all the members who have spoken on the Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999 . The bill before the House is an important part of the government's program to foster a strong and secure financial services industry in which consumers can confidently participate—that is, an industry in which consumers are provided with sufficient information to make informed choices and where they can be confident in the competence, skill and professionalism of the industry participants they deal with. This is good for consumers and it is also good for the industry.This bill seeks to put consumers in a position where they can make informed decisions about life insurance based on appropriate and accurate information. It seeks to ensure that consumers can be confident they are receiving competent and appropriate advice. The bill also provides a legal framework to give backing to the voluntary code of conduct and disclosure regimes currently operating in the life insurance industry. Finally, this bill ensures the availability of appropriate redress for consumers and enforcement avenues for the regulator.This bill will achieve these objectives by increasing life company and life broker accountability through ensuring the availability of statutory remedies and sanctions and enhancing product disclosure requirements. In addition, the bill will specifically complement the government's choice of superannuation fund legislation by putting in place a legislatively backed consumer protection regime in the life insurance industry. The commencement of this bill is intended to coincide with the start-up of the choice of fund initiatives. The government will consider the appropriate timing for commencement of this bill when a decision has been made in relation to the government's choice initiatives. This bill will play a crucial role in the period prior to the introduction of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program No. 6 proposals. Ultimately, CLERP 6 will cover the field and provide harmonised conduct and disclosure requirements across all financial products. For this reason, the government has made some amendments to the bill since its initial introduction in 1988 to make it more broadly consistent with CLERP 6.One issue that I would like address specifically is disclosure of commissions by agents and brokers where they give consumers advice regarding financial products. I consider this form of disclosure to be essential for consumers to make informed decisions about the product they are buying. The underlying purpose of this requirement is to ensure that consumers can ascertain any potential biases or conflicts of interest an adviser may have in recommending one product over another. This information is vital in the consumer's decision making process. The government has made a concession to this requirement in relation to commission disclosure on stand-alone risk products. However, I have indicated on numerous occasions that CLERP 6 will require up-front disclosure of commission on all financial products. There will be no concessions made for specific industry sectors or products.Coming back to the bill more specifically, the life insurance industry will benefit from these measures. They will foster an improved image for the industry, raise industry standards and reinforce consumer confidence in the industry. As the industry is generally already complying with many of the standards in the bill, which are currently contained in the life insurance code of practice in the voluntary disclosure regime, industry compliance costs should be minimal. The government appreciates the contribution of all of the groups that participated so actively in the preparation of this bill. The reforms contained in the bill will raise industry standards of service and advice and give consumers greater confidence when choosing products offered by the life insurance industry. The reforms will also contribute to creating a world-class financial services industry in Australia.Before I commend the bill to the House, I would just like to respond to some of the missives of the shadow Assistant Treasurer. The shadow Assistant Treasurer said that the bill may be extending beyond what the title suggests because it does not refer to superannuation. Thirty-three per cent of the superannuation sold in Australia is sourced from life companies. To put things into perspective, what we are attempting to do here is have the same disclosure regime apply to all products that are similar. Putting on my hat as consumer affairs minister, the only way that we are going to be able to reassure consumers that they are getting a fair deal is if there is the same disclosure regime in place for all products, including investment products and the like.That is the intention of CLERP 6. It is about having one disclosure regime that will reassure consumers that the deal they are getting is a fair deal and that the provider of the product is revealing all the appropriate information and meeting the appropriate standards that will give consumers a proper understanding of the products that they are investing in. For example, if an everyday Australian wants to take out a life insurance product and they go to their life insurance agent, the agent will have to disclose all information about the product, including the fact that that agent might be receiving a commission from a company. Let us take AMP as an example: they will have to disclose that they are getting a commission from AMP to sell an AMP product.Two weeks ago, I addressed the National Insurance Brokers Association on the Gold Coast. The brokers were extremely agitated, and that is an understatement. Having been involved in the issue of aircraft noise in Sydney, I can only say that the brokers were equally upset about our disclosure provisions. That is because some brokers—not all of them—are very concerned that, whilst they are meant to be providing independent advice to clients, they are receiving commissions from insurance companies, from product companies, that they are not disclosing to their clients. For example, I go to my local insurance broker and say, `I would like to take out a life insurance product.'LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You're a bad risk!Mr Kerr interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I am a very good risk. I do not see you in the gym every morning, Martin. Duncan gets there occasionally. And I do not smoke. My friend over there, the member for Indi, is there every morning as well.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Denison should cease interjecting or the minister might reveal the results of some of the incidents down in the gym.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I am a very discreet person, Mr Deputy Speaker.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Larry and I are out on the road, aren't we, Larry?Mr Anthony interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—That is right. You are pounding the pavements. I go to my insurance broker and the insurance broker says, `Okay. We would like to sell you a life product. Here is a good product to suit your needs.' It could be an AMP product or a Royal and Sun product, whatever the case might be. What is happening at the moment is that my broker may not tell me that they are receiving an incentive from AMP to sell me the product. I have a perception that I am receiving independent advice, but a secret commission is being taken by the broker as an incentive to push a particular line of product. I see that as a gross breach of faith for consumers. When it comes to this bill in particular—and to CLERP 6 as well—I have a very firm view that we have to put the interests of consumers first. Let there be light.Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The minister is straying slightly from the bill.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I have seen the light, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have put in place a regime that will meet appropriate levels of disclosure so that consumers can have faith that, whatever occurs, they will have all the information that allows them to make a fully informed, independent decision about the best product to meet their needs. Under those circumstances, we are sticking with this bill. We hope that the opposition supports this bill, as we hope that the opposition supports choice of super. Choice of super is a charac teristic that pervades every developed nation that has extensive superannuation services available.For example, the 401K products in the United States—which give individual workers the opportunity to look at their superannuation plan and make an assessment of whether it is properly invested in equities, real estate, bonds or other products, whatever the case might be—give that individual superannuant an opportunity to consider the details of each of the products and to make a decision about where the products are invested. The most significant savings product decision any individual makes during their entire career—and, for most people, during their lives—is their superannuation. For many people, the investment in superannuation is as big as, if not bigger than, the investment in their home. There is substantial risk associated with the investment that you place in a superannuation company. That superannuation company is managing the most significant physical asset in your life, and that is your superannuation—your life savings for retirement.So why is it that some parties are opposed to individuals being able to, in the first case, spread the risk across three or four different superannuation companies? Why are they opposed to people varying the risk during the course of their working career? For example, as a young person—and I still consider myself as a young person, in stark contrast to some of the others around here—I would be quite prepared to look at riskier products for my superannuation because I would like to think I still have some years left in my career. I have a capacity to buttress the downside risk associated with greater risk in the investment. The upside is that I can look to broaden the rate of return.RH4KERRMr Kerr—I would have a short-term life insurance policy, if I were you.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—As you get to the age of people such as the member for Denison, you would probably want to go into much safer products, as you are getting very close to retirement. You would want to go for those products that are very low risk and therefore have a lower yield.DT4CREANMr Crean—What would you recommend—Telstra?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—The member for Batman suggests Telstra shares. It is not for me to comment on the risk value of Telstra shares, but they are a damn good investment because the Commonwealth still has, for example, a huge amount of its assets invested in Telstra.DT4CREANMr Crean—I have got shares in Telstra, as have all Australians—51 per cent of them.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Don't get too carried away.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Mr Deputy Speaker, they are distracting me.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister will ignore the interjections.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I am trying to. As you get older you want to look for safer products. Therefore, you should be able to change the balance of your superannuation investment to safer products, less risk, accepting less return. On that basis, you have choice. That is what this government is about: it is about consumer choice, which is a key component of the consumer sovereignty. With that choice people can make decisions about the most important investment in their life—their superannuation.Why the opposition oppose choice I do not know, except for one fact: their mates in the union industry funds are saying, `If you give choice, then we have to be accountable.' I spoke in Brisbane to an ASFA conference where they hailed me down when I talked about choice and about their role and responsibility to educate the members of their funds about what they were investing in. The ASFA people did not like it. They did not like the fact that they were responsible for telling their members about what investments they were investing their superannuation in. So I can only speculate that industry funds must have something to hide when it comes to choice of superannuation.We want competition. We want people to have greater choice, and especially we want people who are investing their superannuation funds to pay less commission and get a better service from their superannuation funds. The only way to do that is by competition. So this Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999 should really be called the `Superannuation Competition (Consumers are Better Off) Bill'. That is what it should be called because these bills are dealing with consumer choice, they are dealing with consumer sovereignty, and that is why we support appropriate disclosures. Better informed consumers make better choices and decisions that are going to affect their most significant lifetime investment—their superannuation.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.12114Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills12114r92812114Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by Dr Stone:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Kerr moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House:(1) expresses its concern about:(a) the level of accountability and transparency of decisions made under the command and employment powers of the Commissioner of Police under the provisions of the Bill;(b) the lack of mechanisms in the Bill for scrutiny and review of dismissal and promotion decisions;(c) the possible unfair operation of the Bill in relation to termination of employment; (d) the repeal of provisions relating to promotional and advancement systems, and to maternity leave;(e) the relationship between the command and employment powers of the Commissioner of Police under the Bill;(f) the operation of the Bill in relation to entitlement to continuous employment;(g) clarification of the application of the Workplace Relations Act to the employment regime as established by the Bill; and(h) the failure of the Government to support the establishment of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Commonwealth law enforcement to provide a strategic view in respect of all Commonwealth law enforcement agencies; and(2) is of the opinion that the Bill should be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for consideration and advisory report, given the detailed matters raised in the Bill."11:06:0012115Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the House for granting me leave last night to continue this morning. The honourable member for Denison raised a number of issues yesterday in his amendment to the second reading. As I noted then, the Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 is to be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in the Senate. I indicated the reasons why it was not practicable to refer it to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, however desirable that might be. I am sure that the issues raised by the honourable member will be dealt with appropriately by the Senate committee. However, there are two issues that should be dealt with at this stage since they really do not warrant further consideration in this context. I refer to his comments about maternity leave and the need for a parliamentary joint committee on Commonwealth law enforcement.The bill does not alter existing maternity leave entitlements, so there is no basis for the concern expressed by the member for Denison. As to a parliamentary joint committee on law enforcement, the proposal represents a significant widening of the traditional role and rationale of statutory parliamentary committees in scrutinising agencies, for example because an agency has coercive powers, and could represent a major incursion into traditional executive functions. In any case, the AFP, along with other law enforcement agencies, is already subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny such as Senate estimates committees and to the requirement of tabling annual reports.The sort of committee suggested by the member for Denison raises the difficult question of ensuring that operational decision making remains the sole province of the AFP. The exclusion from disclosure proposed by the member for Denison of information likely in the opinion of the individual head of agency to `prejudice the conduct of the current operation or investigation' may not cover matters such as intelligence gathering and prosecution action. The National Crime Authority joint committee is not a model for the wider community proposed by the member for Denison. The NCA is unique because of the cooperative nature of the NCA scheme, the network of Commonwealth, state and territory legislation that supports its operation and the special powers of the NCA.The member for Denison also referred to a number of other issues in his speech. He made reference to comments in the Ombudsman's annual report about AFP recruitment practices. The AFP has changed its recruitment practices as a result of past investigations by the Ombudsman. There have been no complaints arising from the last two recruitment exercises. The member for Denison also raised the issue of AFP resources. The reform program has been fully funded by this government. Some of the funds provided were to pay out AFPAS. That was necessary to fix the AFP's balance sheet after it had been left with a huge contingent liability by this opposition when in government.The former Labor government created AFPAS as a millstone around the neck of AFP financial management. This government has enabled the AFP to bring its financial management up to scratch. We have appointed a monitoring committee to oversee the AFP reform program. That program has achieved all the objectives set for its first year and is on track to meet the three-year commit ment to redirect approximately $50 million in efficiencies to support reform strategies. In its reform program, which this bill underpins, this government has laid the foundations for a strong and effective AFP. In fact, we are well on the way to achieving the Prime Minister's objective of having a world-class police force in the AFP. I commend the bill to the House.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.12116Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:11:0012116Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 3:(1) Page 1 (after line 4), insert:Part 1—Preliminary(2) Page 2 (after line 18), insert:Part 2—Establishment of Commonwealth Law Enforcement Committee4 Establishment and membership (1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of the Act and after commencement of the first session of each Parliament, a joint committee of members of the Parliament, to be known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Commonwealth Law Enforcement, must be appointed. (2) The Parliamentary Joint Committee must consist of 10 members, of whom: (a) 5 must be senators appointed by the Senate; and (b) 5 must be members of the House of Representatives appointed by that House. (3) The appointment of members by a House must be in accordance with that House's practice relating to the appointment of members of that House to serve on joint committees of both Houses. (4) A person is not eligible for appointment as a member if he or she is: (a) a Minister; or (b) a Parliamentary Secretary; or (c) the President of the Senate; or (d) the Speaker of the House of Representatives; or (e) the Deputy President and Chairman of Committees of the Senate; or (f) the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives(5) A member ceases to hold office: (a) when the House of Representatives expires or is dissolved; or (b) if he or she becomes the holder of an office referred to in a paragraph of subsection (4); or (c) if he or she ceases to be a member of the House by which he or she was appointed; or (d) if he or she resigns his or her office as provided by subsection (6) or (7), as the case requires. (6) A member appointed by the Senate may resign his or her office by writing signed and delivered to the President of the Senate. (7) A member appointed by the House of Representatives may resign his or her office by writing signed and delivered to the Speaker of that House. (8) A House may appoint one of its members to fill a vacancy among the members of that Parliamentary Joint Committee appointed by that House.5 Powers and proceedings (1) Subject to this part, matters not covered in this Act relating to the Parliamentary Joint Committee's powers and proceedings must be determined by resolution of both Houses. (2) The Committee and any subcommittee thereof established pursuant to resolution of both Houses, shall have power to send for persons, papers and records. (3) Individuals and agencies requested to provide information under subsection (2) or any other provision of this Act shall comply with the terms of such a request save that individuals and agencies requested to provide such information shall not be required to disclose information on current operational matters if, in the opinion of the individual or the agency head, such disclosure would be likely to prejudice the conduct of a current operation or investigation. (4) The Committee and any subcommittee thereof shall have power to acquire, consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority appointed during the thirty-ninth and previous Parliaments. (5) Any inquiry being conducted by the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority at the time of the commencement of this Act shall stand referred to the Committee, and the Committee shall report the findings of the inquiry to the Parliament.6 DutiesThe Parliamentary Joint Committee's duties are: (a) to consult with Commonwealth Law Enforcement Agencies which exist or which may be established including the Australian Federal Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Customs Service, the National Crime Authority, the Office of National Assessment, the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission; and (b) to consult with other Commonwealth agencies having a law enforcement function which exist or which may be established including the Australian Defence Forces, the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Department of Social Security; and (c) to assess: (i) the strategic environment of the Commonwealth's law enforcement agencies and the resources needed to meet identified threats; (ii) the cooperative environment in which those agencies operate; and (iii) the mechanisms needed to ensure that those agencies are accountable to the Parliament and the public; and (d) to report from time to time to both Houses on the assessments in (c) and (e) from time to time, to inquire into and, as soon as practicable after the inquiry has been completed, to report to both Houses on Commonwealth law enforcement issues and on the cooperative arrangements between Commonwealth and States law enforcement agencies. (3) Schedule 2, after item 35 (after line 27), insert: National Crime Authority Act 198435A Sections 52, 53, 54 and 55Repeal sections.These amendments take up the point that was mentioned by the Attorney-General in relation to the detailed proposals we are putting forward for a parliamentary oversight committee for law enforcement. I must say that I am disappointed at the Attorney's peremptory rejection of this proposal. The case he makes is a thin one. It may be that on further reflection the government is prepared to reconsider its position in relation to this matter. I believe there is considerable merit in establishing a parliamentary joint committee which has responsibility for not just one specific area of Commonwealth law enforcement interest but in the larger interests of how we have those law enforcement arrangements coordinated and made most effective so that there is a relationship between law enforcement and this parliament.I was puzzled by the Attorney's comment that he saw this as perhaps an intrusion into the traditional role of the executive. That may have some force in the sense that this parliament has hitherto not had available to it a committee which examines this range of issues. But it is no intrusion into the executive's role in relation to foreign affairs that this parliament has a committee charged with responsibilities in relation to defence, nor indeed in relation to the responsibilities of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that it has a joint committee charged with examination of matters relating to migration. Those committees do undertake important tasks, usually with a very much bipartisan basis, in examining challenges that emerge that this parliament itself has national constitutional responsibility for. No area of this parliament's responsibility is more important than having a proper, forward looking response to the issues that present to us in the area of law enforcement. There are a number of Commonwealth agencies which do have responsibilities with regard to these issues, of course pre-eminently the Australian Federal Police. That is why the opportunity is being taken in this legislation to address these particular amendments. Of course, the Australian Customs Service, the National Crime Authority, the Office of National Assessment, the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence and the Australian Defence Force have some interest and responsibility in these matters, as do the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Taxation Office, which has large investigative and prosecutorial roles, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Department of Social Security, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.There is no process in this parliament at the moment that enables those agencies to bring to the parliament's attention any concerns in relation to the law enforcement regime. This parliament also has no process available to it to address the second point we are proposing this committee have responsibility for—that is, the assessment of the strategic environment of the Commonwealth's law enforcement agencies, their cooperation mechanisms for accountability and the resources that are needed to meet identifiable threats.When we were in government, the Commonwealth law enforcement review identified the need for long-term strategic intelligence assessment, and the public discussion of those matters was of great significance. We are not suggesting necessarily that these matters be addressed in public; that would be a matter for the committee in its determination. These committees of their nature have government majorities, and so much of those long-term strategic matters which have any sensitivity which might be agitated could be discussed in that private domain. They need not get out.Indeed, I think almost everyone, including the minister, would say that the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority which has served this parliament has in the broad been a very successful contributor to the work of the National Crime Authority and to the cooperation that is extended between the parliament and the authority. Similar remarks to what I am making now have been made by the former chair of the National Crime Authority and by former ministers. (Time expired)11:16:0012118Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—Whatever merit the member for Denison's proposal might have, to move amendments to the Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 dealing with law enforcement across such a wide range of agencies is just inappropriate. It is not the appropriate forum for debating an issue like this. If the member seriously wants the matter to be considered on its merits, there are other ways and means of achieving that.In addition to what I said in the second reading debate in relation to the merits of the proposal, these amendments would set up a committee that would be biting off far more than it could chew. If you had a joint committee that would consult with every Commonwealth law enforcement agency that had recognisable law enforcement roles, you would be dealing with a huge variety of bodies ranging from traditional police functions, like those exercised by the Australian Federal Police, through to bodies that are not recognisable in the same form but nevertheless have coercive powers, like ATSIC and the ATO. There are in theory matters common to them, but in practical terms the role of a committee overseeing such a wide range of bodies I think would be an unmanageable one.You also have the serious problem of the extent to which a parliamentary joint committee could get involved in operational matters of bodies like the Australian Federal Police, the National Crime Authority and AUSTRAC, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre. You also have the difficult question of in what respect you would impinge upon the independent role of the Director of Public Prosecutions. These are all very difficult questions. There is no simple answer to achievement of the extremely broad objective that the member for Denison seeks to achieve by establishing this committee. I think it is one that needs further thought before it is given consideration on the floor of the House.11:19:0012119Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I might respond, firstly, by saying that as a private member's initiative this has been on the Notice Paper for several months. The detail of the proposal obviously is not firmly in the Attorney's mind because the Attorney raises some issues about the breadth of the committee. Those issues are addressed in the way in which it has been drafted. It certainly provides which organisations it has power to consult with and address, and its strategic function is set out. Its duties of consultation are wide, but its obligations are:(c) to assess:(i) the strategic environment of the Commonwealth's law enforcement agencies and the resources needed to meet identified threats;(ii) the cooperative environment in which those agencies operate; and(iii) the mechanisms needed to ensure that those agencies are accountable to the Parliament and the public; and(d) to report from time to time to both Houses on the assessments in (c) and(e) from time to time, to inquire into and, as soon as practicable after the inquiry has been completed, to report to both Houses on Commonwealth law enforcement issues and on the cooperative arrangements between Commonwealth and States law enforcement agencies.Each of those tasks can be broken into bite-sized chunks, as is done with committee work generally. The minister has said that he would wish this matter to be given further consideration. So would I, but we are moving these proposals.We are not unmindful of what the Attorney said in relation to operational matters. We have specifically excluded from consideration those operational matters which the committee could require information on. We have done that in terms which have been considered in the light of provisions which relate to the non-disclosure of operational matters to the National Crime Authority committee and it has been the subject of consultation with parliamentary officers. We believe they are well constructed and deal very specifically and properly with the issue the Attorney has raised. We do not want to have any intrusion into the operational decisions of law enforcement agencies. This parliament should not have those. Nor, indeed, is there any prospect in what is being proposed of an intrusion into the independent discretions vested with the Director of Public Prosecutions, any more than the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority has intruded into the investigative and operational matters of the National Crime Authority since its establishment—and, might I also add, no more than the Attorney would have intruded into any operational matters of any agencies he had administrative responsibility for when he was minister for justice. I am not certain exactly how the ministerial arrangements now apply, but either he or the minister for justice has administrative responsibility for those agencies. They are, by law, excluded from giving directions in relation to specific operational matters whilst they have broad powers to give directions on the way in which the Australian Federal Police's powers are to be exercised in general.We are not seeking to confer any powers of direction or the like onto this committee, but we are saying that there is a public interest in the matters of law enforcement being cognisable by the parliament, and presently they are not. One of the most important areas of this parliament's jurisdiction is not the subject of a standing committee. We have standing committees in relation to a range of other areas of far lesser importance to the national interest than this. We have sought to construct this in a way which facilitates good government and good administration.We are very happy to take this matter further with the Attorney, and I am certain the Attorney will oppose it in this consideration in detail stage. We will vote for these amendments and they will be defeated, but there is an opportunity for the government to review this. We will be open to any suggestions from the Attorney to improve the drafting or the management of the process. This is not an exercise we are seeking to operate by ambush. These opposition proposals have been on the Notice Paper for months, and we are incorporating them.The Attorney makes a point that this is an inappropriate place to address these matters. This legislation goes to a structural reform of the Australian Federal Police, virtually a rewrite of the whole Australian Federal Police Act. (Extension of time granted) The legislation is broad—it is a comprehensive rewrite of the Australian Federal Police Act—and it amends many other pieces of legislation. It gives this parliament an opportunity in this context to look at what responsibilities the parliament ought to take in relation to these matters.We believe that these are proper matters for us, as part of Her Majesty's loyal opposition—so long as Her Majesty still plays a small part, and the Attorney and I are well disposed to removing that and simply becoming the loyal opposition. We have an obligation not only to be negative in relation to proposals that come before this parliament but also, where appropriate, to be constructive and to do things which we believe will help in the functioning of the parliamentary process and the good government of Australia. That is what we are seeking to do with respect to these propositions.Were we to proceed in this direction, it would allow the national parliament to be better informed and to build a group of members of parliament who have an extensive store of knowledge, as indeed occurs in other areas of law making for which this parliament has carriage. We do have members of parliament who become quite familiar with areas because they serve on joint committees, House committees or Senate committees for extended periods, and this means the parliament builds up a stock of people with interest, expertise and commitment to those areas of law making. We do not have that opportunity in this key area, so I am commending it to the Attorney. We will be seeking the support of the Democrats, the Greens and the Independent in the Senate when this matter comes forward but, most importantly, we are actually seeking to engage the Attorney's interest in this proposal because it is not something that is best addressed on a partisan basis by simply rejection.The Attorney says that it has come forward and there has not been sufficient time to address it. This issue, and the request for this kind of process, is not new. It has the support of the Australian Federal Police Association. We have had discussions with them. It has broad support in the larger community, who want to see law enforcement subject to greater scrutiny and oversight. A considerable number of people believe that these processes are insufficiently examined by our parliamentarians, and they have concerns on the basis of civil liberties and other issues that go to those points. But also within the law enforcement community there are many who say that the parliament does not take sufficient interest in these matters. Those are important issues.With respect to notice, I will quickly address one small point that the Attorney mentioned last night in closing where he chastised me for failing to acquaint him of the opposition's desire that this matter go to a House committee. He chastised me for not bringing this forward promptly enough. I just remind the Attorney that he gave us this bill only a week, or maybe 10 days, ago. I do accept full liability for not acquainting him as Attorney of our desire that it go to a House committee before I knew of the existence of the bill. Until I develop new-found powers of prescience that allow me to have knowledge of things which have not yet been disclosed, I will continue to make similar errors. But I will try to lift my game.This particular proposal, I believe, ought to be the subject now of discussion between the Attorney's office and mine. If he is prepared to undertake that, I would be very pleased. I do not believe that there is a want of time that would enable this to be addressed. It is a detailed amendment. We believe that the drafting meets the larger needs of this parliament. (Extension of time granted)I will conclude because I do not want to continue at too great a length. We believe the draft is most appropriate to be passed in its present form otherwise we would not have moved it in this form at this stage. We have been working on it. This proposal has been on the Notice Paper for a long period. We hope it now focuses the government's attention in relation to this matter. We believe it is time the government's attention and the parliament's attention was focused on this. The issues that concern law enforcement—people smuggling, prostitution, the international drug trade, the illegal use of intellectual property—are becoming the work of increasingly sophisticated and well-organised networks.We know that this requires us to address the response in a sophisticated way. We know it needs us to use agencies like AUSTRAC because the networks are using our financial systems to launder their illegal profits. That, in turn, hijacks our means to economic growth and increased international trade. Faster transport and rapid improvements in technology can be used just as easily by those seeking to subvert our system as by those who are building the structures that will enable us to go forward without the criminal intrusion into those areas.All of these issues require parliamentary attention. They are issues which governments have ignored in the past in the parliamentary context, but we believe we cannot continue to allow this for the future. National security needs strategic planning to be effective and we should have a parliamentary model which can oversee that which is being done and that which needs to be done in order to develop that strategic planning. We need to develop mechanisms to receive information about what is being done to assess our over-the-horizon crime threats and to inform the process of parliamentary decision making in relation to the various initiatives which come forward in most sporadic ways otherwise to this parliament in relation to legislative change.We need parliamentary scrutiny of all law enforcement agencies, not just that of the National Crime Authority. We believe that a joint parliamentary committee would demonstrate that the national parliament sees criminal activity as a serious threat to national security and a matter to be taken as seriously as we take defence issues, migration issues, and a whole range of other issues for which there are dedicated parliamentary committees having responsibility of a similar nature.I appreciate that, as presently advised, the Attorney is not disposed to support this. We will bat on and we will bat on in the Senate. We think there is some prospect that the parliament as a whole would see the wisdom of this. Most importantly, I know this Attorney to be a person who, when he gets his mind around a subject, is not afraid sometimes to see things afresh. It is plain from his remarks earlier that this is the first time that that subtle mind has grappled with these issues. I would hope that, in the course of reflection and in the spirit of good compromise and in the way in which we our seeking to put these matters forward, there is an opportunity for further reflection and discussion.Question put:That the amendments (Mr Kerr's ) be agreed to.23:37:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick)56Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMr GriffinMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr Zahra75Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMr BeazleyMr HowardMs BurkeMr Prosser* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.12122Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Committees12122121221212211:42:0012122Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the ninth report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.Bills12122r92512122Debate resumed from 22 September, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.11:43:0012122Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 is the government's legislative response to recommendations Nos 17 and 18 of the Prime Minister's Coastal Surveillance Task Force report, which was released in June of this year. In general, the amendments introduced by this bill to the customs, migration and fisheries management acts are appropriate. I want first to set out the opposition's position on the wider issue of which this bill is a part: that is, the issue of Australia's border protection and coastal surveillance arrangements. In relation to those matters, I will be moving at the conclusion of this speech amendments which go to second reading amendments, and there is one specific amendment which we will be moving ourselves in the third reading stage.To address the generalities first, there is no doubt that border protection and coastal surveillance arrangements are increasingly matters of public disquiet. The increased powers for customs officers and the forfeiture regime introduced in this bill are the expected government response to people smuggling and they are, in the main, both necessary and appropriate.The opposition supports the passage of this bill, but it supports only the specific provisions of this bill, with the caveat in relation to the amendments to be debated later. But we do not support the government's overall approach to the issue of protecting Australia's borders. The fact that the government has chosen to introduce this bill within the existing border control framework illustrates its inability to adopt a new approach to this issue. The Howard government has placed a policy straitjacket around itself when it comes to the protection of Australia's shoreline.The government appears unable to break out of its self-imposed restraints and to endorse something the opposition has been calling for for some time now. What we have been saying is that we need to be on the alert for ways to update, change and improve the current system, particularly when it is demonstrably unable to fully answer the challenges being faced by Australia as we hurtle towards the 21st century. On so many issues this government is incapable of looking beyond what is occurring today and is incapable of adopting a perspective which encompasses the future. The decisions which come out of the current cabinet or the Prime Minister's office, as the case may be, are ad hoc, unrelated, and designed to quell crises as and when they occur. It is just not good enough. It is not what the people of Australia deserve from a federal government.The role of a federal government is to provide leadership. A federal government must be able to look at where Australia and Australians are today and be able to express where it sees we could be and should be tomorrow. The role of a federal government is to provide strategies for taking Australia forward, to give opportunity to all for the potential that exists in our country. The role of a federal government is to articulate some sense of what should be in place for the future and to give reality to a vision of what we can be as a country. A federal government should not and must not be a group of people who simply react to events as they occur. Unfortunately, at the moment we have a government which is incapable of using the information available to it in order to anticipate and plan for what will occur tomorrow. The government appears incapable of the sort of strategic thinking necessary to put in place policies to act with an eye towards the future. What we have at the moment is a government with an eye to the past and a focus politically on the present day.We were just speaking in the immediately preceding debate about the changes to the Australian Federal Police Act. We had pro posed new arrangements to give this parliament the capacity to oversight all law enforcement arrangements so that there can be a coherent and strategic assessment of those law enforcement requirements—none more important than in the area of border control. The present approach to governance—which is to address the issue of the moment, to deal with a political crisis essentially with a political response, rather than these long-term strategic threads of decision making—is palpably inadequate.The impetus for the introduction of the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 was the Prime Minister's task force report, which was commissioned only following numerous penetrations into Australian waters by boats which went undetected down our eastern seaboard. Hitherto, there had been penetrations of the western coast of Australia, but public concern was naturally aroused when a series of boats came down the eastern seaboard undetected—some nearly as far south as Sydney. Of course, that generated what we would have always expected from this Prime Minister: a quick down and dirty report on what needs to be done. That is what we got.The fundamental failing of that report and of the subsequent initiatives which have been adopted is that they attempted to look at the issue of illegal boat people in isolation from the myriad other threats to our coastline which exist and which are increasing almost daily. Our coastline is threatened at a minimum by the following activities: people smuggling, drug smuggling, illegal fishing, breaches of quarantine, illegal pearling, importation of goods in contravention of the Customs Act, breaches of international and domestic environmental laws, breaches of international conventions regarding shipping, particularly shipping safety and other maritime activities and conduct, and a number of areas where our domestic criminal laws are otherwise vulnerable.In addition, Australia has a responsibility to monitor our oceans and coastlines so that we can detect and react adequately to search and rescue operations, maritime safety, oil spills and pollution control. At the present time, the responsibility for all of these tasks is spread across many different Commonwealth agencies—and, in some cases, state agencies. Customs, Immigration, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, the Australian Marine Safety Authority and Quarantine each have a Commonwealth act which they are required to enforce along our coastline and in our territorial waters. In addition, the Australian Federal Police, Defence, Foreign Affairs, and various state departments and agencies have legislative responsibility for monitoring activity around our borders and for ensuring that breaches of Australian law do not occur—or that, if they do, the offenders are, first, detected, secondly, apprehended and, thirdly, prosecuted.Since there is no one agency with any strategic overall responsibility for our maritime jurisdiction, coastal surveillance in Australia is necessarily a matter of cooperation and coordination. Since 1971, when the problem of foreign fishing vessels breaching our territorial waters became a prominent issue, Commonwealth governments have been forced to acknowledge that protecting our borders cannot be left just to individual agencies. While legislative responsibility for enforcing various acts remains with individual departments, the operational side of protecting our coastline is the purview of Coastwatch.Coastwatch was established within the Australian Customs Service in 1988 in an attempt to address the emerging fragmentation of threats to Australia's coastal integrity in a better coordinated manner. Coastwatch must carry out all of the surveillance and response operations required by the Fisheries Management Authority, the Quarantine and Inspection Service, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the AFP, and Customs. This task is by definition one of balancing competing demands. Coastwatch carries out both routine and directed surveillance of our territorial waters, based upon intelligence information supplied to it by its client agencies and collected during surveillance flights. Response operations are undertaken following a risk and priority assessment between the competing client agencies.At present Coastwatch has access to 17 commercially contracted aircraft—and this includes the two extra aircraft recommended by the Prime Minister's task force report—250 RAAF P3C Orion surveillance hours per year, the Customs 8 vessel fleet, four outboards and 1,800 Royal Australian Navy patrol boat hours annually. These assets give Coastwatch considerable capacity in the traditional area of coastal surveillance, which is the northern arc between Broome and Cairns. However, the scope of coastal surveillance needs and operations has expanded in line with the increasing breadth of threats and the transnationalisation of the reach of organised crime and the various activities in relation to illegal fishing and the like to cover the whole of the 11 million square kilometres of Australia's designated ocean and the additional 5.1 million square kilometres of the continental shelf.The southern fisheries around Heard and McDonald islands, which are over 4,000 nautical miles from Australia, need to be monitored. Drug smuggling operations traditionally concentrated around the Torres Strait region have now started to route vessels towards the south of the continent. Professional smuggling rings are now taking advantage of the low level of maritime policing south of the line between Broome and Cairns. The world's second largest marine park has been declared in the Great Australian Bight, and in May of this year the government announced two new marine parks in the deep Southern Ocean, one south of Tasmania, one around Lord Howe Island and another in the traditional surveillance arc between Broome and Cairns. This is all in addition to the perceived threat of illegal immigration and people smuggling of recent times.Plainly, the Prime Minister's task force did not address these larger issues. We had media attention focused on the failure of Coastwatch to address the penetration of our eastern seaboard; there was the farce of local greenkeepers becoming the early warning scheme for penetration of people on the ground on this continent; and there is the natural consternation of the community that this seems to be an ongoing problem. People have raised with me the prospect that there have been other illegal incursions into Australia which have been undetected. I do not know whether that is so, but it is a very significant possibility. I am not in a position to assure them that it has not happened, and I do not know whether the minister or anyone in the government is in a position to give that assurance.Very bluntly, the point that I am making is that this government had a political crisis on its hands which it responded to in the time honoured Howard government manner; that is, set up a committee, come out with a strategy that appears to be tough, and then go back and rest on your laurels and ignore the larger environment in which all of this is happening and ignore the fact that your response is not going to address the larger issues that have emerged—the greater responsibilities we have for the management of these fisheries areas, the protection of the parks that we have established, the greater penetration southward of the activities of organised crime. You ignore all of those things, but you get the quick headline and you move through and follow it up in this parliament with measures of this nature—which in themselves are worthy of support; nobody denies that.But the fundamental point is missed. After they have done all of this, and the government knows that the crisis is off the front page of the newspaper, has the problem been resolved? Do these issues remain? Of course they do, and that is what the opposition is saying. We have a quick fix, and we are saying that this legislative recognition is not enough. We also need to have the capacity to carry surveillance and to enforce our laws in these maritime zones. This is much more than Coastwatch is currently capable of. That is why the government needs to reassess the way in which border protection is undertaken in this country.The Australian Labor Party has long recognised the need to review and update coastal surveillance systems. History shows that we have not been locked up in a policy straitjacket. As an opposition and as a government, the Australian Labor Party has on numerous occasions been prepared to reconsider in light of current and future needs the policies upon which systems of border protection are based, and this is how it should be.However, a distinct pattern of Liberal inaction emerges when one looks at the history of coastal surveillance in this country. Today's situation is almost a case of deja vu. The ALP opposition of the late 1970s and early 1980s repeatedly called for a review of coastal surveillance operations, because of the then Liberal government's inability to make decisions which involved leadership and commitment. The call was never adequately answered. It was up to the Australian Labor Party once it came into government to implement the first comprehensive review of Australia's peacetime coastal surveillance and protection arrangements in 1983. The review was undertaken by the then Minister for Aviation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, who is now the Leader of the Opposition and whose interest in coastal surveillance has not waned. Again, it was an ALP government that commissioned the 1988 Hudson report and which consequently finetuned Coastwatch into the system that operates today.A review of the Australian Customs Service in 1993 commented that Coastwatch has generally been regarded as a worthwhile organisation which performs an essential service. However, comments such as this should not mean that the government should stagnate in relation to its approach to coastal surveillance. What was an appropriate response to the threats which existed in 1988, or even in 1993, is not necessarily an appropriate response to the threats which exist in 1999 and, more importantly, which will exist in the future.The bottom line is that, even with the government's announcement in June of plans to get two more planes for surveillance, Coastwatch just does not have the ability to address all of the threats to Australia's coastline. Similarly, giving Coastwatch a director-general who is on secondment from the ADF will not enable it to respond adequately to the growing needs and responsibilities of the various Commonwealth agencies tasked with enforcing Australian laws in the maritime jurisdiction.The government's June initiatives do nothing to address the reality that there is duplication and inefficiency across Commonwealth departments in the resources which are spent on coastal surveillance. For example, the Australian search and rescue organisation, AusSAR, currently is redeveloping all its support systems to produce an integrated information technology environment with a geographic information system interface. A similar systems upgrade is being planned for Coastwatch completely independently of what is occurring at AusSAR. It does not make financial or operational sense to have these two agencies independently developing systems designed to carry out the same function when they will be incompatible with each other. The Howard government has chosen to believe that border control can effectively be carried out by focusing on drug smuggling last year, people smuggling today and anything else which happens on our seas if and when it happens. There is no coordination or overview or any forward thinking in the government's approach. Unfortunately, the government has wrapped itself in a policy position like a straitjacket, as did Houdini. Like Houdini, it will drown before it can get itself out.The recommendations of the Prime Minister's task force report which addressed the activities of Coastwatch were headed `Action in Australia to strengthen coastal surveillance'. The report gave nine recommendations under this heading, none of which questioned whether the failure was in the basic framework of the current system, and none of which canvassed options for providing a more effective and efficient approach to coastal surveillance and border control. One such option would be the establishment of an Australian coastguard. An Australian coastguard could, for example, operate as a single organisation with a disciplined, whole of government approach to conducting Australia's coastal surveillance and providing Australia's maritime protection needs. The government says it will not seriously consider this option because it is not cost effective and would not solve the problem of effective coordination. Neither of these assertions are tested or examined, nor are they true. The current system, which supposedly revolves around Coastwatch, is becoming fragmented and unwieldy. The arrangements are complex, there is duplication of resources, responses and spending, there are far too many points of decision making and agencies have different and competing priorities and demands. There are far too many boats on the ocean and planes which slip through the surveillance net—boats and planes which carry threats to Australia over and above illegal immigration.The establishment of an Australian coastguard would present an opportunity to consolidate resources spread across agencies and to reduce duplication of expenditure and operations. The financial personnel and hardware resources needed to establish an Australian coastguard already exist. They just need to be brought together, with their associated functions and responsibilities, into a single agency. An Australian coastguard could operate as a more effective and efficient Coastwatch with increased legislative and operational responsibility and a command control structure with a whole of government focus. It could operate as a maritime law enforcement agency during times of peace and could come under the operational command of Defence in times of conflict.There are many arguments in favour of establishing a coastguard but they were ruled out with a single dismissive comment by the Prime Minister's task force, without examination, without analysis, as part of a quick fix political response. The truth is the government was not seriously considering anything other than getting a story off the front page and addressing that story in terms which do no honour to the reputation of this government. We occasionally still hear the Pauline Hanson dog whistling: stories believed to be sourced from ministers of this government which set up circumstances to politically position this government to take advantage of prejudices within the community but without addressing these structural problems. It is a government that needs to have political diversions because it is not prepared to look at the substantive issues which confront the nation. The truth is that the government is not seriously considering the Australian coastguard option because it cannot bring itself to act on a policy suggestion put forward by the opposition, even if it is an entirely sensible and appropriate solution to a problem, a problem which the government steadfastly refuses to see in all its complexities and ramifications.That said, the opposition is happy to note that the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 puts in place much of the legislative framework through amendments to the Migration Act, the Customs Act and the Fisheries Management Act which would be necessary for a future Australian government to set up an Australian coastguard. The border protection bill also introduces a new enforcement visa to be used when bringing foreign nationals who have attempted to enter Australia illegally to the mainland. The bill closes a loophole which, amazingly, has not been exploited before now. As the law presently stands, people illegally entering Norfolk Island cannot be transported to the Australian mainland for detention because Norfolk Island has its own migration act. The bill being debated today, the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , rectifies this situation, allowing Australian migration officers to detain and transfer illegal immigrants who land on Norfolk Island.In introducing the border protection bill, the government has attempted to consolidate numerous powers across the various legislative instruments applicable to maritime law enforcement. This is a laudable aim, although it is not altogether clear the government is capable of attaining it. For example, the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 amends the Fisheries Migration Act to include forfeiture provisions which mirror the amendments which will be made to the Migration Act under the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . But the amendments to the Fisheries Management Act, which were intended to bring the former forfeiture scheme under that act into line with the forfeiture scheme being introduced into the Migration Act, are not identical with the provisions of this bill. They establish a scheme with different time limits and procedures. Similarly, the forfeiture scheme under the Customs Act will remain untouched and will therefore be out of step with the other two acts. It is a small matter but one which questions the ability of this government to introduce coordinated legislation at all. The same officers will be confronted with three very different legislative schemes in relation to seizure and management decisions when they may have little time to make those determinations. Why the opportunity was not taken to consolidate and coordinate the legislative framework across these three acts is puzzling beyond belief.The Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 strengthens the power of Customs officers, who will also act as migration and fisheries officers, so that they more closely resemble policing powers. This move has been anticipated for some time, particularly the amendment which allows for the arming of Customs officers. Customs officers act, in many respects, as maritime police, and it is an increasingly dangerous occupation. As those officers have been placed from time to time in positions of considerable personal danger—particularly with the increasing prevalence and professionalism of people in drug smuggling operations—and as they are faced with criminals who are armed and who appear to be prepared to use those arms, it is entirely appropriate and necessary that Customs officers are able to carry approved firearms and personal defence equipment.In order for maritime law enforcement activities to be effective, the officers must have the ability to apprehend, detain, search and arrest suspected offenders. The provisions of this bill which increase the powers of Customs officers to do this are necessary and appropriate. For example, the bill amends the Customs Act so as to give Customs officers the power to arrest any person believed to have committed or be planning to commit an offence against Customs or a proscribed act within Australian waters and the EEZ.Customs officers may also use reasonable and necessary force to detain any person on a ship or aircraft which has been detained and to bring them into the migration zone. The bill clarifies the right of pursuit and extends the power of officers to request permission to board vessels and aeroplanes. The extent of the power to request boarding is dependent upon the nationality of the ship and whether it is in Australian territorial waters, contiguous waters, the Australian exclusive economic zone or the high seas. The amendments exercise to the fullest Australia's rights and obligations in these maritime zones as set out by the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea.Once again, it is necessary and appropriate to clarify the extent of powers of Customs officials and other Commonwealth officers who will be responsible for enforcing our maritime laws. The amendments introduced by this bill should set out the legislative framework of these powers so that officers are in no doubt of what they can and cannot do in pursuit of a vessel and, once the vessel is boarded, in respect of searching and seizing contraband goods and arresting offending persons. In general, the provisions of the bill do this and have the support of the Labor Party.In conclusion, I turn to two points. Firstly, it is a pity that there is not now a coordinated and single scheme that puts in place similar arrangements with respect to fisheries and the Customs Act. There is an integrated scheme insofar as it relates to the responsibilities of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, but a different scheme relates to those other areas, and I suspect it will give rise to confusion in operational terms. I can hardly imagine it doing otherwise. It is certainly not the best way of framing legislation which addresses matters that could be dealt with more comprehensively.Secondly, it is fine to talk about increasing the powers and responsibilities that we give to these officers, but we have to give them the resources and put the strategic structures in place so that they can use them effectively. That brings me back to the point that I started with—it is no comprehensive solution to throw up legislation that talks tough. If you talk the talk but you do not walk the walk, you are going nowhere.We must have something that goes further than the ad hoc response that the government has thus far come up with in terms of the operational capacity of our coastal surveillance team, which comprehends so many different areas at the moment. If we do not put in place proper coordination arrangements, if we leave it at saying, `She'll be right until some problem emerges'—until we have, for example, major fisheries incursions which require another public crisis, another task force and another set of responses—and if we do not think these things through when we have the opportunity, we are simply holding ourselves hostage to the future.That is what I believe this government is essentially doing. It is responding in a way which is committed to hold public opinion but to ignore the task. That is not adequate. Insofar as we have discussed these legislative changes with the minister, we have had very fruitful discussions. The government will be moving a number of amendments as a result of those conversations that we will welcome and have an opportunity to comment on in relation to the debate in detail. Those are to be welcomed, but it is no good doing this piecemeal.There was an opportunity, when public attention focused on these issues, for there to be a much more strategic and comprehensive addressing of these issues. Unfortunately, it was caught up in a whole series of other political crises then attendant on the government. I am certain Max Moore-Wilton, the head of the Prime Minister's task force, simply did what he could, quickly and down and dirty, to get this issue off the public agenda and to address it in a way which would get the cheap applause for seemingly tough action but which left all the structural problems still there. We will have the opportunity to address the specifics in the debate that ensues. I move the second reading amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House;(1) is of the opinion that it represents an inadequate and piecemeal response to the serious border control problems facing Australia; and(2) calls for the Government to consider establishing an Australian Coastguard service as a more appropriate means of addressing our increasing problems in relation to border control".10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—Is the amendment seconded?N36EVANSMr Martyn Evans—I second the amendment, and I reserve my right to speak.12:13:0012129Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I was curious about the comments of the shadow minister for justice and customs. He talked about the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 in relation to the importance of what the government was doing in this area, but he never addressed the actual issue of why illegal immigrants are being attracted to Australia in the much greater numbers in which they are coming now.I think it is incumbent on the opposition to have a look at that and to support the measures the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is bringing forth to reduce some of the unnecessary attractions that have caused people in countries like China and Iraq—people who have already found a haven—to decide to target Australia. It is all very well to look at prevention once the boats are in the water, but surely it is more important to address the causes of this massive increase in illegal migration. So we would expect to hear some more about that from the opposition and we would certainly expect to see their support for the regulations the government has brought in in the past week to reduce the incentives for this illegal trade.On 12 March this year, a 35-metre cargo boat with 26 Chinese nationals on board ran aground at Holloways Beach, just 10 kilometres from the Cairns business centre. For three days it had negotiated the Great Barrier Reef's inner route without being intercepted. A local newsagent Bruce Sharples contacted authorities after he was asked to call a taxi for some of the boat people. Less than a month later, a 40-metre tug boat with at least 58 illegal Chinese immigrants on board chugged down Australia's east coast for ten days before grounding itself at Scotts Head near Nambucca Heads. A local greenkeeper Gary Witte raised the alarm on Saturday morning when he saw groups of Asians wandering around with umbrellas to protect themselves from the rain. At both Scotts Head and Holloways Beach, boats ran aground under the cover of darkness in the early morning hours. Chinese illegal immigrants made their way to shore with substantial sums of Australian cash, several changes of clothes and telephone numbers of Australian contacts.In 1990, five unauthorised boats arrived in Australia carrying 158 illegal immigrants. In 1998, eight years later, there were 42 boats with 926 illegal immigrants. So far this year—and we are only into October—there have already been 44 boats with 1,224 illegal immigrants. More and more people are attempting to enter Australia illegally. Some of these illegal immigrants have organised their own transport, but more frequently they are being moved by people smugglers. Australia is not the only country that is being targeted. Countries in Europe and North America are suffering from unprecedented numbers of illegal immigrants being smuggled in from other countries across seas and borders.In Britain, 46,000 people have claimed asylum in the past year. Recently, 116 people wandering along an isolated lane in Kent in the south-east of England claimed to be Albanian refugees from Kosovo. The Kent police said they were fairly certain that the so-called refugees were smuggled in either by boat or on the back of cross-channel freight lorries. Police in the English Channel ports of northern France have arrested 137 smugglers this year, almost all of them associated with Europe's extended Albanian underworld.In Canada, the number of illegal immigrants has come to crisis proportions, with 23,838 people seeking asylum in 1998. The similarity of the smuggling stories in Canada to those in Australia are evident in the stories recounted by Tom Fennell in an article in Macleanes in August this year. Mr Fennell writes:The air force had been tracking the vessel and its cargo of 131 Chinese refugees for two days. Desperate to escape, the ship's Korean captain finally nosed it on to the rocky driftwood-strewn coast and ordered his human cargo, dressed in light summer clothes, over the side. As they scrambled ashore, worried mothers held their children, some as young as 8, to shield them against the mist. Others, fighting off the numbing cold and fatigue, came close to collapse—but all somehow had survived 58 gruelling days at sea in appalling conditions.. . . . . . . . .. . .. as the refugees were being transferred by bus to CFB Esquimalt, near Victoria, the military was on alert for more boatloads of Chinese migrants. Canadian intelligence officials were tracking a fishing boat bound for Canada's East Coast—also carrying hundreds of Chinese—that reportedly left Lithuania in early August. Meanwhile, U.S. immigration agents discovered another 132 illegal Chinese in the hold of a freighter docked in Savannah, Ga., that had just arrived from Lithuania. The U.S. Coast Guard announced that it had boarded a suspicious cargo ship in the Pacific Ocean near Mariana Islands, an American protectorate south of Japan. Onboard they discovered 100 Chinese migrants, many of whom said they were trying to reach Vancouver.The story in the United States is similar. Illegal immigration is not limited to those crossing the border from Mexico. Smugglers are targeting the USA with illegal immigrants from all over the world.In August this year, 132 illegal Chinese immigrants were apprehended in an airconditioned, secret apartment in a boat carrying pig-iron off the north coast of America. Each of the 132 Chinese on board paid between US$40,000 and US$47,000 for transport to the USA. In 1998, it was estimated that 300,000 people entered the USA illegally, and so far in 1999 the USA has apprehended more than 2,000 Chinese attempting to enter the country illegally. Many of the people who are trafficked are treated poorly en route and frequently indentured or forced into crime or prostitution on their arrival in the country. Illegal aliens from China who arrive in New York, for example, are kept in basements in appalling conditions. They are often shackled and handcuffed and subjected to considerable violence. In some cases, the men are indentured for years and the women are forced into prostitution. Servitude is not the worst fate to befall illegal immigrants. There are well documented cases—and many more that we do not know about—of illegal migrants on substandard ships being drowned, suffocated in containers or left stranded. Those people organising the smuggling of Chinese citizens are known to hire enforcers for the duration of the sea voyage.While some transportation of illegal migrants is in inadequate rusty metal or broken wooden vessels, in many cases these old boats have been replaced by specially designed ships with high frequency radio, radar and positioning systems and with false compartments containing sewage disposal systems, air suppliers and fresh water. Smuggling syndicates are now multinational billion dollar operations stretching from China to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Central America and North America.Experts believe that, last year alone, nearly 100,000 people were smuggled overseas from China, the majority of them from Fujian province. The bulk of emigrants from China are reputed to come from that province in the country's south-east. Preparations for each trip are spread across Asia: travel and other documents may be forged in Thailand, old cargo ships are rented or bought in Taiwan and Singapore and provisions and refittings are undertaken in Hong Kong. It is big business. The triads also handle bribes for local officials and promise to bail out anyone caught at their destination. Once arrangements are complete, blocks of so-called seating are handed out to different so-called snakeheads—the term used for people smugglers.The one-month journey starts with a typical deposit of $US15,000. The rest is payable in instalments after arrival. Migrants from China are taken to Fuqing, a small town on the coast of Fujian, where they board a ferry for the 20-minute ride to the island of Pingtan. There they are taken on a small boat to the high seas just outside Taiwan waters and moved to larger ships for trips to North America, Australia or New Zealand. Because the converted cargo ships are small, passengers are often crammed shoulder to shoulder below the deck. On larger boats that carry hundreds of passengers, the lines for the makeshift toilets sometimes last for two to four hours. Those too seasick to climb to the deck relieve themselves in the hold. Women who have made the trip say that crew members sometimes require them to have sex.As the world's population, now over the six billion mark, expands even further, more people become increasingly desperate to escape impoverished lands and economies. Vast numbers of so-called economic refugees are willing to risk their lives for the chance of a better life in a richer country. In response, receptor countries are having to strengthen their laws to discourage—and eventually hopefully stop—this illegal and reprehensible trade.In an effort to strengthen the USA's chances of intercepting illegal immigrants and drug traffickers before they reach the United States, President Clinton issued a proclamation on 2 August this year extending the contiguous zone of the USA from 12 to 24 nautical miles. The bill before us today adds to the measures the Australian government has already taken in its war against the criminal trade of people smuggling. I have already made reference to the additional regulations that the minister has brought in to try to remove some of the incentives that now exist for immigrants to try to get to Australia. They know that once they get here, if they are declared refugees, they get free housing, they can bring the rest of their families here at Australia's expense and they can work. It is indeed a considerable incentive for them to take this added step. The government is doing the right thing to say, `Let us not discriminate against legitimate refugees but discourage them from taking this unwanted step.'In September, the federal government also announced a $124 million package over four years aimed at boosting coastal surveillance. Coastwatch will get two more Dash-8 aircraft for surveillance on the east coast of Australia, a sophisticated electronics-packed twin-engine helicopter which will start covering the Torres Strait from January next year and a $20 million surveillance unit to be built in Canberra. In August, the government introduced the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 , which increased penalties for owning a slave or exercising power over someone. This law targets the recipients of illegal immigrants who, by their debt to the people smugglers, are forced into debt bondage.The bill before the House today is designed to strengthen legislative provisions to assist the prevention of the smuggling of people into Australia by sea and air. The bill ensures that Commonwealth laws dealing with enforcement offshore incorporate all the powers available to Australia under international law. The bill provides authority for Australian law enforcement officers to board, chase, search, move and destroy ships and aircraft involved in people smuggling operations. It creates new powers to allow Australian officers to undertake enforcement action beyond our territorial waters. I commend the bill to the House.12:27:0012131Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—The Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 arises largely from public concern about illegal entry to Australia, including in recent times a significant number of attempts at illegal entry on the east coast of Australia as far south as Scotts Head in New South Wales. The public concern also arises from an increased perception of involvement by organised crime groups in this people smuggling activity.On 7 October in the Australian newspaper, there was an interesting article on the scale of this activity. It reports:Coastwatch aircraft have detected 45 illegal boat arrivals involving more than 1200 people. About 600 of those have arrived since June, including 24 in a vessel spotted off the north-west by Coastwatch . . . and intercepted . . . by a patrol boat.In addition to those immigration and people smuggling issues, the question of the surveillance and control of Australia's very vast border approaches has implications, as the member for Hindmarsh was indicating, with respect to drug smuggling and the importation of other contraband. There are a range of issues in relation to quarantine—both flora and fauna—fisheries control and pollution control. These matters concern all Australians and all members of this House. It is pleasing that legislation is before the parliament and attracting substantial bipartisan support.I understand that there have been negotiations between the opposition and the government in relation to a number of amendments that I will refer to shortly, that substantial progress has been made on those but that there are a number of areas where, without having achieved the government's agreement, the opposition is going to continue to press amendments. In broad principle, there is agreement across the House on the importance of these measures.The bill amends the Migration Act, the Customs Act and the Fisheries Management Act and it is part of a package of measures that arise, amongst other things, from the Prime Minister's task force report on coastal surveillance. The bill confers powers on Australian officers to act outside Australia in relation to people and objects outside Australia. In particular, the bill draws on the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Australia signed in 1992. Australia is acting through this legislation to broaden the scope of its order enforcement powers beyond its territorial waters.Key features of the bill include the arming of Customs officers; increased powers of boarding, pursuit, detention, forfeiture, search and destruction of boats, ships and aircraft; increased powers of detention and search of people aboard vessels suspected of committing offences against the Migration Act, the Customs Act and the Fisheries Management Act.I referred before to some of the areas of amendment that the opposition has discussed with the government. One of the areas relates to increasing the time required to give notice of forfeiture of a craft from 14 days. The opposition's preferred position is to extend that period to 28 days, but I understand the government has agreed to extend it to 21 days. The opposition, I understand, has the government's agreement about the insertion of a non-compellable ministerial discretion to intervene in the forfeiture of vessels as a circuit-breaker between the actions of a Customs, Immigration or Fisheries officer and the destruction or sale of the vessel. This amendment is designed to safeguard against a situation where a penalty is grossly out of proportion to the offence.The opposition has also been in discussion with the government and, I understand, has agreement in relation to amendments which exempt from the forfeiture provisions public conveyances which have been involved in a contravention of which the owner did not have, or would have no reasonable basis for having, knowledge of or suspicion that it was being carried out. This proposal is consistent with recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission. The purpose of this amendment is to avoid an embarrassing situation where, through the work of a particularly keen or perhaps excessively zealous officer, vessels such as, heaven forbid, the QEII might be seized because a passenger may have committed an offence under a relevant act. So this amendment seeks to get a little reality into the position.There are a couple of amendments the opposition are intending to pursue, but which I understand we do not have agreement from the government on. One is an amendment to require relevant government agencies to take all possible and reasonable steps to publicise the changes to the law and provide information to the financial business sector, particularly within commercial boat charter and shipping circles. The other seeks to require the minister to report to parliament 12 months after the commencement of the legislation on the steps taken to publicise the changes to the law. It remains the opposition's view that these amendments ought to be picked up by the government because in all the circumstances they are reasonable. They are designed to avoid perhaps unforeseen and excessively draconian implications that might arise from the legislation. We suggest the government take a late look at those matters with a view to seeing whether it is prepared to produce better legislation than it has at the moment by agreeing to those amendments.I referred before to the Prime Minister's task force report on coastal surveillance, which was produced in June 1999 and which forms an important backdrop to this particular legislation and a package of other measures. The key issues identified in that report are: firstly, illegal immigration is a growing global problem and an increasing threat to Australia. Each year there are about four million attempted illegal entries worldwide, worth $10 billion annually to well-organised people-smuggling syndicates. Second, illegal migration to Australia represents a processing cost of up to $50,000 per person and, in the case of boat arrivals, potentially devastating quarantine consequences for Australian industry. Third, public concerns focus on illegal boat arrivals. The majority of unauthorised arrivals, however, come by air and the rate of both air and sea arrivals is increasing.The report found that obviously no coastal surveillance system can be foolproof, but better information and intelligence, more effective coordination and communications technology, increased resources for aerial surveillance, and closer cooperation with source and transit countries can strengthen the effectiveness of Australia's capacity to detect and deter illegal arrivals. This submission proposes a $124 million package of measures over four years. I understand that has been substantially agreed. The executive summary of the report also found that a strengthened Coastwatch would be more cost-effective than an Australian coastguard or transfer of coastal surveillance to Defence. But Coastwatch needs a higher and more distinctive profile, closer operation with Defence and an effective national surveillance centre.I would suggest that it is not altogether satisfactory for the government and that report to dismiss the notion of an Australian coastguard quite as easily as that document has done. There are certainly complex issues here but, in order to get the appropriate responses and the fully integrated responses to the range of problems that this legislation, and indeed the whole package of measures, seeks to address, it seems to me that the government has been too quick and too peremptory in dismissing the notion of investigating a coastguard service. Certainly countries with other very significant maritime environments such as Canada, for example, have coastguards. The United States is in quite a different situation in many respects, but it has a very well-known coastguard service. It seems to me that this is a matter which ought to be kept under active consideration.There are certainly very important international relations matters that bear on this situation as well. Many members would be familiar with the exchange of shots between Canadian and Spanish fishing interests in the North Atlantic not so many years ago. That indicates how quickly matters in these areas can get out of hand. The changes in the broad strategic environment in which Australia finds itself, particularly with Indonesia, underline the importance of keeping an open mind on all the range of measures and initiatives that ought to be taken to improve cooperation and the clearing of information, views and intelligence with our neighbours in order to avoid unhappy circumstances arising quickly and getting out of control.In this context, I have had drawn to my attention a very interesting article published in April-June 1997 in the Journal of the Australian Naval Institute by Lieutenant Tom Lewis entitled `Awash in a sea of agencies: handling ADF surveillance in the 1990s'. In that article, Lieutenant Lewis says the following:There are, however, substantial problems in the fact that this process—he is referring here to coastal surveillance—uses such a variety of agencies for surveillance work. These problems may be itemised as problems in communications, personnel management, bureaucratic politics, lack of expertise in gathering and processing intelligence, difficulties in applying funding, and last but definitely not least, the utilisation and permanent deployment of civilian personnel in the area of what may one day become an operational combat zone.The article goes through a number of those issues that are raised in somewhat more detail, such as problems in communication with the way in which Australia presently conducts its coastal surveillance. Just to give a flavour of what Lieutenant Lewis is saying, under the heading of `Problems in communications' he says:The lack of communication is heightened even further by the fact that all of these organisations—that is, the organisations involved in coastal surveillance—use different information storage procedures that don't talk to each other. For example, Coastwatch's target information is passed to HQNORCOM via fax—and that information is then entered by hand into the Navy's databases. This is time-consuming and liable to input error . . . He goes on with a number of other points relating to communications. The article goes on to say:What constitutes the non-commissioned officer status in Customs or in the AFP, for example, is a mystery to most people in the ADF, let alone understanding what constitutes the management structure within a Federal Public Service agency such as Immigration. Does a Commander in the Australian Federal Police rank the same as a Commander in the Navy, for example? Does the term "Chief" in the Navy signify the boss? These are small and simple things, but anything adding to confusion works to the detriment of the overall operation.This article also talks about problems with personnel retention and the lack of career structures in some areas involved with our coastal surveillance activity. He talks about perceptions of expertise and ensuring competition. The article goes on to state:To make interceptions at sea using any other force than the Navy seems to be making a possibly dangerous task even more disaster-prone than it is for the experts. The force which is trained for sea-going interception is one which is constantly rehearsed, prepared and used in such scenarios, and it seems strange to allow another agency to get their feet wet in what is a very large and problem-prone sea.Lieutenant Lewis also talks about problems of policing in times of conflict and makes the obvious point that, in times of conflict:If low level hostilities break out, who at present will be responsible for the surveillance of an enormous area of Australian territory? A civilian agency is presently tasked with this role: Coastwatch. Given the enormous number of SIEVs and FFVs detected in northern waters, any possible hostile intruder would be foolish to ignore the opportunities presented in covert insertion. And any intruder would be equally silly to ignore the portable possibilities presented in defending oneself against a suspicious overflying Coastwatch aircraft. At the first, most likely successful launch of a shoulder-launched Surface to Air Missile the entire Coastwatch fleet—minus one—is grounded. With their disappearance from the scene so too disappears a large percentage of Australia's surveillance capacity. It is specious to argue that the RAAF's Orion fleet could take over the role. The Orion is a very different aircraft from the Coastwatch fleet models employed for maritime surveillance; it is differently equipped; its crews are differently trained; they would lack the local knowledge that heightens the achievements of the very capable Coastwatch crews in operation today. Besides, they would no doubt be already otherwise employed in such a scenario. Against the background of all those issues raised in Lieutenant Lewis's article, he talks about possible solutions. He says:The solution to this proliferation of agencies and the inevitable ensuing problems could perhaps be solved by the implementation of two changes. The first would be the development of a National Surveillance Policy, setting out target priorities, minimal and maximal engagement by the surveillance and interdiction platforms, procedures and policies.The second solution is to hand over all surveillance and interdiction to the ADF, and form a new joint department within Navy and Air Force—Coastguard.There are a series of very powerful arguments for an Australian coastguard. It seems to me that there are also powerful arguments on the other side of the ledger. This is undoubtedly a matter that, in the context of many demands on our budget at this stage, would cost the Australian taxpayer a considerable amount of money. But, as I started off by saying, given the emergency and importance of many of these issues, for the government to so summarily dismiss in the Prime Minister's task force report the argument for an Australian coastguard seems quite unsatisfactory. I certainly urge the government to keep this matter under continuous attention given the importance of these issues.I come back to the immediate issues of the bill and indicate once again that the opposition are supporting this bill. We have been successful in negotiating some improvements such as the removal of some of the more draconian features that could potentially, under some circumstances, bring the legislation and initiatives into disrepute. We have been successful in getting some of the more draconian, unforeseen potential problems removed. There are a couple more I have alluded to. I would urge the government at this late stage in the process to look further at those matters and take some additional steps to further improve the legislation.12:45:0012134Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Illegal immigration, and more specifically people smuggling, is not only a threat to Australian society; it is a scourge of the most tragic kind on the international community. Illegal immigration has two major forms: people overstay ing their visas and people entering Australia illegally, usually by boat and often with the aid of professional, organised people smugglers. While both forms of illegal immigration should not be tolerated, it is the growing practice of people smuggling which is causing an enormous amount of concern. People in countries with fewer opportunities than Australia who are understandably wanting to make a better life for themselves and their families are courted by professional, organised people smugglers.This is a problem of expanding proportions. One set of statistics recently put forward indicates that Australia has already received a record number of boat people this year, with 56 boats carrying 1,498 people compared with the previous peak of 21 boats and 1,026 people in 1994-95. There has been no comprehensive analysis of this apparent increase in illegal immigration. However, one explanation advanced is that illegal immigration is increasing because of recent instability in the South-East Asian region, particularly the dramatic events that have been unfolding in Indonesia over the last year. It is one of the several reasons why peace and stability in the area are in the interests of Australia.The business of people smuggling is not a problem confined to Australia. Japan is also experiencing the same problems. Make no mistake: people traders do not ply their craft due to any altruistic reasons. They are preying on the vulnerable and seeking to maximise their own personal gain.There is mounting evidence that those who are organising the people-smuggling rackets are using the most nefarious means of inducing people into illegally emigrating to Australia. They harness the hopes of their victims with false promises. Promises of instant employment upon arrival are common fare; some organised people smugglers tell their prey that they can immediately earn between $20 and $30 an hour working in Australia. They allay their fears of being caught by falsely assuring them that Australian authorities are powerless to extradite them and it is easy to qualify for permanent residency. With no other information readily available, those desperate for a better life submit themselves to the terms and conditions imposed on them by organised people smugglers. In effect, they are unknowingly committing themselves to a life of slavery.For the organised people smugglers, it is all about debt bondage—the practice of smuggling people into a country such as Australia and making them pay off that debt when they arrive in the country. This is not a debt that can be realistically settled. In real terms the debt can be the equivalent of $A50,000. In practice, repayments can only be made by working off the debt, usually through illegal activities such as prostitution and drug smuggling on behalf of the organised people smugglers. But their rate of pay is so low and their payments to their employer for living costs are so high that it is virtually impossible for them to ever pay off their bondage debt.They face a life of servitude at the hands of organised crime gangs. Their servitude can also take other forms, such as loan sharking, protection rackets, money laundering operations, importation and distribution of narcotics, kidnapping, fraud, vice, extortion, contract killing, slave trading and the tragic practice of child prostitution.The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported that hundreds of new brothels have opened across Sydney and dozens of illegal workers are being deported routinely after being found working in brothels by compliance officers from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Estimates put forward by federal government departments suggest there are up to 300 sex slaves in Australia, the majority of whom are illegal immigrants and have originally come from our South-East Asian region.It is difficult to comprehend that people are being subjected to this sort of tragic existence in Australia, but it is a problem of expanding proportions. Tackling this affliction in our society requires a multistrategy integrated approach. Recently in this House we debated legislation which will help with the policing of sex slavery at a domestic level. The coalition government is committed to incorporating other strategies to minimise the penetration of transnational organised crime into Australia, and I am sure we are supported by the Labor opposition in all those attempts.In this respect, the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 before the House will effectively interact with the coalition government's Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 . This bill prescribes penalties of up to 25 years imprisonment for those convicted of intentionally owning a slave or exercising power over somebody that is the equivalent to slavery, which includes debt bondage and associated practices.But transnational organised crime has become a major international epidemic, continually evolving and keeping abreast of technological advancements. As new business and economic opportunities surface, the tentacles of organised crime are never far away. Organised crime gangs have an incredible ability not only to adapt to change but then to expand. We all know that globalisation has rationalised, centralised and modernised national economies, but it is also true that globalisation has rationalised, centralised and modernised organised crime groups. Organised criminal activity has become a growth industry and is manifested in a myriad of ways.As competition between international organised crime groups increases, power struggles are likely to be replaced by mergers between gangs to efficiently use resources, maximise profit and profit making opportunities, and to improve risk management practices by pooling intelligence to counter surveillance and investigation. If it all sounds like big business, that is because it is. That is why illegal immigration and the debt bondage it brings are so important to organised crime gangs. They are able to use the people they smuggle into a country as dispensable foot soldiers. It is an effective way of putting another barrier between the organised crime bosses and the law enforcement agencies. It also reinforces the fact that organised transnational crime can be effectively tackled only through a coordinated international approach.To that end, Australia joined more than 140 countries at the World Ministerial Conference on Organised Transnational Crime, which was held in Naples almost five years ago. The outcome of the conference was an action plan to develop a holistic approach to combat transnational organised crime by the harmonisation of national legislation. Central to the action plan is the tenet that all countries must work together in responding to this threat.In December 1998, the United Nations General Assembly built on these foundations and established an ad hoc committee with a target date of September 2000 for completion of its work. Australia has been represented at all four of the preparatory meetings and has participated actively in the negotiation and consideration. Discussions to date have focused on extradition, mutual assistance and the recovery of proceeds of crime. Further conferences will deal with illegal immigration and associated issues. Two more convention conferences are planned for October and December this year and will canvass additional instruments to deal with the illegal trafficking in women and children, the illegal trafficking in and transporting of immigrants, and the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and ammunition.At a domestic level, the coalition government is committed to tackling illegal immigration. This will have the supplementary effect of suffocating the labour source of the organised crime gangs that are currently operating in Australia. It would be a small but significant step in the fight against organised crime at a domestic level, particularly organised crime with overseas links.Illegal immigration also presents other problems for Australia. Unlike legal immigrants, who undergo extensive medical tests, illegal immigrants do not necessarily come into Australia with a clean bill of health. Some illegal immigrants have arrived with life-threatening disease like cancer and motor neuron disorders. This situation has enormous potential to create serious problems for our health system.There are also concerns that illegal immigration may threaten Australia's refugee program—a humanitarian contribution of which we can all be proud. As the number of illegal immigrants being caught and detained increases, it places a strain on our financial and logistical capacity to service our refugee program that presently assists about 12,000 genuine cases every year.In June 1999, the coalition government established a coastal surveillance task force. The task force made a number of recommendations relating to Australia's coastal surveillance system, in particular a recommendation that `comprehensive legislative amendments be introduced to further strengthen maritime investigatory and enforcement powers against both Australian and foreign flag vessels'. The task force also resolved to utilise the jurisdiction conferred on Australia in relation to such matters by virtue of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As the world's largest island nation, it is imperative that Australia has the capacity to adequately protect its borders from illegal immigration. Of course, the sheer magnitude of our sea border makes this a difficult, if not impossible, task to do comprehensively. But the coalition government is working hard to improve our nation's capacity to effectively monitor our borders.Last weekend, I was pleased to attend the launch of a new $7 million antismuggling vessel in my home state of South Australia. This new vessel will significantly boost Australia's fight against people smuggling and drug smuggling. Named the Holdfast Bay—after the area where Governor John Hindmarsh anchored his vessel Buffalo when he came ashore to proclaim South Australia as a colony—the vessel is the third of eight to be built by August 2000 to replace six older vessels. Those vessels have the latest technology to protect our borders. They can sail in the most extreme conditions and can be at sea for up to 23 days. That means better protection for our national border and a safer Australia. It confirms this government's commitment to be tough on drugs and tough on illegal immigration.These new vessels will also make our border protection efforts more cost effective. At present, it costs Australia's taxpayers about $20,500 for each illegal immigrant to be located and removed from Australia. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs estimates that, by next year, it will cost about $20 million a year for the government to fight refugee claims from illegal immigrants.There are also monitoring practices that the coalition government is helping to make more cost effective. The cost of exercising surveillance of a ship that is suspected of being involved in people smuggling is enormous, particularly when Coastwatch flights are necessary, a matter the member for Maribyrnong commented on at great length in his contribution to this debate. Of course the expenditure on Coastwatch is very necessary but, if it is possible to deliver a more effective service at a lower cost, the government is obliged to implement it.The bill presently before the House will remove some of the legislative restrictions. It is a bill that will help reduce illegal immigration and people smuggling. It is a measure that may produce the spin-off effects of destabilising some of the organised crime gangs in Australia that predominantly rely on slave labour from illegal immigrants they have brought here. This legislation will provide that the crew of boats such as the Holdfast Bay will have the authority to possess side-arms for the purposes of firing warning shots and for protection when boarding ships suspected of being involved in illegal activities such as people smuggling.It is important to appreciate that people smugglers and the illegal immigrants they are bringing to our shores feel that they have nothing to lose if approached by a Customs boat. For the illegal immigrants, there is not much to return home to and, for the professional organised people smugglers, there is too much at stake. Our Customs officials need some form of personal protection under those sorts of circumstances.For the first time, Customs officials will also be able to detain and board suspect vessels in international waters, which start at 200 nautical miles from the Australian coast, or the continental shelf. This is in keeping with international treaties which are promoting an integrated approach to combating transnational organised crime and illegal immigration. This legislation gives our Cus toms authorities more teeth in fighting illegal immigration by complementing other legislation and initiatives introduced by this government. It also complies with international best practice management, and it offers some personal protection measures for Customs authorities who are patrolling our coastal borders.It is legislation that may curb the flow of illegal immigrants into our country. It may also serve to starve some of the transnational organised crime gangs that are operating in Australia of the slave labour that they rely so heavily on. But, just as importantly, it will help serve a very humanitarian purpose: it will help spare some illegal immigrants from a life of slavery to organised crime gangs. I commend the bill to the House.13:00:0012138Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I was hoping the honourable member for Sturt might have gone on for a couple more minutes so I could talk to my friend the shadow minister for immigration before I rose to speak. Nevertheless, I did find the remarks made by the honourable member quite illuminating. I think he mounted a very persuasive argument in relation to some aspects of this legislation.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—Thank you.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—It just goes to show what a yes man can do! Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, being the member for the Northern Territory puts me in a position where I am able to make some quite legitimate observations about this piece of legislation and about the operations, in general terms, of our border protection procedures at present. I have to say that it has been a cause of concern to me for some time that the government has failed to grasp the nettle in relation to these issues. Whilst this legislation, the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , presents itself as the government's response to the Prime Minister's task force report on coastal surveillance, I do not think it does nearly enough. I make that observation knowing the number of elements that are engaged in this coastal surveillance exercise, the risks that are entailed in carrying out the responsibilities, and the opportunities that are there for people to breach our border in a number of ways—and I do not mean simply by sea; clearly there have been occasions and there continue to be occasions when our airspace is entered by unauthorised aircraft which have a purpose which is other than legal or legitimate.From discussions I have had with members of the defence forces, with Customs and the quarantine service, with the Immigration Department and with those responsible for Coastwatch, I know about their general concern for the way in which some people are able to breach our borders. Although we have heard a great deal about people smuggling and legitimate refugees seeking to come to Australia, I think we need to be very careful when we are contemplating what we are talking about here. There are people who for their own legitimate purposes seek to come to Australia as refugees and may seek to come here by ship. They may have their own vessels. That is quite different, of course, from the people whom the member for Sturt talked about in relation to the people smugglers who are seeking slave labour.One of the interesting elements to me is the way in which we monitor air movements and our apparent failure to pick up what are clearly violations of our borders by small aircraft in particular which land at airstrips across various parts of northern Australia and deposit their illegal contraband. No doubt, Mr Deputy Speaker, a lot of people have talked about drugs in this place—I know the shadow minister responsible for customs matters spoke about that issue—but it is a very important question which I do not think has had close enough examination. It is certainly not answered by the government's response in this legislation.Nor does this legislation really go to some of the key questions which confront our ability to monitor our borders and to protect us against incursions by those people who might come here as illegal immigrants or by people who might want to illegally fish or, as I say, deposit illegal substances on our shores.One of the key issues, of course, is the attitude this government has adopted over a period of time in terms of allocation of resources across different portfolios. It is worth pointing out that nationally—and I said this in June of this year, Mr Deputy Speaker, in relation to illegal immigrants—the government cannot control the number of vessels carrying illegal immigrants to our shores, but it can control our ability to deal with them. The government has weakened the resources available to such an extent that we are no longer adequately equipped to deal with changing circumstances. As other people have observed during the course of this debate, illegal immigrants are now cruising down the east coast of Australia, as well as continuing to land in isolated areas of the Kimberley in particular, but also elsewhere across the Top End. Also, there are undoubtedly vessels which are dropping off their human cargo and other cargoes and which we will never learn about—at least we have not learned about them thus far; I am absolutely 100 per cent certain of that.Our weakened position in many respects, as I argued then, has come about principally because of the way in which the government has dealt with the resource allocation to the various government departments, Customs, Quarantine, Immigration and the Australian Federal Police, and their ability to undertake the tasks that we give them is therefore severely inhibited. Nationally there has been a 25 per cent cut to Customs funding and staffing. The government has also moved uniformed Customs officers from excise duties to the Australian Taxation Office and they are now not available to carry out normal work at airports. With quarantine there is no longer any inspection by government officers of incoming containers, and this work has been outsourced. Quarantine risks are increased enormously, as we all know, when boats come ashore carrying animal or plant matter. We had the issue of the mussel invasion of one of the Darwin harbours earlier this year, which caused a great deal of distress to those involved with the fishing industry as well as the tourism industry in northern Australia. No doubt it caused a great deal of concern to Quarantine, because they just were not given the resources to deal with the issue quickly enough.Funding for the Australian Federal Police was cut in 1996 and 1997 and, despite some catch-up, is still short of the levels recommended by the Ayers review and previously promised by the government. It is clear that dedicated staff throughout those arms of the Australian government, who have been tasked with the responsibility to protect us in terms of our border control, have not been given sufficient resources to do the job adequately. I say to the government that whilst we spend much time in this place debating the new tax legislation and we hear the Treasurer crowing about his surplus, what they do not crow about and what they ought not crow about is the way in which they have impacted upon the ability of people to deliver the services that we require of them in the public sector because of the way in which they have dealt with these different organisations through the appropriation of resources. It is the government's responsibility, its first responsibility, to ensure that services that are tasked with these responsibilities are doing their job and not to gut the funding of them so that they are inhibited in undertaking those tasks.What is clear is that in the context of those people who are carrying out these responsibilities in northern Australia at least, they do so with a great degree of dedication, they do so with a great degree of professionalism and they do so with a great deal of cooperation between the various agencies. It is worth while pointing out, as I am sure you already know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the whole effort involves not only the Australian Federal Police or the customs, quarantine and Immigration services and Coastwatch generally, but also the Australian Defence Force.A number of patrol boats work out of Darwin and have been given the primary responsibility of intercepting foreign ships that are in our waters. I refer to HMAS Wollongong, HMAS Dubbo, HMAS Cessnock, HMAS Geelong, HMAS Gawler, HMAS Launceston and HMAS Balikpapan. The crews of these vessels undertake a very important task for the Australian community. Generally speaking, we have not given them sufficient recognition or support in terms of the tasks they undertake in cooperation with the other agencies I have already mentioned.I note that the shadow minister has moved an amendment that calls for the government to consider establishing an Australian coastguard service as a more appropriate means of addressing our problems in relation to border control. I say to the government that, rather than dismiss this proposal out of hand, it should monitor and actively pursue the proposal, at least in terms of it being seen as a serious one, and examine whether it may be better to charge a dedicated coastguard service with the responsibilities we now give a number of organisations which work cooperatively in our seas.I know there are arguments to suggest that it is possible to maintain the existing arrangements more efficiently by giving additional powers and responsibilities to those in these naval vessels and to perhaps provide more of them. That may well be an outcome, but we have to have this discussion. In my view, in pursuing this amendment, the opposition is putting forward what should be considered a very serious proposition by the government and those responsible for advising it on these matters. While I fully support the work that is being undertaken by the ADF personnel involved with these patrol boats and Coastwatch, the immigration department and the Federal Police, we might just be able to do this better, and if we can do it better, we ought to do it better. And if we can do it better by having a dedicated coastguard, we ought to consider that very seriously.Another aspect of this legislation which deserves some comment and which I know has not been commented on thus far is something that has been referred to in the Bills Digest on this legislation. That is the relationship between the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 [1999] . As the Bills Digest notes, the minister drew attention to the need for the parliament, he said, to also pass the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 [1999] which is currently before the Senate. The minister described the bill, as the digest says, as another `crucial' element in the government's strategy for combating the `heinous trade' of people smuggling.6J4SCIACCAMr Sciacca—It isn't true.6J4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—The shadow minister says it is not true and it is not true. There is no connection between the two, as the shadow minister rightly interjects. The government's reasoning is that the judicial review bill `will limit the grounds for the judicial review of migration matters, particularly for unauthorised arrivals, and provide a clear message that people will not be able to use the judicial review system simply to prolong their stay in Australia.' I have to make this observation: why should we countenance limiting people's rights to our courts? It seems to me that we should be ensuring that people are dealt with properly, within the constraints of our laws. But if there is a process under which they can seek a review of the way in which they have been treated, we should not limit, in the way in which this government proposes, their ability to seek that review.It is worth quoting directly from this Bills Digest, because the gravity of the situation is mirrored by the words of the author of this Bills Digest who offers this opinion:In the opinion of the author, the presentation of this Bill, (the Border Protection Bill) and the Judicial Review Bill as equally important parts of a strategy to combat people smuggling may be misleading.We argue that it is grossly misleading.Contrary to the suggestions made in the Minister's Second Reading Speech, the Judicial Review Bill will not limit the grounds of judicial review particularly for authorised arrivals—nor should it—but will prevent judicial review of migration decisions for all visa and cancellation review applicants, be they lawful or unlawful entrants.Is that the purpose? The author goes on to say:Much more is at stake in the passage of the Judicial Review Bill than merely denying illegal entrants the means to prolong their stay through abuse of the review process. The Judicial Review Bill applies with few exceptions to the full range of migration decisions. While the effect of the Bill may be desirable so far as discouraging illegal entrants is concerned, its wider implications have attracted considerable criticism.As well they might. Because what the minister is about here is not, as is the primary piece of this legislation, addressing the ques tion of people smuggling, but a backdoor way of limiting the review processes for people who are legitimately seeking entry into Australia. That is just not on. I know from my conversation with the shadow minister, Mr Sciacca, who is at the table, that the Labor Party will not be supporting this proposal. We are opposed to the proposition that is inherent in the judicial review bill and which has been highlighted by the author of the Bills Digest .It is important that we address this question of border protection in a holistic way, but it is also important that we do it properly. It is our considered view that the government has not done so, and much more needs to be done to address this particular issue. There are strong arguments for the position which has been adopted by the opposition, and the amendments which have been put by the shadow minister should be supported by the government. I know they will not be, because the first one criticises the nature of this legislation and points out that it is inadequate. The second amendment simply asks the government to seriously contemplate the question of a coastguard service. While we will not oppose the passage of this legislation, we want the government to seriously consider our position. I commend the bill.13:20:0012141Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—The passage of the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 will be welcomed by the Australian people because it is a positive step towards improving our national security. There is much reflection on our roots, our history and our achievements as we approach a referendum to decide our constitutional future in the new century and the new millennium.With our troops currently in East Timor attempting to restore order and bring about the promised democracy, some of that reflection is not surprisingly on the issue of our own security in what appears to be an unstable region. Whether it is out of sheer national pride or perhaps the experiences of living in other parts of the world, most Australians would argue that this is the best place to live, to work, to raise a family and to prosper under our stable, democratic system of government. As the world has been shrunk by communications and increasing levels of tourism and access to our shores, the news about our land being one of `milk and honey' has spread beyond our shores to countries that do not share our way of life and the obvious benefits that flow from it.In vivid contrast to Australia's economic growth and social progress, some of these places are no better off than they were at the beginning of this century. In some cases they are worse off or are suffering under regimes that openly discriminate against religious and cultural minorities. It is no wonder then that many people in these regions would prefer to live in places that offer a great deal more than their own homelands and dream of a better future. It is those people, unfortunately, who are easy targets for the crooked salesmen out there promoting illegal trade in human beings.Our national interests are not merely a matter of protecting our nation from foreign invasion, but of ensuring that our borders are secure enough to protect the integrity of our immigration laws. Australia has become a favoured destination, as have other nations with high standards of living. Given our extensive coastline and huge tracts of coastal land that are not supporting populations, it has become all the more attractive.There are two ways to enter Australia. One is the legal route through lawful immigration and the various visa categories that are on offer and the other is to avoid those immigration procedures and come here without any legal standing or protection. Illegal arrivals come from many different destinations and I suspect that the general public would probably assume that most come from the People's Republic of China, Cambodia or nations in South-East Asia. While that used to be the case, the main offenders today are those from the subcontinent region and the Middle East, particularly the Iraqis, the Afghans and the Turks.There are, according to recent estimates, approximately 2.5 million Afghans living in countries neighbouring Afghanistan and to whom Australia represents a destination of choice. There are also 700,000 Iraqis living in neighbouring countries who feel the same way. A number of these nations make it clear to these Afghans and Iraqis that they should either return home or settle somewhere else. They actively dissuade the Afghans and the Iraqis from being within their borders. This obviously is an incentive to look elsewhere and to look at attractive destinations like Australia.The journey to Australia usually begins by air. Planes take them as far as neighbouring South-East Asian countries, where they board the boats for the final leg of the trip. It would seem that the East Timor situation is but one of the many issues that we as a government need to resolve with our northern neighbours. I know that our immigration officers have begun to broach this issue.Despite the criticism that we just heard from the member for the Northern Territory, we have already improved Coastwatch, Customs and Royal Australian Navy capabilities to identify and track boats trying to slip into Australia. Extra resources have been committed to help airlines and transit countries to detect and deter illegal travellers who are Australia bound.The measures in this bill, along with other legislation planned by this government, will send a message that entering Australia illegally involves a huge risk. More importantly, it is a message that will be heard loud and clear by those who prey on the hopes of innocent people that smuggling to Australia now involves a huge penalty. That is as it should be. The Australian people have the right to expect that our borders are safe and that residence in this country is a privilege extended only to the most deserving according to the criteria set down for entry.As a society, we believe in a fair go. With only 12,000 visas available this year under the various refugee categories, it is unconscionable to think that this entitlement should be reduced by those who have come here through unlawful means. Those who have the resources to jump the queue and land on our doorstep uninvited bring about that outcome.The sad fact is that for every illegal who arrives to claim refugee status, there will be another offshore refugee applicant who meets the criteria for refugee status but who must consequently wait a little longer for their chance. They miss out because they did not have the resources to fund an airline ticket or find a boat or a smuggler. Those criteria, of course, change from time to time, allowing for altering circumstances abroad and different needs here in Australia.This point needs some clarification because there are some in our community—our own version of right-wing fundamentalists—who are peddling the idea that the Australian government does not set its own immigration laws and regulations. Australia retains the sole sovereign right to decide who comes here and how long they stay. Our immigration policy is not ordained by the United Nations or by anyone else. Unfortunately, some of the right-wing elements—and not all of them are masquerading behind the One Nation skirts—are all too happy to believe that there are some mysterious external forces trying to take over this nation with the full cooperation of the major political parties in Australia.I remember well a consultation held by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, last year in my electorate. The minister quite rightly sought some input from the public on the changes to the immigration program. He has been carrying out a round of public consultations around Australia for the last two years. He came to the electorate of Deakin to kick off a series of these forums and over 200 people attended. For the most part, the crowd understood the minister and the rationale behind his intended plan. There were a few, however, who queried him on some of his statements. The minister, ever vigilant, prepared and on top of his portfolio, was able to produce slides from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to prove his point. But instead of soothing the doubters, we learned from them that they knew that each of the ABS figures—each of the slides—was doctored and that the bureau was part of the conspiracy. If there is one thing that helps along a conspiracy theory, it is someone willing to believe it in the face of the facts. Since 1996 we have had a curious mixture of conspiracy theorists come to prominence, fired up by the likes of the former member for Oxley. She has gone and is not missed but there are others out there still preaching a mantra of ignorance and folly. Some of them should know a whole lot better but realise that speaking arrant nonsense will keep them in the sunshine for another 15 minutes.Perhaps with the passage of this bill even some of the conspiracy theorists will come to understand that we are in charge here and we are slamming the door on those who seek to enter Australia illegally but, more importantly, on those who seek to exploit those in other countries who are in need of refuge.This does not mean that Australia is an isolationist country. Our noted commitment to the causes of people in distant places has meant we have made a contribution to international affairs. We have been participants in humanitarian causes and very recent events remind us again that Australians have a keen desire to do the right thing for the sake of others. Our responses to the strife in the former Yugoslavia, to the Kosovo refugees and the crisis in East Timor have been timely, fair and, by world standards, extremely generous. In the case of the Kosovars, there can be no argument that our help was predicated out of our own national interest.We have shown time and again that we are willing to take in refugees who need safe haven. This does not, however, amount to a carte blanche invitation to all wishing to come to Australia. Quite a number, it seems, do not bother to wait for that invitation. Two years ago, 157 people on 13 boats arrived in Australia, unannounced and uninvited. Last year, that number had jumped to 926 people on 42 boats. In the first quarter of the 1999-2000 year, 50 boats carrying 1,267 people found their way here. These figures include only the numbers who completed their journey. There were considerable numbers who did not make it here after being detected en route.With the chance of huge profits, and limited legal responses available to Australia, it is no wonder that this activity has been on the increase. I have to say that these traders are no modern-day Oskar Schindlers. They do not assist the underprivileged to find a new life in our prosperous land. Rather, they take advantage of the dreamers and try to dump them here—for profit. These enterprises are often tied in with drugs and prostitution; it does not matter to them the commodity, as long as there is a profit in their enterprise.While there might be a profit to the traders, there is a huge cost to the taxpayers. Already the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs spends around $100 million on border control and compliance; this accounts for nearly one-quarter of its total expenditure. The Prime Minister's coastal surveillance task force looked at this whole area and reported back with its recommendations in June this year. One of the recommendations—which I know you will be aware of, Mr Deputy Speaker—was a further strengthening of maritime investigatory and enforcement powers against Australian and foreign vessels, through comprehensive amendments to existing legislation. Another involved a regime of forfeiture in relation to boats and/or vehicles used in the smuggling of immigrants to Australia.This bill is the first of a series of measures designed to fight this increasing menace. There will always be those who are willing to take the risk of a long and dangerous journey to a better life. There will always be those who will be willing to help them—at a profit. It is important for us as a government through these measures to make sure that they do not succeed. As the Prime Minister announced in June, we are committed to ensuring that these human smugglers realise that Australia is out of bounds.This legislation will give power to our officers to take action outside our own territorial waters to combat illegal activities that are against Australia's interests. It is estimated that each illegal arrival here costs the taxpayer $50,000, so every interception saves us a lot of money and red tape. But, of course, that alone is not the reason why this needs to be done, as I indicated earlier in this speech.Some of these illegals obviously are clued up before their arrival that there is a chance of being apprehended. Some have plan B fixed well and truly in their heads, asking for brands of personal hygiene products that they could not possibly have ever seen and for free orthodontic treatment and the like. They are aware of these privileges before even getting here. Yesterday in question time, the minister mentioned that some Australian residents know in advance that their family and friends are in a boat on the way here. One of these Australian residents apparently even had the temerity to call the minister's office to ask if their relatives had already landed in Australia and whether they were located in Port Hedland.I have not seen the tourist brochures of Australia shown to these people by the slick smugglers. But, as good as this country is, the sales pitch must be even better. The detention centre at Port Hedland—and I have been there—fluctuates between being full to capacity and only having a few people. I understand that at the moment it is full to capacity, and that is one of the reasons for our having opened up another centre at the Curtin air base near Derby. Port Hedland is no Gold Coast, it is no Port Douglas—which I believe is God's paradise, even though I am from Melbourne. Certainly it is nowhere near that. Port Hedland is thousands of miles from anywhere, with all due respect to those who have made it their home. The detention centre is another thing altogether. When these illegal entrants get there, I feel sure they would be thinking about those smugglers and those who sold them Australia in that dream, in that sales brochure, and they probably would be wondering how they can get back to them and wring their necks.It is interesting to note that Amnesty International has claimed, falsely, that the detention of unauthorised arrivals is somehow a breach of international law. Australia does not detain them because they are seeking asylum; rather, it is because they have breached entry requirements. It is recognised worldwide that each nation has the right to detain those who breach borders illegally.No-one questions the right of this parliament to make laws for people, whether Australian citizens or not. But in which jurisdictions are these laws valid and when are they not? Within Australian shores, certainly, but beyond our shores it is a more vexing question. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which Australia is a signatory, there are various degrees of power based on zones of proximity to the coastline. In waters outside 200 nautical miles from the territorial baseline—in other words, waters that are often termed the `high seas'—we do have the right of hot pursuit if there is good reason to believe that a foreign ship has entered the high seas, having violated Australian laws or regulations closer to our shore. This right extends to a mother ship arrangement where the main vessel may not come within 200 miles but may link with other ships that do so.This bill will see amendments to the Migration Act, Customs Act and Fisheries Management Act to give some teeth to our commitments under, and rights granted by, UNCLOS. Powers to pursue, board and search ships and aircraft will be expanded. Unseaworthy ships or those that are a threat to navigation, quarantine or the environment can be moved and/or destroyed. There may be a public perception out there that most of these illegals are arriving in rusted out junks. That may be so in some cases but in others modern ships with modern navigation and detection avoidance equipment are used.Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to go to Albania and visit refugee camps. While I was there, I was told about people-smuggling operations that take place across the Adriatic Sea. There, high-speed Zodiacs are used to get across the Adriatic Sea to Italy, to Sicily, a place for which I know the shadow minister for immigration and I have a certain love. Smugglers use that route in order to avoid the Italian navy and the various radar detection mechanisms available. That sort of scenario could very well take place here in Australia, with a mother ship being offshore and with fast speedboats coming in. It is important that our Customs officers and our Navy have the necessary powers and ability to track down and detect these people and confiscate their boats.Customs officers will be able to carry and, if necessary, use firearms and other personal defence equipment in such circumstances. While I know that some MPs have expressed concerns about the conditions under which these arms will be used, we will not be encouraging a shoot-out on the high seas. The weapons carried will be low calibre firearms to be used in self-defence. They will not be capable of disabling a boat. That will be left to the Navy, if that measure is deemed necessary. The Customs officers will also be able to act as fisheries officers in appropriate circumstances.Illegal foreign fishers will be subject to greater search procedures and, where found to be in breach, can be taken to have held an enforcement visa. That ensures that there will be a lot less red tape in dealing with those in that situation. Perhaps one of the biggest deterrents to people smugglers will be the possible forfeiture, seizure and disposal of ships and aircraft that have been used for that illegal purpose. The inclusion of planes is interesting. For the past five years, illegal arrivals by air have outstripped arrivals by sea. Most of these have been scams effected on commercial airlines, with professionally organised and executed boarding ticket switches that enable the illegal entrant a chance at asylum once they are here.This is a well thought out piece of legislation which will begin to reverse the disturbing trend of illegal arrivals. None of us resent helping those who need it. But we also ask that those seeking help go through the proper channels to ensure that the most needy and the most deserving are given priority of entry to Australia. I urge all members of this House, including the opposition and the shadow minister for immigration, to support this bill. It will promote greater security for Australian people and greater equity for those seeking to join us.13:40:0012145Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to rise today in support of the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and in doing so to congratulate the Attorney-General, the minister for justice and the minister for immigration on bringing this bill forward. The question of coastal surveillance has occupied the minds of politicians and the media alike in terms of the challenge that confronts us in Australia. No doubt many of us are concerned with the humanitarian aspect of people from developing countries who wish to come to Australia and enjoy with us the special lifestyle and the freedoms that exist here that do not exist in some of the countries to our north.It is appropriate that, given that these people want to come to Australia, our borders are appropriately protected. In opening up our country to those less fortunate than ourselves, it is appropriate that we have checks in place, that we have a balance in our migration program so that we have some migrants coming into Australia who have the necessary skill levels and some who come for the purpose of family reunions and also that we have an eye to the humanitarian situations that exist in various countries.Under the Kosovo refugee program Australia brought in thousands of people who were disadvantaged by the crisis affecting the Balkan peninsula. We not only welcomed them; we flew them to Australia in chartered jumbos and provided them with ongoing monetary and accommodation assistance. Our track record of assistance to various humanitarian groups who wish to come to Australia has been consistent, appropriate and praiseworthy. The latest international relations crisis that has affected us is the crisis in Timor. Many hundreds of Timorese came to Darwin awaiting the resolution of the conflict in East Timor.The bill today deals with those people who wish to jump the queue, to ignore the legal requirements to enter Australia and come on an illegal basis. It concerns not only those people who wish to come by that means into Australia but also those who organise people to come by these illegal means. As the member for Deakin has pointed out, the number of people who come illegally by way of boats has increased significantly. Last year some 50 boats came to Australia illegally and some 1,200 illegal migrants came to our shores as a result of this process.The Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999, brought before the parliament and passed both houses, did much to address the problems caused by those who bring people to Australia for the purposes of prostitution and those who organise illegal migration. It is these people, who are exploiting the hopes and aspirations of individuals in Third World countries, whom we need to target. These people are making a considerable amount of money by exploiting the fears and hopes of individuals who wish to come and live a new life in Australia.In June 1999 the Prime Minister's coastal surveillance task force met and made a number of recommendations. These recommendations were appropriate and comprehensive. The task force came under the chairmanship of Max Moore-Wilton, who I believe is one of the finest public servants this country has seen. He is a public servant whom I am personally familiar with. Having observed his skills and ability for some seven years, I have to say that he is without peer in many ways. We are very fortunate as a government to have his skills available to head the Prime Minister's department and to undertake the chairmanship of such important programs as this one.The result was a proposed series of legislative changes, which are included in the bill. They are about strengthening the maritime investigatory and enforcement powers against both Australian and foreign flag vessels and, in particular, using to the fullest extent the jurisdiction conferred on Australia in relation to such matters by virtue of the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea.The bill also makes recommendations relating to those individuals who operate illegal fishing boats in Australian waters. Some people may take a benign view and say: `Isn't it appropriate that they should be able to fish in our waters?' I would put the contrary view, and say that not only are they threatening the livelihood of Australian fishermen by rapidly depleting our fishing stocks, but also that their actions bring into question the long-term viability of the stocks available around Australia's coastline. Very large fishing vessels that can go to sea for months at a time and process the fish on board are a danger to our fishing industry. For our children and our children's children we want to ensure a long-term supply of fish. It is appropriate that we put measures into place regarding the amount of catch that can be taken from Australian waters and the operation of foreign vessels in our waters.The opposition leader Mr Beazley has made some comments in answer to the difficulties that confront us in terms of illegal vessels. He said on radio last week:Australia should have a coastguard.There is a tendency to gloss over the costs of a coastguard. It sounds all very good and nice. Of course, we have our own Coastwatch. The US has a coastguard. But the US coastguard has a budget of some $4 billion. The US coastline is not all that significantly different to ours. In fact, Australia's coastline would be longer. So more surveillance would be involved. The estimated cost for Australia to keep up a coastguard which would carry out the types of surveillance we have on the basis of the number of illegal vessels that are coming to Australia is estimated to be some $500 million. Some might say that is appropriate, but the expenditure that is made now is already significant. Coastwatch has an annual budget of approximately $65 million, with an additional contribution by Defence of $104 million. So a significant amount is allocated. There have been problems, but Coastwatch has been successful in apprehending a number of illegal vessels and illegal migrants coming into Australia. Our detention centres bear evidence of their success in apprehending a large number of people.Looking at Mr Beazley's statement only a week ago, it is interesting to go back to his statement in the Beazley report of March 1984. This was a review of Australia's peacetime coastal surveillance and protection arrangements by none other than Kim Beazley, the then Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. I am glad to see the member for Paterson is interested in this.UU5HORNEMr Horne—There is a bit of a difference 15 years on.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—It is interesting that Mr Beazley suddenly finds that the answer to all of our problems is `We should set up a coastguard. Never mind the cost, never mind whether it will be effective or not. Never mind whether our people have already been pretty successful'. It is not `Let us look at some of the changes we can make as a result of this legislation' but `Let us go and spend. Let us spend $500 million.' This is what he said. The same person noted that a coastguard was not an efficient or cost-effective option. The same person, who when he was in government said this was not the right way to go, suddenly claims it is the great solution when he does not have any responsibility for the financial impact of such a decision. `Never ever' he said. We are used to those expressions. Remember the `l-a-w' episode, when Paul Keating promised to this House that we would have significant reductions in our taxation levels? He said: `Just read my lips. It is going to be l-a-w law.' Of course, it never came into effect. We are used to double takes from the opposition and their constantly changing their position. It is interesting to note some of the comments that have been made by various opposition members in today's debate and some of the amendments they have suggested that could be made to the legislation.The bill actually proposes wide-ranging changes in legislation. The Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill, which we have before us, proposes changes to three acts in particular—the Migration Act 1958, the Customs Act 1901 and the Fisheries Management Act 1991. The amendments to the Migration Act and the Customs Act revise and enhance where appropriate the existing powers of enforcement and apprehension. The problems we have seen in the operation of this legislation is the ability to apprehend vessels outside of our territorial waters, the ability to bring illegal migrants back into Australia, the ability to deter fishing vessels from fishing in our waters, the ability to take action against those people who have been organising the migration rackets for their own profit and the ability to take action against those who want to bring into Australia women for prostitution. The sex slaves amendment bill did much to address this issue, but these amendments go further.There are a number of aspects to these amendments. Obviously, one of the most important aspects of the amendments is the boarding and searching of ship and aircraft in certain circumstances in Australia's territorial sea, Australia's contiguous zone, the high seas and, in the case of the Customs Act, Australia's exclusive economic zone. This is extending out beyond our territorial waters to include the economic zone. We have rights to do that. We can extend the states' powers as well to apprehend vessels. There have been problems in the past. For example, if a vessel that was registered in New South Wales was detected in Western Australia, their ability to apprehend that vessel was limited. It means that the legislation that applies onshore in individual states applies to vessels in those waters so we do not have the various inequities that occurred when you have a vessel from one state appearing in another's waters. These are the technicalities that those plying the trade have used to avoid prosecution, to avoid being apprehended. I am sure all members of this House and the people of Australia would want strong protection of Australia's borders.The bill allows for the hot pursuit of ships whose master has not complied with the request to board. We have heard the words `hot pursuit' on a number of occasions recently. We all know what this means. When we detect these illegal vessels they often take off at speed. There were some questions about the rights to pursue these vessels. This bill makes it very clear that, when a vessel is avoiding prosecution or avoiding attention, the Australian vessel can pursue it until it is apprehended. Some of the high-speed vessels that are operated by the Australian Customs Service have the capability to pursue them at high speed.The bill allows for the hot pursuit of mother ships—that is, ships reasonably suspected of having supplied vessels to bring those illegal migrants to shore. What often happens is that they anchor offshore and they bring small rubber duckies into the coast. The mother ships remain outside the territorial waters and our ability to apprehend them is limited. One of the problems is that you may apprehend the smaller vessel that comes to shore but the larger vessel offshore very often contains many illegal immigrants to our country. Those who are organising these programs are often located on the mother ship. It is important that we have the ability not only to pursue, apprehend and go in hot pursuit of the vessel but also to move against the mother ship.There is also the ability if necessary for our Coastwatch ships to destroy the ships that will not be deterred from their actions and to take effective action. They can fire on the vessel, destroy them and sink them if necessary. Some questions have been raised in the past as to whether it is appropriate to take such deterrent action. It is very clear that—while under the existing requirements there may have been some ambiguity—the changes to the legislation contained in the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill spell this out and make this possible.The bill also enables Customs officers to carry and use approved firearms and other approved items of personal defence equipment in certain circumstances. I believe that this is an appropriate move. If individual officers do not have the necessary firearm protection, they are at a disadvantage in the challenge that they may meet in taking over illegal vessels coming to our shores.The amendments to the Fisheries Management Act make it clear that Customs officers will be given the same rights and powers as the fisheries officers to examine the fish, to examine their licences, to examine whether they have exceeded the quotas and to examine whether they have illegal migrants aboard those vessels. Provided for in this particular legislation is automatic forfeiture of vessels which have been used to bring illegal migrants into this country. A whole range of penalties can apply. The vessel can be apprehended. The officers can pursue a vessel and they have the ability to fire on a vessel. They have the ability to apprehend fishing vessels, using the rights that apply in the normal customs situation. If they have invested a large amount of capital in a vessel to bring illegal migrants to Australia, the automatic forfeiture provisions mean that their investment can be simply wiped out in one move.The bill contains amendments to the Fisheries Management Act and consequential amendments to the Migration Act. This is important in the overall exercise of the bill. It is important to recognise that Australia is not going to be exploited by those people who wish to run schemes to bring illegal migrants to Australia. Australia's record of bringing to Australia refugees who have suffered on humanitarian grounds—the recent cases in Kosovo and East Timor are examples—is recognised. We have brought many thousands under those categories in Australia. It is also true to say that we will not tolerate those who wish to exploit the situation of Australia's hospitality and welcome. By this bill we are making the amendments that are necessary to ensure that Australia's borders are protected in appropriate ways and that our fishing industry remains vital for our long-term future. I commend the bill to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted.Questions Without Notice121481214812148Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer him to reports that Australian home buyers will now be hit with a stamp duty on the GST, a tax on a tax. Do you agree with your spokesman that this is `basically a revenue grab by the states'? If so, how do you explain comments by a state treasury spokesman that this had been in the pipeline all the way through the development of the GST and that `their impact has been included in the calculations'? Treasurer, what are you going to do about this or were you always in on this double tax grab?12148Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have not seen the comments from the state Treasury official which are alleged to have been made, but would it surprise me for a state Treasury official to be claiming more money? No. Would it surprise me if, for example, the state of Tasmania and its Treasurer were trying to get more money? They were one of the quickest signers of the GST deal.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—You're kidding—knocked over in the rush!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes, the Hon. Dr David Crean raced down for the agreement to sign up for the GST. Obviously far-sighted—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—But Bob Carr got there first!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Bob Carr got there first. I can say that there are some Labor leaders that have a position on tax reform—Bob Carr was one that wanted to sign up, as I recall.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Yes; a good man.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Dr David Crean was another who wanted to sign up.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am just extolling their virtues, Mr Speaker.DT4CREANMr Crean—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am happy for him to extol their virtues but the question was, and perhaps in that context, would he be surprised if that Treasury official were claiming that he was in on the act, the double tax arrangement? That is the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The question is: would I be surprised—and I have not seen the comments—if a state Treasury official were claiming more money? No. I would be no more surprised by that than if the sun rose tomorrow. In all of my dealings with state Treasury officials, I have never seen one yet that has not taken the opportunity to try to claim more tax. As I said, when the GST deal came up, because it gives greater revenues to the states, the Labor premiers and treasurers were falling over themselves to become part of that deal.You ask what the government can do about it. The fact is that the Commonwealth government has given a guarantee that no state will be worse off as a result of that. We are going to advance to the states in the event, in the first couple of years, that they are under the amount that is guaranteed. If they have taken more revenues than they should have, all that means is that the amount that we guarantee that we will advance under the guarantee is less. One of the great things about this is that it is the biggest change to Commonwealth-state financial relations in Australian history, and the Labor Party was not a part of it. It was not a part of the biggest reform in Australian history. We have built in safeguards to protect the position.1214912149Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what is the Australian government's response to the election yesterday of Mr Abdurrahman Wahid to the office of President by the People's Consultative Assembly of Indonesia?12149Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Cook for that question. I think all members of the House would want to congratulate Mr Wahid on his election as the new President of the Republic of Indonesia. He has a reputation for honesty. He has long stood for political and religious tolerance in his community and he has long supported political reform. In his inauguration speech, he reaffirmed his commitment to democracy, to free enterprise, to human rights and to the accountability of governance. These are principles that I know all Australians share with him. He has had good contact with Australia and Australians over the years. I said yesterday in the House that whoever won the ballot for President will be a person with whom the government I lead will seek to cooperate. In the wake of Mr Wahid's election, I repeat that commitment today. Later on today Indonesia will also have a new vice-president freely elected on the same basis.These events provide me with the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the scale of change occurring in Indonesia. The first democratic general election since 1955 took place a few months ago. It was the first contested presidential election ever. East Timor has been allowed to separate from Indonesia in accordance with the constitutional processes of that country. We are witnessing some quite remarkable events that are transforming Indonesia, and these remarkable events do hold out the prospect for a new chapter in Australia's relationships with Indonesia.The new President, by any measure, will face an enormous challenge. Indonesia's political foundations are changing, its institutions will go through a period of great adaptation. Indonesia must also overcome one of the worst economic crises in its history. We here in Australia understand that these are exceptionally difficult times and that the path ahead will be very hard for the people of Indonesia. We, therefore, in Australia, will be a sympathetic neighbour and, as in the past, we are ready to extend the hand of friendship and support.The new Indonesian government has yet to be appointed. The new President and his government will have many immediate preoccupations. There ought to be no rush to judgment or hasty action by anyone. Instead, we need to adopt a patient and calm approach, confident that the strong interest both countries have in close cooperation will surely emerge over time. The government I lead will aim to develop a good working relationship with the new Indonesian government, on a basis of mutual interest and mutual respect. We will build on our common interests while being pragmatic about and respecting the differences between our cultures and societies.This is an important period in the history of Indonesia and in the relationship between our two countries. That relationship has unavoidably been put under strain by the developments in relation to East Timor—a chapter in the history of this country of which we should be immensely proud, because this country not only did the right thing but did the thing that was in the interests of Australia. That does not gainsay the fact that in the long term we need to work side by side with Indonesia. It is in that spirit and with that realisation that the government is determined to see the election of a new president as an opportunity, over time and at an appropriate pace—and recognising the difficulties of recent weeks—to build a stronger and better relationship between our two countries and our two societies.14:08:0012150Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I will briefly add the opposition's remarks of congratulations to President Wahid on his election. He is taking up that task at a most difficult time for his nation. Australia is a country which can be of considerable value to him, his administration and his nation, as a friend and associate—and, over time, I believe that fact will be demon strated. Nobody here in this country—and, I am sure, not in Indonesia either—underestimates the extraordinarily difficult task that lies before him.1215012150Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall expressing these views about higher education? About vouchers, he said:A Howard government will widen student choice by providing scholarships which they can take to the institution of their choice.About deregulation, he said:We will make higher education demand driven.About fees, he said:The only way you can get more students into institutions is to get more private money.Prime Minister, when you said these things, did you not believe them? Did you believe them four months ago, when you instructed Dr Kemp to advance his proposals for real interest rate loans, deregulated fees and vouchers? Did you believe them six days ago, when you defended Dr Kemp's real interest rate loans? Prime Minister, do you really think anyone believes you when you say you do not believe these things anymore?12150Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Firstly, instructed by long experience, I never accept that what the Leader of the Opposition says I said I did say. Nor do I automatically accept that there was not some context in which I made the remark that gives a totally different interpretation to that which the Leader of the Opposition implies in his question. I will go away and thumb through the records I have of what I have said over the years. I am quite certain that that little bit of research will in no way gainsay what I have said in this House over the past week.I would like the Leader of the Opposition to listen very carefully when I say that there will be no vouchers. There will be no departure from the fundamentals of our higher education policy. I know from the reaction that I have had from different sections of the community over the past week that, increasingly, people in the Australian community are seeing the scare campaign being waged by the Labor Party on this issue for what it is. There is no threat to the higher education system that we have developed in this country.I had a very interesting experience this morning when I took some talkback radio on a Perth radio station. I think I did rather better on the Perth radio station this week than the Leader of the Opposition did a couple of weeks ago. I was able to assure one of the young callers, when she inquired about the government's plans, that we had a balanced approach to higher education, that we could no longer imagine that we lived in a society where the government could provide a free tertiary education, and that those sorts of days were gone and are not coming back, but that we are in a society that believes that it is unfair, within a system providing a certain number of government funded places, to ask students to bear all of the cost of their tuition.What you need is essentially the system we have at the moment, where you have a number of government funded places, a HECS system, an opportunity and an incentive for people to discharge their HECS liability at the front end, and provision for those who cannot do that to pay it off when they are in a position to do so. That is a fair system. It is fair to the student, fair to the community and fair to the taxpayer. It provides an appropriate balance. While ever this government is in power, that is the system that will stay in place.1215112151Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, following your recent visit to Thailand and Singapore, would you inform the House of regional reaction to Australia's contribution to helping resolve the problem in East Timor and, in particular, Australia's participation in the INTERFET force?12151Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Hughes for her question and for her interest in the general topic not just of East Timor but also of the international force in East Timor. I have just been to Thailand and Singapore. Whilst in Singapore, I attended the World Economic Forum. I can say to the House—and I am sure that all members will be interested to know this—that there is overwhelmingly throughout our region great respect and, in some cases, admiration for what Australia has been doing in East Timor and for Australia's contribution to the international force in East Timor.While I was in Thailand I saw Thai Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai and also the Deputy Foreign Minister and the supreme commander of the Royal Thai Armed Forces. The Thai Prime Minister and others expressed to me their admiration for Australia's role in East Timor and particularly for our leadership of INTERFET. They also confirmed Thailand's absolute commitment to INTERFET and their determination to continue to contribute to the resolution of the East Timor problem. I took the opportunity to tell both the Thai Prime Minister and the Thai media more generally that in this country there is great admiration for what Thailand has done in contributing to INTERFET and for the role Thailand is playing in the deputy leadership of the international force in East Timor.While I was in Singapore I saw Prime Minister Goh. l know that members will be interested and pleased to hear that the Prime Minister of Singapore commended Australia for its courageous role in leading the international force in East Timor. He made an important point to me, and I know he will not mind me passing this on to the House and making it public—that is, he believes that Australia has earned great respect throughout the region for the role it has played in helping to resolve the problem of East Timor. I also had the opportunity to meet with the VicePresident of the Philippines. Like the Prime Minister of Singapore and Prime Minister of Thailand, she expressed her very strong support for what the United Nations, Australia and the international community are doing in East Timor.I conclude by saying that for our part we have been pleased with not only the broad international response to the East Timor issue; we have been pleased with the contribution our own region has made. The contribution of ASEAN, for example, has attracted some discussion in the media—not just in our own media but in ASEAN as whole. The truth is that ASEAN has made a very solid and important contribution to INTERFET in the resolution of the East Timor problem. The contributions of Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines—also, let me say, Malaysia—are much appreciated. I know that those contributions will continue into phase 3 of the peacekeeping operation which will replace INTERFET.So it has been very heartening to go to not only two countries in the region but an international conference in the region in Singapore and to learn of the respect and the high regard in which Australia is held for what we have been doing in East Timor.1215212152Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, when the Prime Minister said six minutes ago, `There will be no vouchers', did he also put on hold `portable scholarships representing the Commonwealth's direct subsidy for research training students', which you proposed in your research green paper? Minister, isn't your humiliation spreading from your failed cabinet submission to your green paper as well?12152Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for his question. The green paper the government has released on higher education research funding has, of course, had an excellent response in the higher education community. I find it hard to think of any significant element of that community which has not endorsed all the principles and directions of the green paper. They have recognised in the green paper a policy direction which never came from the Labor Party. The fact is that the only policy you have ever put forward in relation to higher education research was to cut higher education research funding. The Leader of the Opposition may not have realised that, because he is not on top of education as a policy area. Of course, that was shown by the member for Werriwa walking right away from him.MG4LEEMr Lee—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the question was not about the member for Werriwa or the Leader of the Opposition; it was a question as to whether there are vouchers for postgraduate research.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. The member for Dobell concluded the question with a remark about green papers, to which the minister is referring.BT4Dr KEMP—It is clear that the green paper does not contain any voucher proposal. It is well known within the higher education community that that is the case. The proposals in the green paper are designed to give Australian research the critical mass and the levels of excellence that will attract back to this country outstanding young researchers who previously found that they had to go overseas to get the kind of research environments that they wanted. The government is very proud of the proposals and directions in the green paper. We have had many responses to the green paper from the higher education community. It has been a very valuable and constructive debate, and we will be announcing our response to that debate at a later time.1215212152Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Minister, would you inform the House of the progress of INTERFET in achieving its mandate and also of the plans for transition to a United Nations' peacekeeping operation now that the Indonesian parliament has ratified the 30 August ballot of the East Timorese people?12152Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I am only too pleased to respond to the member for Bradfield and to the very many members of the House who are interested in this particular aspect of the deployment in East Timor. I am pleased to say that the INTERFET operation is going very well indeed in that area. As of today over 6,700 personnel are in East Timor, of which some 4,850 are Australian. There are troops from Brazil, France, Italy, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States on the ground in East Timor. Contingents from Canada, Ireland, Norway and Germany are now under going pre-deployment training in Australia. I am hopeful that the force will be joined by further international contributions.I am also pleased to report that INTERFET is making good progress in the achievement of its mandate. Operation Lavarack has extended INTERFET's presence to the western areas of East Timor and, despite some clashes with the militia, has gone very well indeed. Similar results have been achieved in the eastern regions by coalition forces. INTERFET has reported an increasing number of militia who are surrendering to them and to other community organisations.Perhaps the best indication of the progress that INTERFET has made in restoring peace and security to East Timor is the fact that Dili residents are continuing to demonstrate their increased sense of safety. Despite very poor infrastructure within Dili, an estimated 64,000 previously displaced people have now returned to the capital. INTERFET troops also assisted in clearing the marketplace, and the market re-established its operation on 12 October.With the ratification of the 30 August ballot by the Indonesian parliament, the eventual transition to a United Nations peacekeeping operation moves closer. I am pleased to report that the planning for this transition is well advanced. We are in close contact with the United Nations peacekeeping operations department and are hopeful that the Security Council will soon finalise the resolution for the next stage of this process. Discussions are continuing about the size and the leadership of this peacekeeping operation. The size of Australia's contribution is likely to be reduced, and the question of the leadership of the United Nations force is one to be determined by the Secretary-General. Regarding the outstanding enclave, the commander of INTERFET is conscious of the need to establish a presence there, and planning for this is in hand.Finally, can I say the success of INTERFET is testimony to the strong international cooperation that has made this possible. The government is grateful to the United Nations and to all coalition governments for their assistance and their support. I am especially proud of the role played by the men and women of the ADF, who have been and will continue to be a great credit to the nation. I would also like to particularly acknowledge the very many officials here in Canberra—especially those in the Department of Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—who have made a great effort in this deployment.1215312153Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Unlike the opposition, I cannot afford a `no no' on my lapel today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calare will come to his question.Honourable members interjecting—KL6Mr ANDREN—And I have got a conscience vote too. My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I note from the list of delegates to next week's Regional Australia Summit the absence of key groups from the Central West, such as the Central West Organisation of Councils, the Inland Marketing Corporation and Charles Sturt University's Regional Development Unit. Minister, why weren't all regional members of parliament consulted to identify potential delegates with fresh and creative ideas? Why are some individual councils represented but not others? And what guarantees can you give that, without adequate representation, the needs and suggestions of the Central West of New South Wales will indeed be canvassed at the summit?12153Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his interest in regional affairs and his commitment to it, unlike those opposite, who seek only to point score in this area and who constantly oppose every worthwhile initiative that we put up. But in relation to his question I can say this to the member: we have a limited number of places. In order to ensure that we do get quality debate and that the workshops are constructively put together and not so large and unwieldy that they cannot come up with worthwhile perspectives, the reference group determined that we had to limit numbers to something sensible—around 230 delegates from across Australia.I acknowledge that there are many people disappointed, who would have liked to have been present, but the reference committee, headed up by Ian Sinclair, determined after an extensive exercise in consultation around the place that they had a list of people who could properly represent the range of views that need to be explored and from whom ideas can be formulated and recommendations put together.But, in particular, I would like the member to note that there is a hotline, operating from yesterday, available to people from right across Australia who have constructive ideas that they would like to put forward. I am quite happy to provide him with the number, if it has not been given to his office already. I would encourage people from across rural and regional Australia to take advantage of that facility. We do want your ideas. I think that all reasonable people would understand that you cannot have an unlimited number if you want productive outcomes, but we are genuinely seeking to ensure that we do have a capacity to absorb people's views. They are, of course, always welcome to—and they so often do—write to us, fax us or seek to meet with us, as we on this side of the House freely do.1215412154Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, could you outline to the House the latest results of the Westpac Melbourne Institute index of economic activity? What are the reasons for its strength, and what does it indicate about the performance of the Australian economy?12154Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for his question and his contribution to economic debate. As he would know, the Westpac leading index was released yesterday, showing that the leading index was four percent, which was above trend, and the coincident index, showing the current state of economic activity, was 5.7 per cent in August, also above the long-term trend. That would seem to indicate, consistent with the government's forecasts, somewhat of a slowing in growth from the record 4½ per cent in the last financial year but good strong growth throughout the course of the next year as the world economy picks up and as Australia's exports pick up in price as a result of some recovery in commodity prices.Of course, the Australian economy has been the standout economy in the Asia-Pacific region during the Asian financial crisis. Yesterday, the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Dr Alan Greenspan, reiterated his praise of Australia's performance throughout that crisis. He said:Despite its close trade and financial ties to Asia, the Australian economy exhibited few signs of contagion from contiguous economies, arguably because Australia already had well-developed capital markets as well as a sturdy banking system. Going further—Dr Greenspan said—it is plausible that the dividends of financial diversity extend to more normal times as well. The existence of alternatives may well insulate all aspects of a financial system from breakdown.One of the strengths of Australia is its financial system and financial regulation. Soon after this government was elected, we commissioned Stan Wallis to do a report on the financial system, an inquiry which the government has now implemented in full in modernising our regulatory regimes. It is now providing the model for other economies in the world, such as Britain and Canada, which are using Australia as the template to follow in financial regulation.The IMF described Australia's financial sector reforms as `pathbreaking' and commended the government for its comprehensive corporate law reforms which the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation talked about recently. The IMF said:This will put Australia's prudential regime at the forefront of international practice.So here we have a picture of reform: world's best practice, the dividends that come during a financial crisis, international recognition from the US Fed and benefits being delivered to ordinary Australians. What are the benefits? Five hundred thousand new jobs in the last three years, increases in real wages, low interest rates, more young people able to buy homes than ever before, a budget back in surplus and, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs said, Australia taking a leadership role in the region and, in fact, in much of the developed world. These are the benefits of economic reform and, if we continue them, if we modernise our taxation system, we can drive those benefits even further.I again say to the parliament: this country has an opportunity with business tax reform—the first tranche coming in this afternoon—to get one of the world's best corporate tax systems, something that will do something for the nation if we can seize this opportunity.1215512155Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, do you recall advising the House yesterday that, of the 29 suspect MRI contracts investigated so far, 13 have been cleared for lack of evidence of backdating or falsifying contracts? Why was there a rush to enter into these 13 contracts in the three months leading up to the budget? Is it insider knowledge or the gift of prophecy?12155Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—It is probably neither. It is probably that it was one of the two things that I have already mentioned—backdating or non-binding contracts—but there has not been sufficient information to warrant a referral to the DPP. The other thing, though, is that it was very widely expected—people were expecting MRI to be funded. After all, Graham Richardson said in 1994 to the College of Radiologists there would be an MRI rebate, but the Labor Party never carried through with it.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Oh!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—People expect the Labor Party to break their promises, Prime Minister. We had an Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee report saying we should fund more scans. What we inherited from the Labor Party was 100,000 people a year having to pay $400 to $800 for a scan, so it was widely anticipated we were going to do something. I have not had any evidence to suggest that what we have been saying so far is anything other than utterly correct.1215512155Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, is the government aware of union warnings in our great state of Victoria to expect an industrial war and a guerrilla campaign?Opposition members interjecting—1K6Mr BILLSON—Thanks for the encouragement. What are the reasons for such threats and what effect will such a campaign have on the successful outcomes which have been achieved in workplace relations in Victoria over the last 3½ years?12155Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question. I think all Victorians today and yesterday would be very concerned about developments in the state of Victoria. The headline in the Herald Sun today tells it all.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You had better send the dogs in.WI4Mr REITH—The headline is `Steve's Party'. It is a photo of the new Bracks ministry. A number of the new ministers—four, in fact—have been sworn in before they were even sworn in as members of parliament, demonstrating the inexperience of the Bracks team. More ominously, as the headline also recounts, `But unions may spoil the fun'. That refers to the fact that the day the Bracks government was sworn in we have a mass rally of workers promising industrial warfare in Victoria, we have the CFMEU promising to take industrial action across the board—`The big war will start next year,' said Martin Kingham, who was of course one of the people responsible for putting Mr Bracks into the leadership of the Labor Party in Victoria—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—What about the lock-out at Pakenham?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane! The member for Brisbane is a persistent interjector and will exercise a little bit more self-control or I will be forced to take action.WI4Mr REITH—Like many on the front bench on the other side, they are former trade union hacks. What we see in Victoria is a Labor government basically giving a free hand to the unions to take industrial action to jeopardise thousands of jobs of ordinary Victorians, to threaten the livelihood of small business in Victoria and to threaten the economic progress that has been made in Victoria in the last seven or eight years. It is not only Martin Kingham but also militant unions who are threatening industrial action. For example, Dean Mighell from the Electrical Trades Union said, `Certainly the AFL would not want to be bouncing the ball for February just yet.' They are threatening the Melbourne Cup. We will not even be able to start the footie next year. You get a Labor government and this is the sort of industrial action you get.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—We remember when in 1991 in Melbourne there were trams lined up welded to the tram tracks under a Labor administration.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point is relevance. The minister was asked to talk about Victoria post election. He has gone back to 1991. Who is running the fear campaign now?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson did not have a valid point of order, as I am sure he was aware when he rose to his feet. The chair has attempted to allow the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business opportunity to answer his question, but he cannot expect the protection of the chair if he sets out simply to be provocative; nor can members on my left expect the chair to tolerate the level of interjection that has been going on. I ask both parties to exercise a little more respect for the decorum of the parliament.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned!WI4Mr REITH—I think Victorians have a genuine cause for concern. What is provocative is the fact that we have threats of industrial warfare in the state of Victoria. For example, in the face of threats of industrial action in the hospital system in Victoria, the new health minister, in my view, had a pretty clear obligation. You would think, fairly and squarely, he would be very concerned at the closure of beds in the Victorian hospital system. When he was asked about it, he said, `It is not for me to support or to tell them what to do in an industrial sense.'Worse still, the new industrial relations minister, instead of standing against industrial warfare, is reported to have rung up the union hierarchy prior to the rally and encouraged them to take the attitude they have taken—namely, threats of industrial action. That does not surprise us, because the industrial relations minister in Victoria is a former member of the ACTU—as we have former presidents of the ACTU sitting on the front bench—and she is a former trade union official.This is what you get when you get a Labor administration basically tied and bound to the trade union movement and unable to stand up for the national interest. Mr Bracks has said that he wants to pursue a policy of promoting good outcomes for the Victorian economy. If he is fair dinkum about that, that is an objective everybody in this place would share, but he is going to have to stand up to union militancy when it confronts him, as it has already.1215612156Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, how many members of the College of Radiologists negotiating group did not have MRIs at the beginning of the consultation process with the government but ordered them during it?12156Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I do not have that information. As health minister, I am not privy to the Health Insurance Commission's investigative process. The fact is the Health Insurance Commission has quite strong powers. It can compel people to do things, and it is not surprising that its investigation should be set up separate from the government. It is quite possible that members of the executive of the College of Radiologists made purchases, but I do not have that information.I know the honourable member has said that 14 machines were under investigation; the Health Insurance Commission advises me that is not correct. I do not know what a correct number is. One has to be very careful about making allegations like that. I am aware that the honourable member and her office are ringing around journalists and making specific allegations against individual radiologists. She wants to be very careful doing this, particularly given the accuracy of her information to date, because such action is entirely defamatory. Radiologists are not on the top of my Christmas card list at the moment, but they are entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.1215712157Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you inform the House whether the government has received submissions on its discussion paper concerning registered organisations? When will the government introduce legislation to implement its policies?12157Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for her question. We have got the discussion paper out. We are receiving submissions. I am hopeful that we will be able to complete that process and proceed with a view to having some legislation drafted by the end of the year to hopefully be able to present it to the House or at least have it out as an exposure draft. We will see as we proceed, subject to those submissions. This is quite important legislation. It is part of our reform process.For registered organisations, which include both employer bodies as well as unions, the principles of accountability and transparency in the way in which they run their enterprises, their organisations, are very important. Members, whether of an employer body or a union, are entitled to understand how their subscriptions are being utilised. This is also particularly important for the trade union movement because they have been losing members. If they are to be effective service organisations, the members will ultimately want to be satisfied that they are getting a fair deal for the moneys that they are spending.I have raised in this House in the last couple of days the revelation that the Labor Party, with the trade unions in New South Wales, have an alternate strategy for raising members, and that is to run an organising drive through the state and federal parliamentary electorate offices. This is a most unfortunate development. Taxpayers' funds are there to provide services to constituents. I do not think it is right that parliamentary electorate offices should be used as branch offices for the Transport Workers Union. The Labor Party think it is fair enough, because the TWU has given them over $750,000 and, naturally enough, the TWU has a payback in mind.I now have proof from the Internet site of the official organ of LaborNET, Workers Online, that in fact 18 MPs have signed up with the TWU to use their offices—to use their staff—as branch offices for the Transport Workers Union. This is another example of how the unions completely dominate the Labor Party. Furthermore, not only do we have 18 MPs who have already signed up to the protocol but the trade union official, Mr Sheldon, who is running this says that it will be very interesting to see who refuses to help the unions. We know what that means! This is talk with a big club—in other words, if you do not do what you are told, watch out because your preselections are under threat. This is typical of the coercive behaviour of some of these unions. I think it is incumbent on the Leader of the Opposition to require his backbench and his frontbench—those MPs who are now signing up to the TWU protocol—to make public their intentions to use their electorate offices for the purposes of the TWU. People are entitled to know that Labor MPs are more interested in looking after the membership drives of the TWU than they are in looking after the interests of their constituents.1215712157Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Why did you refuse to answer my last question when, in a written response to a Senate estimates question provided on 22 July this year, the Health Insurance Commission advised that at that date four members of the College of Radiologists' negotiating group had applied to become eligible providers for MRI machines under contracts dated between 10 February 1998 and 12 May 1998, the negotiating period with the government? Haven't you known since 22 July that four members of the negotiating group took out contracts before budget night to their significant commercial advantage? Why do you continue to pretend that you did not know?1K6BILLSONMr Billson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order: can I draw your attention to standing order 153, and also the attention of the member for Jagajaga. I suggest that there has been a pattern of questions which have breached it and that you rule this question out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I should indicate to the member for Dunkley that I was listening closely to the question because a matter had been raised a couple of days ago in which people were specifically named or identified. I did not think there was anything in the member for Jagajaga's question that would suggest she had specifically named or identified anyone or that she was particularly critical of anyone, and that this should therefore have been dealt with by way of a substantive motion. For that reason, I did not rule the question out of order while the member for Jagajaga was asking it. I believe it is a valid question and I invite the minister to respond.12158Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I think all that indicates is that I do not seek to influence the Health Insurance Commission. I was not aware that they had given that answer and, if you knew it, why have you been using the figure of 14? Why have you been deliberately spreading false information?1215812158Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would you inform the House of steps taken by the government to address IT skills shortages in our universities? What policies does the government have in place to assist universities in responding more flexibly to the demands of fast developing industries?12158Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Wentworth for his question. Australian universities now have a crucial role in helping this country take maximum advantage of the revolution which is occurring in information technology. At the moment, of course, there are other disciplines having trouble with getting their graduates jobs, but there are significant skills shortages in the information technology and telecommunications area. I think everybody recognises that this is a significant challenge for the higher education sector. It requires a high level of flexibility, making available courses and training of staff who can transmit these skills. Frequently, there is a need for these courses to be delivered in a much shorter time frame than universities are used to.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell seems to believe that he has a licence to interject while the minister has the call no matter what the minister is saying. I remind him of standing order 55 and of the admonition already given to and adhered by the member for Brisbane.BT4Dr KEMP—Since the last election, the government has committed $25 million to lectureships in science and technology to promote initiatives in these areas to ensure that universities are equipped to deliver information technology skills. I am also pleased to report that there are indications of a significant response by universities to the challenge. The information technology and telecommunications preliminary commencement data for 1999 shows substantial growth on 1998 in enrolments in specialist IT courses, rising by 26.6 per cent to 19,525 commencements.Universities themselves are increasingly recognising that flexibility in the way in which they offer courses to students in the arrangement of teaching during the year is critically important in helping this country to provide the skills that it needs. I draw attention to the three-year term pioneered by Bond University which enables students to accelerate their education and enter the work force earlier—and of course begin earning an income earlier. Courses need to be provided, at times, to suit students, many of whom are combining work and family commitments. The government's offer this week of $259 million to universities to provide the possibility of an additional two per cent pay rise to university staff if universities adopt significant flexibilities in their workplace relations will enhance the capacity of our higher education sector to meet the sorts of challenges that the IT revolution is putting upon it.Under the workplace relations legislation, I want to draw attention to the fact that the onus lies squarely on the leaderships of universities to make sure that the institutions are best positioned to meet the demands on them. This offer by the government provides the universities with a chance to have a win-win situation where staff will be better paid, universities will have more flexibilities, students will receive better services and rapidly growing industries, such as information technology, will get the skills they need when they need them.1215912159Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, doesn't the fact that four members of the college negotiating group applied to become eligible providers for MRI machines under contracts dated between 10 February 1998 and 12 May 1998—the negotiating period with the government, including you—prove that the negotiation process itself was the leak and that you did nothing to set up safeguards to prevent the misuse of inside knowledge?12159Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I would have thought that if people on the negotiating team actually ordered machines or tried to benefit they were exceedingly foolish. I have no evidence that they did, but if they did then they have had a very serious conflict of interest. But I go back to the whole point of this. This was a negotiation with a professional group. It was much bigger than MRI. Diagnostic imaging is a billion dollar a year budget. It is a budget that was seriously out of control when we came into government. In the six years before we came into government in 1996, nuclear medicine was going up at 19 per cent a year. CAT scans were going up at 16 per cent a year. The radiology budget itself was going up at 10 per cent a year.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—It is not relevant.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—It is entirely relevant because of that stupid, whining, carping voice coming from the other side of the House. You really should take more advice from your adviser. It is seriously relevant because we were trying to bring the diagnostic imaging budget under control. We were trying to bring a billion dollar a year budget under control. We could not fund MRI separately.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. This is a serious question of accountability. Four people he was negotiating with personally signed up contracts for machines, each of which would cost $1.5 million a year.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition does not need to restate the question. I am conscious of the question, and I will rule on the matter of relevance.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Fine, Mr Speaker, but on the question of relevance I would have thought that this requires a specific answer, not some general rant about policy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is well aware, having been here longer than I have, that the chair only has the power to require people answering a question to be relevant to the question. The minister's reference to imaging machines is entirely relevant to the question asked.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—It is entirely relevant because I am talking about the negotiation process, and that is what the question was about. We had to enter into a negotiation with the profession as a whole. There was no other way of funding MRI. The alternative was just to whack it on the schedule and give everybody a rebate, which is what the Labor Party did with CAT scanning in 1984 and which resulted in us having the third highest rate of CAT scanning anywhere in the world.I was not prepared to follow the incompetence of the Labor Party. I was prepared to try to do something about supply. When we in the department started the negotiation with the college on 10 February, although there had been an informal exploratory meeting in December, it was with the specific authority of cabinet. My department advises me that the people on the team were told of the seriousness of the process, but we were negotiating with a group of people who were representatives. They were expected to discuss it with their members, they were expected to give us the opinions of their members with respect to the diagnostic images as a whole, and that is a billion dollar budget.1216012160Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister inform the House of the most recent developments on the Pacific Highway and how this massive infrastructure project is benefiting the communities and industry of northern New South Wales?12160Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his question. I note in passing that he is known to many as `the member for the Pacific Highway'. I do not think anyone has done more in the time that I have been here to promote a cause than the member for Cowper has, particularly following a tragic accident some 10 years ago on a stretch of road to the north of his electorate. He was in here on his feet, day after day, week after week, promoting this extremely worthwhile project. The latest development in this is that, on Sunday next, the $130 million Bulahdelah-Coolongolook deviation opens. That is in the seat of the member for Lyne.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Say that again!4K4Mr ANDERSON—I have been challenged to say it again. I can tell you that it is quite a handful. Coolongolook—that is how you say it.Mr Slipper interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Fisher.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order because it is not in the electorate of the member for Lyne at all. It is in Paterson.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Paterson. That is not a valid point of order. The minister was asked a question about the Pacific Highway, and I ask him to respond.4K4Mr ANDERSON—This is a very significant development indeed. It is actually the largest project within the $3.2 billion program of upgrading the Pacific Highway. That is being jointly funded by the federal and state governments. It is in fact the largest government sponsored civil engineering project since the Snowy Mountains scheme.This section of the road that is now about to be opened—the Bulahdelah-Coolongolook deviation—recorded 355 crashes in the decade or so between 1988 and the middle of this decade, resulting in a tragic 32 deaths and 85 serious injuries. There is no doubt that this new section of highway will make a very real difference on a wide number of fronts. It will help in the simple reduction of fatalities. It will help in the overall objectives of reducing fatalities on the Sydney-Brisbane run by 80 per cent, it is estimated, by the year 2000 and cut an hour off the travelling time between these two great cities. There are, of course, benefits too to the economies of the regions involved all the way along the highway, and the linkages for the transport industry are greatly improved as well.So since that announcement was made by the now Treasurer at Tweed Heads just prior to the 1996 election, you have seen the government getting on with a major project that it committed itself to. That in turn is reflective of us delivering on the improving of regional infrastructure in a very substantial way in this country.1216012160Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, why did you just say that there was no other alternative to funding MRI other than the one you chose? Is it not the case that your department originally advised you that the most appropriate supply control method for MRI was to limit the proposed rebate to existing machines with relocation grants to address regional maldistribution? Why did you reject this advice? Why did you personally decide to extend the proposed rebate to new machines under contract, giving radiologists the opportunity to rort the system? Is it not the case that had you accepted the department's original advice the scan scam would never have happened?12161Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—Absolutely not. What the shadow minister says is just plain wrong, like a lot of what else she says. I have here a note from my department. I am happy to table it. I received this note last night. It says, amongst other things:The department advised the Minister in early May of a proposed detailed measure. This proposal was agreed to by the Minister.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—What about the first advice?8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—I took my department's advice.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—That was after you had done the deal.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The very constraints placed already on the members for Brisbane and Dobell apply equally of course to the member for Jagajaga.1216112161Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister advise the House of the benefits to the plantation industry in my electorate of Hume that will flow from the Visy pulp mill development in Tumut? What support is government providing to this project and what other benefits will it bring to rural and regional Australia?12161Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Hume for his question. I note his very tasteful selection of personal accessories today—his blue badge. I can read it even from here.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—This is a very important question because again I am able to point to the significant investment by the government in rural and regional development taking place right now in terms of infrastructure and jobs. The government has backed Visy Industries' plans to establish a pulp and paper mill at Tumut with a $36 million incentive package. I believe it is fair to say that without that package it is unlikely that the investment and the jobs that go with it would have happened. I think it really is a good example of a government working in partnership with business to deliver new investment and jobs to regional Australia.In fact, this involves a capital investment of $400 million. It will create more than 1,000 jobs—145 permanently at the mill, around 100 permanent jobs in forest operations and management and another 145 jobs or so in ancillary services such as haulage and maintenance. It is a major investment in local value adding to the extensive plantation timber resource in the Tumut region. The first sod is to be turned very shortly on 4 November—just a couple of days before the event to which that badge of yours refers—and the government will be very capably represented there by the member for Hume and by the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government.This in fact will be the world's first unbleached minicraft pulp and paper mill—the first greenfields fully integrated pulp and paper mill to be established in Australia in two decades. It is reflective of an emerging environment of certainty for investment, and nowhere was that more needed than in our forest industries. Yesterday I posed a challenge for the new spokesman for regional issues over there—CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Who's that?4K4Mr ANDERSON—The member for Batman. I suggested that the member for Batman ought to repudiate the previous spokesman's description of our diesel fuel reductions as a $7.8 billion boost to pollution. But I have a second challenge for him today: he can get behind the certainty for Australia's forest industry. That will be a great challenge for the ALP. They are the people who presided over a regime under which we saw our imports of everybody else's pulp and paper and timber in this country blow out to about $3 billion. There was no investment here because there was no certainty. The member for Batman can now start to evidence his credentials by working for some RFA certainty with the minister on our side of the House.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Bring back Cheryl.4K4Mr ANDERSON—No, it is a bit early to bring back Cheryl. This mill is totally based on plantation pine. It has the support of the nation's leading and environmental groups. It is a great investment by an Australian owned company operating in regional Australia with our support and our encouragement.1216212162Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given that the Minister for Health and Aged Care has caused a major fraud to be perpetrated against the Commonwealth, isn't it time for you to act on the wisdom of your own words in February 1996? I quote:I think it would be much better if we said to ministers: right you are the minister, you're running the department, you take the decisions but, you know, if you really make a hash of it, well it's a very competitive world out there and we can have a few changes.Didn't Minister Wooldridge make a hash of MRI and isn't it time to give him a change?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I recognise the members for Sturt and Parramatta, and I am happy to do so, I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to delete the preamble to his question and I will then allow the question.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Oh, I'm in favour of preambles.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Given that a reasonable person's interpretation is that the maladministration of the minister for health has produced a situation—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No. The Leader of the Opposition has been asked simply to delete the preamble to his question. The Leader of the Opposition must recognise that the chair is extending a good deal of—PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Okay, Mr Speaker. Prime Minister, do you recollect saying this:I think it would be much better if we said to ministers: right you are the minister, you're running the department, you take the decisions but, you know, if you really make a hash of it, well it's a very competitive world out there and we can have a few changes.Given that the minister for health has made a comprehensive hash of his negotiations about MRI machines and has allowed what he has described as a scam to develop under his administration, don't you agree he has made a hash of it and isn't it time to sack him?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I know that the Prime Minister is keen to answer the question, but the parliament also has rights. That question, even without the introductory preamble, is nothing more than an argument. It is nothing more than an invitation to debate. The Leader of the Opposition has made his speech. Can we please move to the next genuine question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta will resume his seat. The member for Parramatta goes perilously close to reflecting on the chair in his preamble. The member for Sturt.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—On the point of order: specifically under standing order 144 (c) and (d), the question of the Leader of the Opposition continues the pattern put by the member for Jagajaga today to have inferences and imputations in every question. The latter part of his question clearly contained inferences and imputations and, Mr Speaker, I would ask you to rule that part out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I concede that the member for Sturt makes a valid point of order. Consistent with a number of questions asked over a number of years, the question did contain imputations and inferences. I have, however, asked that the question be modified. The Leader of the Opposition, less willingly than I would have wanted, has modified the question and I allow it to stand. The Prime Minister can respond.12162Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I am grateful for your ruling because the answer is no.Miscellaneous121621216215:11:0012162Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I seek leave to move a motion that this House censures the Minister for Health and Aged Care—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will recognise the Leader of the Opposition, but he will resume his seat, because precisely the same rules that apply to members of the opposition apply to members of the government. The Leader of the Opposition is entirely in order and allowed to be heard in silence. I would expect the same courtesy to be extended to him as I expect to be extended to any other member of the House. I call the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move that this House censures the Minister for Health and Aged Care.WI4REITHMr Reith—In a most reasonable way, we give leave—again.Leave granted.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I move:That this House censures the Minister for Health and Aged Care for:(1) overturning departmental advice that the most appropriate supply control method for MRI was to limit the proposed rebate to existing machines, with relocation grants to address regional maldistribution;(2) in overturning such advice, creating the environment for the MRI Scan Scam, and the resultant risk to the Commonwealth Budget;(3) negotiating with a major medical professional lobby without putting in place prudent and effective safeguards against the misuse of inside Budget knowledge and fraud against the Commonwealth Budget;(4) when provided with evidence of the MRI Scan Scam, obfuscating proper investigations and delaying remedial action over at least an eight month period;(5) attempting to narrow the scope of the Auditor-General's inquiry, once he belatedly and grudgingly commissioned one; and(6) misleading the Parliament on the issue of evidence of the misuse of inside Budget knowledge.It really is quite an extraordinary thing that we discover here today that this minister has apparently been unaware of, and certainly reluctant to answer in this chamber, what has been established as a fact by the reporting of his own department, or at least the Health Insurance Commission, to this parliament about a preliminary finding that they made of those who negotiated with him personally in what has subsequently become known as the scan scam. We understand that there were something like 11 persons on that negotiating team. Four of those persons, according to the HIC, signed contracts for machines—we can assume at least four machines; it may be more, because there are multiple purchases engaged in this scam, but at least four machines—during negotiations with him and through to a conclusion. When he sat down with these same persons, after a conclusion had been reached, he swore them to secrecy about something he will not tell this place.We can only make the assumption that the minister swore them to secrecy because it is all there in logic about precisely the determination of a government that would produce a benefit for them in signing on the dotted line, to the tune of $3 million each for these machines, for the benefit of $1½ million per annum of taxpayers' funds associated with them. We have had an extraordinary admission here today by the minister that he had not bothered to go back through this information in all the eight months of questioning we have been delivering to him. When you have a piece of information like that, even if you did not assume it beforehand, as a minister alarm bells would ring. You would instantly send into the bureaucracy a full-blown investigation with major capacities to call witnesses to deal with the problem. You would also want to question your own processes which had produced that. He chose to do none of those things. Instead, he chose to let it rip until he was finally hauled in by his department.The minister has defended himself here today with the oldest ministerial trick in the book—the instant piece of advice discovered from the department last night to tell the minister that what he was doing was entirely in accord with departmental advice. It is not confessing too much to let people know that this is not something that many who have served the Commonwealth over the years will not from time to time have experienced themselves.But understand this: that last piece of advice came at the very end of the process. Yesterday we tabled minutes from the College of Radiologists—minutes that predated that last piece of departmental advice. What the minister is talking about is advice he said he received for that final meeting in which he held a discussion with the radiologists. Think back: those minutes were saying, `This is an election year and the government have indicated to us that they're prepared to be very generous.' Very generous with what? `Very generous with the taxpayers' funds for us little selves, we poverty stricken few.'The point about all that, Minister, is that you or your officers or your staff have sat down for weeks and weeks and weeks with the college. You have gone into intimate detail with the college and, as each stage progressed as you junked your department's sensible advice, more and more confident did the college become that here was an opportunity. It was an opportunity for them that does not often arise which made them think: `Mugs are perambulating past us and the mugs happen to carry a sworn document that makes them members of the federal Executive Council. So there's a real chance the mug may deliver with the taxpayers' funds on this particular occasion. So let's put in the orders.'You have to understand this: even for very wealthy people, a $3 million order is not something to be sneezed at. It is not something you just pass across your desk and not worry about too much. When you are going to make a $3 million order or multiple $3 million orders—and some of these folk have bought two or three machines, or four machines in one particular instance, making up a substantial number of contracts and investing $3 million, $6 million, $9 million or $12 million—do you know what you are doing? You are betting on a certainty. Nobody puts $12 million down on a punt. They only put it down when they have got the inside running.They have rung the trainer. They have rung the bloke with the horse needle. They have rung the bloke with the elephant juice and they have been told, `Yes, it's in. The elephant juice is in the minister and he's running and nobody else is going to be in this race. It is the minister and no-one else who's going to haul you across the line but he is going to do it. You have a cert, my friend.' So $12 million to make $6 million a year is not a bet; it is prudence. Any shareholders or any partners in your practice can praise you for a prudent investment. You can guarantee there will be no legal action against you. You have coverage.Let us understand this about that pathetic little effort by the minister to say, `I had the paper at the end from the department recommending to me exactly what I ultimately did.' Departments are like that, Minister. In the end, departments do protect ministers, even mugs. That is a natural disposition in the great Public Service of this nation in order to keep government rolling along with minimal revolutionary disruption. It is one of the little services they perform for fools. But in this particular instance, it is a service they performed that allowed the public purse to be looted by those with insider knowledge. When you go back to what the department originally recommended, based on sensible, prudent technological advice, they said this: `It may not be a bad idea to allow a situation to develop where these otherwise expensive services are made more readily available to the general public by including them within the Medicare rebate scheme. It might not be a bad idea.'But if you insist on doing that, Minister, basic prudence would indicate to you—accept that there are enough machines in this country now; twice the number of machines 12 months on and enough machines in the country built up over a period of 10 years to do the job—that you should look to where there are areas of need, discern that there are some regional disparities and seek to shift machines from where there is a glut into those areas of regional disparity on the basis of an offer that you will put in place a rebate scheme.Understand this: everybody in the profession knows that when the rebates are in, so is the dough. Everybody in the profession knows that a sensible course of action is to follow the rebate because that is where you place yourself in a situation of need and you are likely to find quite heavy use of your services. This is called a bargaining chip.And, Minister, when you sit down with the College of Radiologists and the fussing, grizzling and moaning at the bar starts, `No, I don't want to shift my ninth machine out of Ryde and into Mount Druitt. I won't do that. I don't want to do that,' you should then say, `Old son, if you don't, you don't get a rebate on any of your machines.' That is what you say to them. This is how you do a negotiation when you are a competent minister and you are dealing with public funds.You should say, `If you do not shift that machine, you will not get a rebate because we intend to provide rebates in a number of areas around this country. Only X number of machines will get the rebate and, if there are more than that number of machines there and you have found yourself over quota, so to speak, for your area, you are not going to get a rebate, and guess how many people are going to use your services—somewhere between Buckley's and none.' I think it is necessary to go through this so we can understand the total dopeyness of this particular performance—the absolutely pathetic negotiation that has been going on that has ultimately produced this scam.But it is an election year, as the College of Radiologists say, and they see him coming. Those various individual members of the College of Radiologists see the opportunity to turn up at the fundraising dinners. There they see the opportunity to get a few extra votes out of an extension of the rebate, and they say, `Let's now see how we can turn the wick up on this particular minister.' Even if you were going to follow your department's advice, which was to be quite tough in negotiation, fundamental basic prudence would have been to demand from your interlocutors a statement of interest.When you sat down and dealt with them, you should have asked, `You are now discussing with me something which could perceivably produce for you $1½ million a year. Are you a person who is going to exploit the result of the conversations I have with you? Are you going to purchase one of these things? Because, if you are, you have an obligation to exit this room now because there are others who are prepared to do the negotia tions who are not in such a situation.' We are not dealing here with people who are compulsorily thrust before the minister. We are dealing here with volunteers, and not with a shortage of volunteers either. There were quite a substantial number of people who were prepared to negotiate with the minister on this matter.There were—it is very difficult, I admit—serious opportunities for Chinese walls here but none were erected. No effort was made to be prudent with regard to any of this. Since then, as the minister has discovered the horror which has gradually unfolded and percolated beneath him, he has gone into denial. He has sought to extract himself from the inconvenience of the evidence last May from the HIC that not after, not backdated but between the relevant weeks of negotiation—the dates that bookended the relevant weeks of negotiation—there were people acquiring machines.It may well be the case that there is a bunch of rip-off artists out there post the date who are committing acts of fraud, but it is fundamentally unbelievable that a 100 per cent increase in the number of machines over a four- or five-month period is entirely a product of fraud. There is a likelihood of fraud, but there is also a very high likelihood, and we see a certainty on the basis of evidence presented by the HIC to the relevant Senate estimates committee, that it is not here an act of fraud in the way of which it is described by the minister but a conflict of interest. A person from the College of Radiologists, who finds himself the subject now of an investigation by the Auditor-General or the HIC, as a result of this conflict of interest will be able to say, `The minister never required of us a declaration of interest and never sought from us an obligation to exclude ourselves from the negotiating process.'That will be their defence, and it will not be a bad one. But it is one they should never have had. If they had a competent minister, they would not have it. If they had a competent minister, they would have heard a requirement upon them that they exclude themselves—they might even have had a piece of paper before them requiring a statutory decla ration, given there is so much seriousness here.Minister, if they had signed a statutory declaration beforehand and they had no conflict of interest, or would not seek one, you would be cooking with gas in your HIC investigation. It would not matter what particular preclusions were put on it after the budget if they had done it before the budget when they were negotiating with you. Having signed a statutory declaration, which you or your department ought to have required of them, they would be in serious trouble. The simple fact is that the post-budget frauds may be in trouble, but the people who benefited from your laxity may well not be in the processes that we are dealing with here, and they ought to be because the taxpayer has been thunderingly ripped off. The taxpayers were ripped off in the first case by a bad and wrong decision of yours and ripped off in the second case by no prudence in administration.Then we come to the inquiries on all of this. Dealing with this minister over the last eight months has been like bathing a dog. He races down to the bottom of the garden and you race down after him. You get the collar off him, head him towards the tub and he is off back down there again, digging like blazes to get out under the fence. Trying to get something out of this minister has been like trying to get shampoo on the pooch—you will never wholly succeed. For most of the last eight months until the last two weeks, I must confess that we have completely failed to bath this dog, but we are bathing him now, well and truly, joining in with the public's scorn and derision of this minister as he tries to put himself at arms length.The minister was talking about section 20 type Auditor-General inquiries right up until last night, and then we discovered that it was going to be section 18 where there is a bit of compulsion. But it was all like this: `If the College of Radiologists do not get before the Auditor-General, we will take a feather duster to them, don't you worry about that. We will deal with them when that happens. Well, maybe they are not obliged or compelled to present evidence, as they would not be under a section 20 inquiry, but we will take very seriously, 12 months or 18 months from now, what they have failed to do.' Admittedly, courtesy of the previous Labor government, a section 18 audit is a bit more serious. Given the performance of this government, we still believe that a royal commission is necessary.In this reply, we want to hear from this minister that he intends to fully comply with this section 18 audit, that he is going to present evidence himself, that he is going to ensure that all his departmental people and all his staff present evidence, that he is going to ensure that they tell the truth about the meeting at which he swore the College of Radiologists to secrecy and about what their departmental view was of a prudent policy, ensure that they tell the truth of the extent to which the minister influenced their final recommendation to him, which he now waves around as his last fig leaf of defence, and tell the truth about how they came to offer that advice and whether or not there was any pressure from the minister's office to overturn their decision, to offer alternative advice, on this matter.Minister, are you going to guarantee us that they are going to tell the truth on all these things? Minister, if they tell the truth on all these things, there is no way that your maladministration can escape the utter condemnation of this parliament. If the Prime Minister has any guts at all about this, there is no way that you can escape the requirement upon the Prime Minister, given what he undertook to the Australian people, that when you make a hash of something, they will hash you right out the door.As we extract every single piece of evidence, we can see that you have made a monumental hash of this, Minister. This is a government now in diabolical trouble. This is a government where for every big area of public expenditure—be it in the area of education or defence or family services or health—we are seeing policy failure after policy failure. They have covered themselves by putting a GST in place—and I can tell you that while we do not talk about that much in here, they are screaming about it out there—to cover these failures. But that has all gone now, and these failures are now exposed. Minister, you are deserving of censure be cause of your dereliction of basic requirements upon you as a public administrator of public funds and your continuing, wilful ignorance of the consequences of your own actions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:31:0012167Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The only thing I was bathed with there was a wet lettuce! If that is the best the opposition can do, I have nothing to be concerned about. Let us be quite clear about what has happened here; let us have a look at the way the Labor Party chose to administer diagnostics and imaging in health. The Labor Party had a complete free-for-all. The Labor Party made no attempt to put restrictions or constraints on diagnostic imaging.CAT scanning was introduced into Australia in 1984. The way the Labor Party introduced CAT scanning was just to whack a rebate on the Medicare benefits schedule. In the early years, we saw CAT scanning increase at a rate of up to 38 per cent per year. We ended up with 25 CAT scanners per million of the population, which rates us the third highest in the world for CAT scanners. In the six years before we came into government, CAT scanning was going up at 16 per cent each and every year. So the Labor Party's attitude to new technology was to have no constraints. If you have no constraints, you can have no problem. They did not care what happened to the public purse when it came to diagnostics and technology.In every area of high technology, growth was completely out of control. In the six years before 1996, nuclear medicine, or imaging, was going up at 19 per cent per annum. Pathology went up by up to 18 per cent a year. In six out of the 10 years before 1996, it went up over 10 per cent per year. The Labor Party made no attempt to get any sort of order into imaging. When we introduced MRI scanning, we could have done what the Labor Party did and just put a rebate on Medicare. We could have attempted to have no controls or limits over the machines, but we decided not to do that. We decided instead to try to constrain growth and hence put some controls over the long-term use of this technology so that we would not end up with the same problem that we had with CAT scanning, because of the way Labor had introduced this technology.Those constraints in MRI have meant that up to now we are pretty much on budget. We budgeted for 408,000 scans over three years; we think we will make that. We budgeted on a bit over $60 million this year on MRI; we think we will make that. So, far from being a great blow-out in the number of scans and in the cost of MRI, there has been neither, yet. There has been a blow-out in the number of machines. Had we not acted as swiftly as we did that would have fed through to costs but, as I will recount to the House, the actions we have taken so far have contained any blow-out, in a way that never happened with what the Labor Party did when they were in government.I am accused here of trying to control costs. Had I been a Labor minister, I could not have been accused of trying to control costs because there was no attempt to properly control costs. The first accusation against me is that I overturned departmental advice. I said in this House on 11 February and again yesterday, and I tabled a note from my department that they gave me last night, that the department put to me for the first time in early May that there was a problem. I asked what their solution was and they gave me a range of options. I asked them what the preferred option was and I took their preferred option. That has been reinforced by my department. The Leader of the Opposition has made wild, unsubstantiated allegations. He has not provided any evidence whatsoever, because there is no evidence. I am not an expert in the technical aspects of this; I had to take the department's advice and I did.The Leader of the Opposition talks about the negotiation process. The negotiation was always a difficult one; although I must say we did have some experience with the profession of pathology, where we have had two negotiations—in 1996 and in 1999. They have been successful negotiations. Again, if we compare a nine per cent growth in pathology for 10 years under Labor we have not had one year in the last four years in pathology where the growth has been over six per cent. We have done that through our negotiations with the College of Pathologists and the Australian Association of Pathology Providers. This was the only experience we had because this is a very new thing, something this government introduced in attempting to negotiate price and volume arrangements.Negotiations went on from 10 February to 23 April, and my department carried them out. I have no doubt they were carried out properly. That is what I have asked the Auditor-General to look into, and I am confident that the department will have behaved absolutely properly in these negotiations. But we were always negotiating with them as a representative group. We were not just negotiating about MRI but about a whole range of imaging. The imaging budget this year is $1,061,000,000. MRI is about $66 million of that, so it was a small part of the overall negotiation.We could never have got the cooperation of the College of Radiologists unless we had gone through that negotiation process. The department assures me that, at the beginning of the negotiation, it did stress to them the seriousness and the potential for conflict of interest. I have no doubt that that happened properly. It may be that some people in the college who are not used to negotiating in a circumstance like this have taken advantage of that confidential information. If they have done that, they are fools. If they have done that, they will be roundly condemned by their colleagues. If they have done anything illegal, they will be found out by the most thorough of Health Insurance Commission investigations. The consequences for a medical professional who breaches the law are very serious indeed, because of the regulations governing various medical boards around the country.I am as appalled as anyone at the way some radiologists have behaved. It is the most extraordinarily cavalier action. Had we not taken the action we took, we would have found that we were in the same sort of situation as the Labor Party had been in with CAT scanning when they chose to do nothing about it. The actions we have taken have been successful, and that is shown by the fact that costs are still pretty much in line with what was predicted. Of the machines that have been knocked out of billing Medicare, half of them were not yet billing but were due to come on stream, and so we got them before they came on stream. The other ones have been billing for variable periods of time.These scans are not something that is discretionary. We are talking about the top of the food chain, if you like, when it comes to imaging—the most advanced form of imaging we have for serious back disease, serious joint disease and cancers, particularly of the brain. Had these machines not been here, people would have gone and had the imaging done on other machines. So we are very confident that we can actually keep the costs under control. We are confident that, for the first time in this country, we can have the introduction of a major new medical technology without the extraordinary blow-out of costs we have seen in the past.It has been rocky and it has been difficult. Clearly, there are many in the profession of radiology who are prepared to be very cavalier when it comes to taxpayers' money. But the processes we have put in place have caught them out. The fact that we required statutory declarations in August 1998 has caught them out. The fact that the Health Insurance Commission has been so thorough in its investigation has caught them out.The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that I somehow hindered proper investigation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the investigation started as a result of a regulation put through the parliament in August 1998. That regulation was in force about 10 days after I was first informed that there was a problem. The regulation required the signing of statutory declarations, and it is those statutory declarations that then prompted the investigation of each and every case by the Health Insurance Commission. So in fact we put the proper investigation in place in the first place.Again, as soon as I was advised that there were still machines outstanding as late as September 1999, I acted immediately to regulate that all machines had to have an application with the Health Insurance Commission by 11 October. It was that action that brought a further 13 machines out of the aether for people claiming to have had orders dated before the 1998 budget. That is completely untenable. No-one could be expected to believe that 13 radiologists had all of a sudden worked out that they had spent $3 million 16 months ago but had forgotten to tell anybody about it. Again, as soon as I received the information on that informally on Thursday last week, I acted on legal advice and brought in a regulation that has taken those machines out of action.I have not attempted to influence the Health Insurance Commission's investigation except for one thing. Some months ago I told the commission I thought it was being extraordinarily slow, and it increased the resources as a result of that. Again in recent days I have told the commission that I want the investigation completed as quickly as possible. But I will not compromise one thing: I am not prepared to have an investigation rushed so that we risk having unsuccessful prosecutions because the work is not done thoroughly.If there is any single radiologist out there who has acted improperly, the Health Insurance Commission is going to catch them, and we are going to refer it to the Director of Public Prosecutions. So, far from hindering any investigation, I have done completely the opposite. I have done what is proper for a minister and have allowed the Health Insurance Commission a completely free rein. The only interventions I have made have been to increase resources for the Health Insurance Commission.The opposition claims that I have somehow tried to narrow the scope of the Auditor-General's inquiry. This is complete rubbish. I wrote to the Auditor-General on Monday and did not specify any section of the act under which the Auditor-General should investigate. He is of course completely free to choose whichever section of the act he wishes. When he confirmed back to me my letter at lunchtime yesterday, he did not inform me which specific section he would be inquiring under. I did not request a specific section of him, nor did he, in his letter of reply at lunchtime yesterday, tell me which section of the act it would be under.Yesterday in the House I said `section 20 of the act'. But if you check the Hansard, I qualified that by saying `I understand'. The reason for my having said that is that I was informed that section 20 actually gave him the broadest powers. But as I said in parliament on Tuesday, I am not an expert on the Audit Act. I left it entirely up to him; that is his choice. I have no doubt that what he has done is proper and will provide the best investigation.Finally, the allegations from the opposition are that I am somehow misleading the parliament on misuse of inside budget knowledge. I am appalled by what some in the radiology profession have done. But we should remember two things: the majority of radiologists are decent and honourable people and should not be tarred with the same brush as a significant minority of their profession; and people are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.The fact is that we have shown widespread backdating of contracts; we have shown widespread passing off the contracts as being binding when they are not binding; and there has been no evidence at all of inside knowledge of the supply measure which, after all, was the market sensitive information. It was widely known, widely speculated, widely anticipated that we were going to introduce MRI. I was open about the fact that I wanted to introduce it. The market sensitive piece of information was that we would require binding contracts by budget night. I do not believe that piece of information got out. Absolutely no evidence has yet been provided that it got out. I think what we have explained gives a complete account.15:46:0012169Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—This opportunity for fraud by `cowboys', as the minister calls them, was created by this minister. The words he has just used in this censure motion hang him, and hang him again. The words he has just used were that `of course this was widely known'—this opportunity for people to take advantage of a budget decision was widely known. It certain ly was widely known, Minister—and radiologists, as a result of your ministerial incompetence, have driven a truck through it.Let us just go right back to the start of this. The advice that the Minister for Health and Aged Care provided and tabled today as coming from the department was not the original advice by the department; it was not the original advice provided by the Australian Health Technology Advisory Council, the independent technical authority.I read now from the `Proposal for the expansion of funding for magnetic resonance imaging services in Australia' dated 15 May 1998 from the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists. Under the heading `Managing Supply' it states:While the RTAC report recognised the need for an expansion of publicly funded MRI services, RTAC also concluded that there is currently—`currently'—this is back in December 1997—an excess capacity in Australia, albeit with some geographic maldistribution of units.That was the original advice of which this minister took no notice. It was the ignoring of this original advice that caused this complete policy failure and opened up the opportunity for a massive fraud on the Commonwealth. Why was this original advice ignored? Because the radiologists did not like it. They did not want the MRI rebates to be restricted to those MRIs that currently exist. That was not their idea of what would be a good extension of Medicare funding. They wanted many more machines to be brought on, even though there was no evidence whatsoever that any of those machines were necessary.I say again: these problems have been caused by this minister's failure to follow the appropriate advice that was provided to him way back in December 1997. If the minister had followed that advice, we would not be in this huge mess, this scam would never have existed and none of the problems we are now debating would have taken place—absolutely none of them.Then there is the risk and cost to the budget. The minister likes to suggest that no risk or cost to the budget has been created. He seems to have forgotten that earlier this week, I think it was, he came into the House of Representatives and presented evidence from the Health Insurance Commission to say that there were now 111 MRI machines in Australia. That is a doubling of, a 100 per cent increase on, what RTAC said was necessary. That is a major risk to the budget that has been created by this minister due to his own policy incompetence. Rather than worry about what the risk was to the federal budget, he wanted to make sure that the radiologists were kept happy.In answer to the Leader of the Opposition's opening of today's censure motion, this minister stated that he has acted swiftly to get things under control. He has acted so swiftly to get things under control that we have ended up with a 100 per cent increase in MRI machines. He has acted so swiftly that we now have a major fraud being perpetrated on the Commonwealth.He has not acted swiftly. In fact, what can be found through document after document is all the evidence of his incapacity to act, his slowness to act, even though he had been provided with advice. Very interestingly, this document—it has been in the public arena for some time—obviously had not been drawn to the minister's attention. That is a generous interpretation. Another interpretation is that this is a smoking gun; it shows that people knew and took advantage of information. This document was presented to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee by the Department of Health and Aged Care; it was not presented directly from the Health Insurance Commission.But the minister has presented us with the idea that, `Oh well, I don't know everything that the Health Insurance Commission says. That's not for me. I mustn't get involved; that would be inappropriate.' Minister, this went through your department. My recollection of the way these things work is that usually a minister's office would see each thing before it would go into the Hansard.This document has been on the record since 22 July of this year. What was the answer to the question from Senator West, exactly the same question that I asked the minister today? She asked:How many members of the RANZCR negotiating group did not have MRIs at the beginning of the consultation process but ordered them during it?The answer was:. . . the HIC has advised that four members of the RANZCR negotiating group (which includes the RANZCR negotiators as well as the additional attendees referred to in Question 35)—a few more radiologists, that means, were in on the deal—have applied to become an eligible provider on at least one MRI machine—so four of them have at least one each—where documentation—this is a critical issue—relating to this machine (this documentation being a signed contract, quotation given, or offer to purchase) was dated between 10 February 1998 and 12 May 1998—the critical dates, the dates during which the department and the minister were negotiating the extension of Medicare rebates to MRI machines. Remember that the college had made it clear during their negotiations with the department that they did not like the department's original suggestion. They did not like AHTAC's suggestion that Medicare rebates be restricted to those machines currently in operation in both the public sector and the private sector, that that would have been enough to meet demand in Australia. They did not like that. They wanted things changed. They made it clear to the department that they wanted the extension of Medicare rebates to be made available to a lot more MRI machines and, of course, a few people went out and made some strategic investments.We have four here, back in July. Remember when the opposition was talking about this? Even up until the end of last week, we thought there were only an extra 31 machines. We thought that was all there were. That is all we have been able to find as a result of an investigation. The minister comes in here and says, `Oh, no. It is not 31—you are very stupid, you lot on the opposition benches—it is 111 machines.' So we certainly do want to know how many of the negotiating team now have MRI machines, how many of them now have signed contracts, quotations given, offers to purchase, dated between 10 February and 12 May. And how many of them have already been cleared of backdating? How many times have we asked this question? We keep asking this minister the question about whether or not the 13 that have been cleared by the Health Insurance Commission fit into this category.Of course, the minister does not want to answer that question, because this is where he is ultimately exposed. He is exposed on two counts: one is policy incompetence, because he failed to take the advice—the original advice, not the advice of 5 May, after the deal had been done; that was far too late. We know that the deal had been done and the department was doing the right thing by the minister, stitching up a deal. We want to look at the advice that was given early in the piece in December 1997, when the Australian Health Technology Advisory Council said there were enough machines. This minister ignored that advice and, as a result of that policy incompetence, we now have this fraud that has been perpetrated on the Commonwealth. That is the first reason why this minister must go.The second reason—just as important—is, of course, the nature of the negotiations. We have heard the minister say how difficult it was, how hard it was, to keep these things secret. He had to talk to people who had MRI machines; that was the only way that it could be conducted. Nobody was asked for pecuniary interest declarations or asked to leave the room if they thought they might take advantage of the information that was debated in the negotiations; what the department finally provided the minister with on 5 May was a negotiated settlement that the radiologists themselves all knew about. So is it any surprise whatsoever that those radiologists who were in the negotiating group and the ones that they had talked to—let us not limit it to the people in the negotiating group; as the college itself makes clear, there was a necessity for them to talk to other radiologists—5K6ELLISMs Ellis—The minister said that too.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—That is exactly right. It was `widely known'—is that the term he used?—that he was going to go out and fund MRIs. As a result of that being widely known, as a result of this minister's being completely incompetent in making sure that this information was tightly kept, radiologists did go out and take advantage of that information. The minister keeps asking for evidence.WI4REITHMr Reith—That's the bit you have trouble with; isn't it?PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—All he needs to do is look at the evidence provided by the Health Insurance Commission.WI4REITHMr Reith—That's your problem.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—I will just go back to it again, because the Leader of the House does not seem to have heard.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The House will come to order! The member for Jagajaga—Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Bruce is out of his seat. The Leader of the House, this has been a very civilised debate, and it will continue that way.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—The Leader of the House seems to have missed the point. The Health Insurance Commission advised back in July—some months ago—that there were four people involved in the negotiating team who had gone out and placed orders during the negotiating period. That is the evidence. The evidence is that they took advantage of information they had. They took advantage of the Commonwealth budget. They took advantage of the taxpayer, and they hoped to benefit.The minister says, `That's terrible that they've done that. That's terrible.' It is a terrible thing. It is shocking. But why was it that they were allowed to do it? They were allowed to do it because of the nature of the negotiations that this minister allowed to be undertaken. That is why it happened and that is why this minister has to go. He has to go because of his policy incompetence, because of the nature of the negotiations and because he exposed the Commonwealth budget to a major fraud risk.The greatest problem of all is that these people cannot be caught because of the way the minister went about his job. If these people got properly signed-up contracts before the budget, if it all has been done properly and they did not have to sign pecuniary interest forms and they did not have to declare any interest, what are you going to get them on? These are not backdated contracts, they are not shonky contracts, they are not `nudge, nudge, wink, wink' contracts; they are serious contracts that were signed. They were signed because these people had information that this minister allowed to get out because of his inability to set up a negotiation process that was tight enough to make sure that this fraud was not perpetrated on the Commonwealth. That is why this minister must go. We need a royal commission to make sure we finally get to the bottom of this mess, this mess that has appropriately been called the `scan scam'. It is a scan scam, using the minister's own words. It is a scam of massive proportions that will cost him his job. (Time expired)16:01:0012172Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The government, of course, rejects this unsubstantiated, shallow censure motion against the Minister for Health and Aged Care, who is a very good minister. In fact, he is one of the best ministers for health that Australia has had. This is a classic case of an opposition with no policy of their own adopting a tactic of throwing as much mud as they possibly can hoping that some will stick. As I will demonstrate in a moment, the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga, is fast and loose with the truth when it comes to the allegations she has made. She has made more allegations than most of us have had hot Sunday dinners. In each and every case, in a most particular and meticulous way, each and every one of those allegations has been roundly refuted, backed up by evidence by the minister to demonstrate the shallowness of the claims that she has been making.She is pressing the minister not because he has done anything wrong but simply to try to score a few political points for an opposition that has major structural problems. They have got a weak leader without any ticker. They have got no policies and they are basically being pushed around by the trade union movement. I have been in opposition; I know what it is like. When you have no policies, when you have problems with the leadership, what do you do? Attack the government. These people will leave no stone unturned in making completely baseless allegations without any evidence to back up what they are saying.Yes, there does seem to be a problem with the radiologists, but that is not the basis for attacking the minister. The minister has acted sensibly, he has acted on advice, and where people have done the wrong thing they will be brought to account. As the minister has already advised the House, a number of the facts surrounding various of these claims have already been or are in the process of being referred to the proper authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions, which is an independent body. If there is some activity which is in breach of federal law, then those people concerned will be dealt with in accordance with the law. That is how matters ought to be dealt with. That is the way in which they are being dealt with by this minister. Rather than making him the subject of criticism, the opposition, if they were being fair and objective about it, should congratulate the minister for dealing with the issue in an expeditious way.I say the shadow minister is a pattern offender when it comes to being fast and loose with the truth. I will give you some examples, some more significant than others.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order under section 76 of the standing orders, which says:All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.This is not a censure motion against the member for Jagajaga. This minister should be restricted in the language that he is using against the member for Jagajaga.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has been here for longer than most people and he is aware of what is parliamentary and unparliamentary language. If he were to suggest improper motives in the manner that is normally considered unparliamentary, I would have drawn his attention to the matter. The Leader of the House has been in order.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Just to give one example to start with, the shadow minister has been claiming today that the minister has not acted on advice. In fact, all through this episode he has acted on advice. After I have read it, I will table the latest advice from the secretary to his department, the Department of Health and Aged Care. This is what the document, dated today, says:You asked whether the Department provided advice on restricting eligibility for MRI machines for MBS purposes which you had not accepted.I have not been able to find any evidence of your rejecting our advice in this area.The Officers most involved assure me they never advised that you should limit eligibility to machines then operating in the country.A detailed advice on this matter was provided to you on 5/5/1998. We recommended going beyond the machines actually in operation as we were aware that there might be bona fide orders for machines that would face unfair competition if denied access.Our advice on 5 May and over the following days and weeks concentrated on how to allow bona fide orders but not allow non-binding contracts. Our advice [to] you was based on legal advice to us.A S PODGERSecretary21.10.99I table that document.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—When are you going to table it?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I will table it in a minute. I must say, Mr Speaker, the onus is on the shadow minister to stand in this place by the end of today and apologise for again misleading the House in misrepresenting the facts of this matter. That is a statement which I am entitled to make under the standing orders, before I get a response.That is a complete response to one of the principal allegations you have made today. It is in writing, it is from the department—and you sit there stupidly shaking your head and saying, `Oh no, it's not right.' Like a lot of things you say, they are not right and, quite frankly, if you are to have any credibility in this place in the end, you cannot go on making unsubstantiated claims. When the evidence is presented to you, you just sit there and say, `Oh no, I've got another piece of paper.' Don't you understand? This is a complete answer to the absolutely baseless and silly allegation that you make. You made three allegations a couple of days ago. One was that the minister had been involved in other meetings. This was a completely baseless allegation.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—We'll see.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—We will see! Why don't you put up or shut up? It is as simple as that. You are full of baseless allegations. If you have evidence, then you have an obligation to bring your claims into this place and to substantiate them. Do not go running out there with your misleading claims, half-truths and untruths about a person who is one of Australia's best ever health ministers. And don't expect that we will sit mute and put up with this nonsense.For example, you make this claim about the meeting. What does the minister do? I have not seen a minister more quick and more keen to table absolutely every last document there is on this. He produces his whole diary, and what is your reaction? `I don't want to know the evidence,' is your reaction. Then what do you do? Then you make a claim that a couple of people have been organising functions for the minister. This is a snide claim. This is the use of cowards castle—attacking people who are not in a position to respond. Making it worse, you make claims which are unsubstantiated and, as we check them, we find they are entirely false. They are quite wrong by any fair measure.I do not think I know any of these people personally. Dr Best was described as a radiologist. Apparently he is not a radiologist. Let us just get our facts straight. This is an attack on radiologists that you are mounting. He is supposed to have organised some function. He never organised a function. Another one of your claims was about another gentleman in the medical profession, Dr Meikle. He was also said to have organised a fundraising function. That is not true. He has been a radiologist; he is now a retired radiologist. He may be involved in some continuing way on a commercial basis, but this is a person who retired from radiology a couple of years back.Dr Meikle was certainly not an organiser. He might have been to a couple of functions. There are plenty of trade union leaders who have been to Labor Party functions. These are only two small matters, in a sense, but typical of the baseless, snide allegations you have been making when trying to tear down people's reputations without bothering to get yourself the facts. From a political point of view, when you make claims that you cannot substantiate, it undermines the credibility of everything else you say. And I think you deserve that outcome. Also, if you really had something, you would have been running on this yesterday. You have run on this today only because you have nothing else and because you have run out of steam.I am not a medico, I do not have the expertise of our minister for health, but I will put this thing in a broader context from an ordinary person's point of view. This whole so-called controversy, this storm in a tea cup, about the minister has come up as a result of changes in technology in the medical profession. The medical profession has devised an MRI scheme which it uses for diagnostic purposes. When we came into office, there was no financial support for somebody who needed to have an MRI. So this minister, because he has been keen to improve the operation of Australia's health system, was of the view that we ought to provide financial support for people who need to have an MRI.I would have thought everybody in the country would support that. If you have cancer or one of the other serious illnesses that people have, you have a need to use an MRI. The cost of that has been, prior to us getting into office, somewhere between $400 and $800. This was not a new issue. In fact, an advisory committee said that there were very long waiting lists for people to have an MRI and that, furthermore, we needed to have a better use of MRIs and to have better availability of them.I want to pay tribute to this minister because one of the things he has done is to make these machines available in rural and regional Australia. If you are in rural and regional Australia, have a serious illness and need an MRI, in many parts of Australia today you have quick and easy access to an MRI because Michael Wooldridge is the health minister. When Labor was in, that would have cost you between $400 and $800. Today, it costs you $51. That means that now not only do we not have the long waiting list but also it is affordable for people who need quality health care. The minister has put this system in place, and the waiting period has dropped from three months to three weeks, and that is a benefit.Whenever we debate this issue about MRIs, we should not forget the basic proposition that there are 100,000 people out in Australia today who are better off as a result of what this minister has done. Did the minister act on advice? He did. All through this whole process, he has acted on advice, and he has tabled the documentation which supports that. This shadow minister has made one allegation after another. On every occasion, she has either been entirely refuted by the minister or failed to produce any evidence to back up the claim that she is making.In respect of the management of the process, as the minister was saying today, this diagnostic area has a budget of just over $1 billion and the department was basically managing the whole issue. It managed the discussions and negotiations with the radiology profession all the way through. Yes, the Minister for Health and Aged Care had one meeting with the radiologists—he had one meeting because this was recommended to him by his department. The department wanted a meeting because, in the time leading up to the budget, there was an issue of what matters would actually be contained in the budget. It was the view of the department that, to keep faith with the profession, it was reasonable, sensible and proper for the minister to have a meeting with the radiologists. He did so and he has explained the content of that discussion. It was all entirely above board, fair and reasonable, and the minister acting in accordance with advice.I conclude by noting that this minister, beyond radiology, has been very active in respect of Aboriginal health, new programs for immunisation and, as I have already mentioned, increasing the number of doctors in rural Australia. The private health rebate has been one of the most important policy initiatives in recent years. It has been a fantastic step in the right direction towards improving Australia's health system. Similarly, Lifetime Health Cover is another of his policy initiatives—this innovative proposal again supporting the entire system. The Minister for Health and Aged Care is a good minister. We reject the censure motion and we reject the opposition's misleading claims. (Time expired)Question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.A division having been called and the bells being rung—Mr Tuckey interjecting—Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Burke and the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.16:21:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)56Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BeazleyMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMr GibbonsMr GriffinMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr Zahra73Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMr HowardMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottMrs SullivanMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs BurkeMr Prosser* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker121761217612176Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to ask a question of you. Would you please explain to the House your reasons as Presiding Officer for not extending official status to the proposed four-person bipartisan delegation of Australian parliamentarians to West Timor that has been approved by the Indonesian government, particularly given the practical implications of your decision on the ability of government members, who have already been selected, to continue to participate in that delegation?12176Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—At the outset, I would point out to the member for Griffith that I have no authority over matters of foreign affairs and that any decision on this group going to West Timor was taken for purely parliamentary reasons by the Presiding Officers. I respect the fact that the desire of the member for Griffith to travel to West Timor was entirely motivated by humanitarian ends, and I would not want unduly to thwart those humanitarian ends, as I will attempt to elaborate in a moment or two.It is, however, fair to say that the Presiding Officers took this decision because it seemed that this was the most inopportune time for an official delegation with parliamentary status to be travelling to any Indonesian territory. That is, of course, self-evident in that I scarcely have a presiding officer to whom I can relate in Indonesia simply because the presiding officers of the houses in Indonesia right now are themselves seeking election and so their status is unknown.Furthermore, there had been something of an agreement between the parliament of Indonesia and the parliament of Australia that it was inopportune for groups to be travelling between the two countries in September, October and November simply because of this state of flux in the Indonesian parliament totally unrelated to events in East Timor. I am, however, very conscious of the fact that the decision taken by Madam President and me could have been misinterpreted by the Indonesian government, particularly at the present time. For that reason, I chose yesterday to meet with the charge d'affaires of Indonesia and with her political adviser to stress to her my own willingness to be in Indonesia at any time that it was felt opportune from both an Australian government and Indonesian government point of view, illustrating my willingness to endorse an official delegation at any time they felt appropriate.The reason for my failure to give this delegation official status is simply that it is an inopportune time for an official delegation to be travelling to Indonesia when the parliament there is in a state of flux. I recognise that the member for Griffith has taken some trouble to set up arrangements with groups in the Indonesian government. Of course, no action has been taken by the Presiding Officers that prevents him or any other member of the House travelling to any Indonesian territory at this time by agreement of the Indonesian government.16:29:0012177Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will hear the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I can understand completely your concerns.Government member interjecting—PE4Mr BEAZLEY—No, I am not going to make a political point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will hear the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I can understand completely your concerns in relation to the normal protocols associated with the activities of presiding officers, and they are entirely explicable and understandable in that framework. But, as I understand it, the initiative was received with some enthusiasm by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and there was a good response from the government to what has been quite a usefully organised private initiative.In the set of circumstances in which there has been a degree of difficulty in the relationship with Indonesia in recent times, just having had a look at the correspondence it seems to me that a bit of an effort was being made by the Indonesians to be open in response to the member. In those circumstances and the bipartisan nature of it—the good response of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the apparent enthusiasm of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I know the member himself is going to go anyway: he is going to use the parliamentary travel entitlement that he has, but that would not be very satisfactory—R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—He doesn't have any.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Well, he is going to do it anyway with his own money. He may not have that entitlement, but he has his own money. He is going to do it anyway one way or another. But that may not be open to government members and others who are concerned. At this sensitive point of time, I wonder if you could take it back in advice, have a chat to the foreign minister about it and just see if there is any element of flexibility. If it were anywhere else but Indonesia and at this point of time in the relationship between the countries then I think the response you have adopted would be entirely reasonable. You just might feel that perhaps a point might be stretched here in the circumstances.12177Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will briefly respond to the Leader of the Opposition. Obviously the Presiding Officers were concerned about what may be a misinterpretation. That is why we have deliberately sought to speak directly to the charge d'affaires. I am happy to raise the matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, with whom at this stage I have only had correspondence because he has but hours ago returned from overseas. But I do not intend to revisit my decision because I do not believe it would be proper for this to be seen as an official delegation with a country with whom we have had an understanding that an official delegation would not be timely. However, the Presiding Officers are doing nothing—and I must emphasise this not only for the benefit of all those in this chamber at this time but also for anyone who may be listening—that would thwart the group visiting any part of Indonesia or West Timor at the invitation of any sector of the Indonesian government, but I do not have an Indonesian parliament with whom I can officially correspond successfully at this particular immediate point in time.Miscellaneous121781217810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Pursuant to section 9B of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual reports for 1998-99 of the Departments of the House of Representatives, the Parliamentary Library and the Joint House.Documents1217812178Reith, 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 .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Department of Health and Aged Care—Annual Report 1998-99Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—Annual Report 1998-99Private Health Insurance Ombudsman—Annual Report 1998-99Medibank Private—Annual Report 1998-99Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Special Adjournment12178Motion (by Mr Reith)—agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 22 November 1999, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.Leave of Absence12178Motion (by Mr Reith)—agreed to:That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Bills12178r79712178Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendment No. 2 disagreed to by the House.Bills12178r79312178Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendment No. 1 disagreed to by the House.Bills12178The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request: States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 Committees12178121781217810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Bourne has been discharged from attendance on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that Senator Stott Despoja has been appointed a member of the committee.Matters of Public Importance121781217810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The need for the Prime Minister to honour his commitment of 26 February 1996 to remove non-performing and incompetent Ministers.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—Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the business of the day be called on. Bills12179r94512179Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.1217916:36:0012179Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Today I am introducing the first group of bills which will implement a new business tax system for Australia. The government's landmark reforms to business tax will build on the significant reforms that the government has already legislated in relation to indirect tax and personal income tax.As a result of the government's vision and commitment, Australia will have a world-class business tax system for the next century.As honourable members are aware, the business tax reforms that I announced on 21 September are the culmination of 12 months of consultation with the Australian business community. In August last year, the government established the review of business taxation which was led by three businessmen—Mr John Ralph AO, Mr Rick Allert and Mr Bob Joss. The review was given broad terms of reference to consider reforms to Australia's business tax system. Over the 12-month period, the review consulted extensively with small, medium and large businesses, rural and farming businesses and interested organisations. I take this opportunity to thank those businessmen for their dedication and service to the nation.A number of detailed information and option papers were prepared, including one which compared Australia's business tax system with that of other countries. Following the publication of these papers, the review received public submissions—376 in all—and conducted public seminars and focus groups around Australia. This open and consultative process was welcomed by business and made a significant contribution to the comprehensive recommendations of the review. Indeed, business has been very supportive of the reforms the government has announced and this is due in part to the extensive and inclusive consultative process that the government established.The government's response to the recommendations of the Ralph report is in two stages. On 21 September I announced a range of measures with phased implementation. Today I am introducing the first package of legislation to implement the new business tax system. Further legislation will be introduced later this year and early next year. The government is currently consulting with business on the remaining Ralph recommendations. This consultation is consistent with the approach taken to date and interested organisations have been encouraged to make submissions. The government will announce its response to the remaining recommendations as soon as possible, by next month at the latest.The new business tax system will give Australia internationally competitive business tax arrangements including the lower company tax rates included in this bill. This, combined with the reforms to indirect and personal income tax, will create the environment for higher economic growth and more investment. This in turn will mean more jobs and improved saving.Under the government's reforms to capital gains tax, individuals will only pay tax on 50 per cent of any gain that they make on the disposal of assets. That means that the highest rate for individuals will effectively be 24.25 per cent. For 80 per cent of Australians, the effective rate will be 15.75 per cent after income tax rates come down on 1 July 2000. In addition, superannuation funds will only be taxed on two-thirds of their capital gains. These cuts in capital gains tax, together with scrip for scrip rollover relief, will give Australia an internationally competitive capital gains tax regime and therefore encourage investment.Other government reforms to capital gains tax will particularly encourage investment in venture capital and in Australian small businesses and farms.The government will legislate to make capital gains earned by Australian superannuation funds through pooled development funds exempt from capital gains tax. Similarly, investments in venture capital projects in Australia by non-resident tax exempt pension funds, such as UK and US pension funds, will also not be subject to capital gains tax.The government has already legislated to provide small businesses with capital gains tax rollover relief or exemptions where they use the funds to purchase another business or to retire. Under the reforms announced on 21 September, these provisions will be extended and simplified. As a result, individual operators of small businesses will not have to pay capital gains tax on 75 per cent of any gain made on the sale of active business assets. The remaining 25 per cent will be subject to significantly expanded and simplified rollover provisions and retirement exemption provisions.In addition, the government is introducing a new capital gains tax exemption. Where taxpayers dispose of an active asset, the asset was held continuously for at least 15 years and the taxpayer is at least 55 years of age and intends to retire or is incapacitated, no capital gains tax will be payable.Small businesses will also benefit substantially from the implementation of a simplified tax system. The simplified tax system will dramatically reduce compliance costs and maintain small business access to existing concessions.I now turn to a key aspect of the business tax reform, and that is the reduction in company tax rates. This bill amends the income tax law to substantially reduce company tax rates. The company rate will fall from 36 per cent to 34 per cent for the 2000-01 income year and to 30 per cent thereafter. This will make our company tax rate more competitive than many developed nations and amongst the lowest in our region.Our rate will be lower than in the United States, lower than New Zealand, Japan and Korea and on par with rates in Germany and the United Kingdom. As a result, Australia's attractiveness as an investment location will increase, strengthening Australia's prospects for investment and economic growth and jobs growth.Today I am also introducing three other bills which implement the government's business tax reforms. These bills deal with capital allowances, capital gains tax reductions and anti-avoidance measures. Given the substantive reforms that the government has announced, it is our intention to legislate the reforms quickly so as to provide certainty to Australians in their taxation affairs. I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.Bills12180r94312180Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.1218016:45:0012180Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill introduces fundamental reforms to the capital allowances system as part of the new business tax system. This system enables certain expenditures to be written off over time for income tax purposes.These reforms, which represent a key element of the review of business taxation's recommendations to reform the way in which depreciating assets are taxed, partly fund the lowering of the company tax rate from 36 per cent to 30 per cent.In essence the reforms introduced by this bill:. replace accelerated depreciation with effective life depreciation, except for small business taxpayers;. allow taxpayers, except small business taxpayers, to reassess the effective life of a depreciable asset;. remove depreciable assets from the capital gains tax regime;. remove the option to offset the balancing charge upon disposal of a depreciating asset, except for small business taxpayers or involuntary disposals; and. allow indefeasible rights to use to be depreciated.These changes apply from 11.45 a.m. on 21 September 1999.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.Bills12181r94612181Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.1218116:47:0012181Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will implement a number of the measures arising from the review of business taxation which form part of the new business tax system I announced on 21 September 1999.The measures include the introduction of reduced capital gains tax rates for individuals and superannuation funds as part of the government's new, internationally competitive capital gains tax regime. They also include integrity measures that will improve the fairness of the tax system.A new internationally competitive capital gains tax regimeThe reductions in capital gains tax rates for individuals and complying superannuation entities introduced by the bill are a central part of the government's policy to improve incentives to save and invest. From 21 September 1999, individuals will have the choice of working out their capital gains tax by either reducing their nominal gain by half (with the result that the highest rate for individuals would effectively be 24.25 per cent) or using an indexed cost base frozen as at 30 September 1999. Complying superannuation entities will be able to reduce their nominal gains by one third.This tax treatment applies to assets held for at least one year.The bill also reduces complexity of the capital gains tax provisions by freezing indexation as at 30 September 1999.Tightening the 13 month prepayment rule for advance expenditureUnder the current law, advance expenditure incurred in respect of services to be completed within 13 months is generally deductible immediately. The bill improves the tax treatment of such expenditure by spreading the tax deduction over the period to which it relates. This measure, which generally applies to expenditure incurred after 11.45 a.m. on 21 September 1999, does not apply to small business taxpayers, nor to non-business expenditure. Transitional arrangements phase in the initial impact of this measure over five years.Lease assignmentsThe bill addresses, from 22 February 1999, the tax avoidance opportunities relating to lease assignments which were highlighted in the review of business taxation discussion paper `A platform for consultation'. It does this by ensuring the full consideration received from assigning leases is taxed. It also includes an amount in assessable income where an interest in leased plant is disposed of, including by disposal of an interest in a partnership or by disposal by a wholly owned group of a majority interest in a subsidiary that holds leased plant.Tax payable under this measure by certain members of a wholly owned company group is imposed by a related bill, the New Business Tax System (Former Subsidiary Tax Imposition) Bill 1999 which I am also introducing today.Loss duplication and value shiftingThe bill protects the integrity of the company tax system by removing current defects and anomalies in the treatment of entity losses and value shifting. In particular, the bill:. removes the multiplication of revenue losses through loss transfers occurring on or after 22 February 1999;. prevents artificial losses arising from the forgiveness of debts between commonly owned companies on or after 22 February 1999;. prevents, from the date of introduction of the bill, the multiplication of losses where loss assets are transferred within a wholly owned company group, and the use of losses realised by the transfer of loss assets within a majority owned company group or from a majority owned company group to a connected trust or individual;. removes defects in the continuity of ownership test that applies to companies' tax losses, net capital losses and bad debt deductions claimed in relation to an income year ending after 21 September 1999;. applies the same business test to a company's unrealised net losses where there is a change in the company's ownership or control after 21 September 1999; and. repeals the excess deduction rules for mining operations from the 1999-2000 income year.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum for this bill and the New Business Tax System (Former Subsidiary Tax Imposition) Bill 1999.Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.Bills12182r94412182Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.1218216:53:0012182Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill forms part of the new business tax system measures to address, from 22 February 1999, the tax avoidance opportunities relating to lease assignments which were highlighted in the review of business taxation discussion paper `A platform for consultation'.It imposes a tax on certain members of a wholly owned company group. This tax is assessed under provisions introduced by the New Business Tax System (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 1999.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum, which I have already presented. I commend this bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.Bills1218212182Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1218216:55:0012182Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The legislation enacting the new tax system was passed by this parliament in June. Since then, we have seen lower prices for goods such as TVs and stereos, as a result of reductions in wholesale sales tax on these items.This is just the beginning of the new tax system that will deliver better outcomes for consumers, businesses, families, farmers and the community as a whole.Since the introduction of the GST legislation, we have been engaged in an extensive consultation process. This process of consultation has involved a broad cross-section of industry and community sector representatives, the states and territories, the tax office and other Commonwealth departments.Through this process, we have assessed the finetuning required to ensure that the GST is implemented in the most effective way. This bill includes amendments that the government considers are necessary to provide a smooth transition to the new tax system.Financial servicesThe government stated last year that it would consult with industry before finalising the approach to the taxation of financial services under the GST.To this end, the Treasurer circulated a consultation document in August this year, with approximately 80 submissions being received from the financial services sector.The amendments in this bill and the regulations that have been notified today finetune the tax treatment of financial services without changing the fundamental policy outlined in A New Tax System. The regulations also outline the range of services that will be eligible for a reduced input tax credit.The regulations contain a substantial list of examples that have been included to promote clarity. The examples demonstrate the government's policy intention in a format to suit the industry. Accordingly, the examples form an important basis on which the industry can plan for and proceed with implementation to be ready for the new tax arrangements on 1 July 2000.The combination of the reduced input tax credit—a uniquely Australian feature—and the general treatment of financial services means that the government has more comprehensively addressed the bias to insource than any other comparable GST or VAT regime. The reduced input tax credit mechanism will particularly benefit smaller financial service providers, such as credit unions.The limited scope of input taxation together with the reduced input tax credit mechanism provides some additional benefits by:. delivering a substantial compliance benefit for a large number of suppliers to the financial sector, who are no longer required to deal with input taxation; and. improving the competitive position of domestic financial service providers.The government also proposes a number of amendments relating to the application of GST and state regulated insurance schemes, in particular amendments to simplify the application of GST to workers compensation and compulsory third party insurance.The government has also included regulation making powers to ensure that statutory compensation and insurance schemes are appropriately treated under the GST. Input tax credits will be denied on compulsory third party insurance for three years, with the result that business will have no GST liability on related payouts. This bill also proposes an amendment removing the value of any state stamp duty from the calculation of GST on insurance premiums.Separate from the financial services sector measures, this bill makes a number of minor amendments that will finetune the GST legislation. These amendments include several technical refinements and some consequential amendments to other Commonwealth legislation.Imported telecommunications servicesWith the substantial growth in the availability of telecommunications products, this bill proposes an amendment to ensure that the GST captures all telecommunications services that are used in Australia, irrespective of where the supplier is based. This amendment makes sure that the domestic industry is not put at a competitive disadvantage.This bill also clarifies the way in which GST registration, branching and grouping arrangements apply to government entities. As such, amendments are proposed to allow each government to be able to decide which of their subentities will be treated as separate branches for GST purposes, and will be able to group as they choose.In relation to second-hand goods, this bill proposes changes that will better achieve the original policy intent of the second-hand goods provisions. We are clarifying the treatment of goods that are acquired whole and then broken down for sale, such as in the case of motor vehicle dismantlers, or goods acquired collectively and sold separately, such as goods purchased in lots at auction. We are eliminating much of the administrative burden associated with small items. We are proposing an antiavoidance measure to require substantiation of the price of second-hand goods from the unregistered sector. We are excluding animals and livestock from the definition of second-hand goods.This bill also contains amendments to remove GST from the calculation of the tax base of the petroleum resource rate tax. This is a consequential taxation issue, reinforcing the government's intention not to increase the revenue received from other Commonwealth taxes as a result of the GST. This bill also amends the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999 to ensure that GST revenues paid to the states and territories are not reduced by credits or other offsets associated with the wine equalisation tax and the luxury car tax. The amendments will also ensure that states and territories will receive the general interest charges collected on unpaid GST. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Thomson) adjourned.Bills12184s18912184Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.12184Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Bills12184s22012184Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.12184Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Committees12184121841218417:04:0012184Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I am pleased to present the 10th report from the Publications Committee. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.Committees12184121841218417:04:0012184Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Refurbishment of 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne.The government has approved the provision of $17.8 million to undertake the refurbishment of the Commonwealth offices at 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne, subject to the normal Public Works Committee processes. 4 Treasury Place was constructed in two stages between 1911 and 1913 as the first purpose-built federal building. It is a six-level building comprising a total building area of 6,364 square metres but, more importantly, it is a building rich in character and a fine example of the architecture near the time of our Federation. 4 Treasury Place is of national significance because of its close association with the history of the Commonwealth of Australia, and is of continued importance today as the Melbourne offices of His Excellency the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, cabinet, Melbourne based ministers, visiting ministers and also two former governors-general.It is located on the eastern edge of Melbourne's central business district within the Treasury Reserve and adjacent to a number of state government owned buildings of similar age, character and historical significance. Having regard to the building's signifi cance and its place within the historic Treasury Reserve precinct, the Commonwealth will be retaining ownership and use of this building. As is appropriate, it will also be continuing the historic tradition of the building's primary use, which is the provision of parliamentary offices. As such, the building will continue to be leased by the ministerial and parliamentary services group of the Department of Finance and Administration, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Office of the Governor-General.It is also proposed to accommodate within the building, with consequent rental savings, some non-government senators and members who are currently located in private sector leased premises elsewhere in Melbourne. The proposed refurbishment works include repair of the render work and application of new finishes, demolition of the non-original fourth floor additions, restoration of the slate roofs, replacement of all building services and refurbishment of amenities throughout the building. The proposed works will restore and protect this valuable heritage asset while providing the building tenants with an efficient and safe working environment with reduced building operational costs. The level of disruption associated with the proposed building works unfortunately necessitates the relocation of tenants to temporary accommodation at Casselden Place for the duration of the refurbishment works. These works are expected to take about 14 months, and the official opening of the refurbished building will form an important part of the Centenary of Federation celebrations in the city of Melbourne early in the year 2001.The suitability of the basement as a public resource and interpretation centre is under investigation and, in the event that the space is used for such a purpose, the associated fire safety requirements, including emergency evacuation requirements, under the Building Code of Australia will be fully complied with. The Melbourne Fire Brigade has provided comment on the fire safety provisions within the building, and that information is being taken into account in the finalisation of the refurbishment design.The Department of Finance and Administration has been involved in extensive and constructive discussions with the Australian Heritage Commission to ensure that the heritage values of the building are protected to the maximum extent practicable. The department will shortly be in a position to further advise the committee on this matter. I am particularly pleased to advise that the stand of pine trees at the eastern end of the building and the canary palm on the northern side of the building will be retained.As my colleague the chairman of the Public Works Committee, the honourable member for Pearce, noted yesterday when presenting the Public Works Committee report to this chamber, the recommendations in the report have been unanimously endorsed by the committee. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills12185The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 1999 Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1999 Bills12185r75012185Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills12185r82412185Consideration resumed from 19 October.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:1A Paragraph 18(1)(b)Repeal the paragraph.1B Paragraph 18(1)(d)Omit ", (b)".(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit "$350 million", substitute "$300 million".17:11:0012186Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The government's waterfront reform program announced in April 1998 was a comprehensive program consisting of a number of elements that, taken as a whole, set out to bring about wide ranging reforms in Australia's ports. The intention was to create a level of performance on Australia's waterfront that would give shippers and other users a level of service comparable with that offered by the better ports around the world. As part of the package, the government has nominated seven benchmarks by which the future performance of the waterfront will be judged.When introducing the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Amendment Bill 1999 , the government made it clear that the additional $100 million that was being sought was required to protect the integrity of its waterfront reform package. The extra money was required to meet the higher than expected number and cost of redundancies and to ensure sufficient funds for stevedoring companies to proceed with non-redundancy reforms in the areas of new technology, job training and occupational health and safety.The minister also released details of the revised allocation of $350 million between the redundancy and non-redundancy costs associated with the program. In accordance with the intention of the government that the industry should be reformed at no cost to the taxpayer, funds for the redundancy element of the program are borrowed by the Maritime Industry Finance Company on the commercial market at commercial rates of interest. In these circumstances, it is impossible to precisely determine, before the necessary borrowings have been completed, what the exact cost of the redundancy program will be. What the opposition has sought to do by limiting the increased appropriation to $50 million is undermine the waterfront reform program and jeopardise the likelihood that the industry and its users will achieve the full potential of benefits that would have accrued from the government's package.The benefits from the reform program are already being reflected in the waterfront performance data contained in the Bureau of Transport Economics publication Waterline. Productivity figures for the June quarter of 1999 show that the five-port average crane rate was 20.3 containers an hour. This is the first time that the national average has exceeded 20 lifts per hour. We expect to see further productivity improvements in coming months as the performance of P&O's terminals improves as a result of the extensive reforms the company has implemented through this program. The provision of the extra funds being sought by the government would have seen these figures continue to improve as the stevedores introduced other reforms funded under this program. The opposition is placing this improvement in jeopardy. Needless to say, the government will continue to pursue reform and to push for improved waterfront performance.The government acknowledges that it is futile to expect the opposition to see reason on this matter and to act in the national interest. The only saving grace of the amendments by the opposition is that capping the appropriation at $300 million will not compromise the funding of stevedoring redundancies, which are now expected to total around 1,500. However, there can be no doubt that, as the result of the opposition's refusal to approve the full amount sought by the government in this bill, the waterfront reform program has been needlessly put at risk. As a consequence, the future competitiveness of the Australian economy will also be adversely affected and the benefits to all Australians reduced.17:15:0012186Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak in support of the amendments which have been imposed on the government by the Senate. I would indicate at the outset that the amendments reflect the fact that, in originating the A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 , the Howard government failed to justify a move to extend the existing stevedoring levy to raise an additional $100 million. I contend that the amendments will ensure that the process of `waterfront reform', as the government would so describe it, will continue. But, more importantly, these amendments will ensure that the funds raised through the levy will be properly applied to funding redundancies in the stevedoring industry and not to non-redundancy activities.The amendments also arise from the fact that the bill in its original form was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee to enable the parliament to properly scrutinise its provisions and, in doing so, ensure that the funding arrangements were properly applied to the original intent of the bill. That original intent was for the supposed—as described by the government—`restructuring' of the Australian stevedoring industry.The reason for the referral by the opposition, with the support of the Democrats, was simple: the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, failed in introducing the bill and subsequent debate in the House to provide a proper explanation as to why an additional $100 million was required—not small bickies, but an additional $100 million—how it might be spent and, more importantly, where we were going with respect to how any funds not properly applied to the original process might be spent. In particular, the application of the levy for non-redundancy reforms, as spoken about in the original discussion, had to be properly spelt out and determined.What then is the current state of play? I am pleased to say that, as a result of the debate in the Senate and the acceptance by the government of amendments supported by the opposition and the Democrats, we have achieved the following. Firstly, we have stopped the original intent of the minister to authorise applying the levy for the purposes of occupational health and safety, training programs and the introduction of new technology—that is, non-redundancy reforms. Secondly, we have been able to reduce the additional $100 million that the government sought to be levied to an additional $50 million, thereby reducing the total amount from $350 million to $300 million.There is one outstanding issue. The Democrats, despite the view of the opposition, are still allowing the minister to authorise non-redundancy payments under regulations, but at least those regulations will be disallowable. From the Labor Party's point of view, our position is simple: we believe that levy should be raised only for redundancies, as per the agreement with the industry. This is clearly reflected, for example, in the agreement with P&O and the government. Any additional levy raised for other purposes may be passed on to waterfront users.Also, the fact that other non-redundancy reforms may be necessary implies a need to consult with other ministers and to come back to the parliament with specific plans—for example, addressing health and safety, training and the introduction of new technology. I believe that, if they are made issues requiring attention, they should be put up front and properly debated and considered by the parliament, not hidden in other legislation. It also proves, as we have argued from the outset, that the government's original estimates of the financial requirements have been unreliable from the start. This is what we argued at the time because it also reflected the ill-thought out waterfront battle that the government caused in the lead-up to this bill.On that basis, I indicate that the opposition supports the amendments before the House. They reflect a number of things: first, the outcome of proper consideration of these issues by a Senate committee; second, and more importantly, an exposure of the government for its failure to properly consider funding of its requirements for waterfront change in the original form; and third, a requirement for the government to be honest in the future about its intent with respect to the use of this levy. It is for stevedoring redundancies; it is not for occupational health and safety, training or technology requirements of the industry. If there is a proven need with respect to further change going to those issues, then bring those matters on for proper debate in the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills12188r71712188Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment made in place of the amendment disagreed to by the House.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—(1) Schedule 2, page 40 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add:55 Benefits of single parents who are CDEP participants not to be reduced(1) Section 1188C inserted in the Social Security Act 1991 by item 53 does not apply in respect of a person who, immediately before the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent: (a) was in receipt of parenting payment at the rate applicable for a person who is not a member of a couple; and (b) was a CDEP participant.(2) However, if such a person ceases on or after that day to be a CDEP participant, subitem (1) ceases to have effect in respect of the person whether or not he or she afterwards again becomes a CDEP participant.17:21:0012188Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.This revised Senate amendment provides for the equal, fair and consistent treatment of all CDEP participants. Under this revised amendment, grandfathering provisions will be applied to lone parent CDEP participants. In its current form, the grandfathering provision will act in accordance with other grandfathering provisions in the Social Security Act. I therefore move that the revised Senate amendments be agreed to.17:22:0012188Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—What a difference 48 hours makes. It is 48 hours since the Minister for Community Services came into the House and said that the grandfathering clause—which we had said we would support—was an outrage. He said that it encouraged double dipping and that it was unfair and unreasonable. But his words today are that it actually is an equity issue; it will ensure that there is equity in the system. That is exactly what we have been saying in this House. It is what we said when the bill was debated, when we moved our amendments and when the legislation came back from the Senate on the first occasion—and it is what we say now, with its having come back again, that it is equal, fair and consistent.Let us compare `equal, fair and consistent' with what the minister said—we do not have to go back very far actually; we might just go back to 19 October—48 hours ago. The minister's justification for why we could not do it was:. . . we do not believe that it is appropriate to have double-dipping.And he said on a number of occasions in the House—and this is the interesting point—that the rejection of the amendment was actually supported by ATSIC. He said it again in his speech two nights ago:In conclusion, as I have said before in this place, the measure is a strong support of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.I said:That is not true.Mr Anthony:It is true. The measure, as supported by ATSIC—We will go back one step further. On 12 October this minister said in this House:But ATSIC is accepting the amendments. The amendments have strong support from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.What a farce! When the minister spoke in this House he must have known that ATSIC, through its chairperson, Gatjil Djerrkura, had written to Senator Lees of the Democrats, indicating:As you know from my letter of 31 August, this has been a difficult issue for the ATSIC Board of Commissioners.We all know how this government deals with organisations like ATSIC, pensioners' associations and the Australian Youth Policy in Action Coalition. We know how they deal with all of these groups. But Mr Djerrkura went on to say:ATSIC supports this proposal—That is, the Democrat amendments clearly have the support of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Furthermore, ATSIC wrote to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, and indicated again that they supported this change because of equity and fairness issues. It really is quite an extraordinary situation.The Minister for Community Services quite clearly got it wrong when he spoke in the House on the 19th. He said something that was just plain wrong with regard to ATSIC's position on this. No wonder he did that, because this measure—I remind the House—takes $80 per fortnight away from the income of indigenous single parents in remote areas who are participants in the CDEP. It is very hard to think of a more disadvantaged group in society. It is almost as if this government says to its new ministers, `You have to really prove how macho you are by thinking up the most draconian measures possible and being prepared to put them into place.' This takes $80 off single parents.As it is now with the grandfathering clause, new participants in the CDEP will miss out on that $80 a fortnight, so they probably will not participate in the scheme. As it is, they are getting only a $100 top-up, as any other Australian does, in terms of their welfare benefits; only that. The rest of the money goes to the community, which is the way that the CDEP works. The fact is that this minister was wrong in October, he was wrong two days ago, and he has finally got it right. But the fact is also that he misled the House when he continued to insist two days ago that ATSIC was supporting him, when he knew that was not the case. The Labor Party has taken a principled position on this. We have ensured, through our diligence, that we have fixed up this measure from the minister. (Time expired)Motion (by Mr Anthony) agreed to:That the question be now put.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills12189r87912189Bill returned from the Senate with a request for an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's requested amendment—(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 14 and 15), omit paragraphs (l) and (m), substitute:(l) in the case of the year 2000— $3,417,075,000; and(m) in the case of the year 2001— $3,351,623,000.17:28:0012189Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.The amendment is very simple and straightforward. It adds to the funding appropriated in the legislation; additional funding in line with the government's commitment on Monday to provide $259 million to the universities to allow further salary supplementation. These funds—$84.9 million in 2000 and $86.5 million in 2001—will allow the universities to offer a pay rise of an extra two per cent in addition to other amounts they receive from normal indexation, their own revenue measures and productivity improvements, on the condition that flexibilities are introduced into the agreements made between universities and their staff.17:29:0012189Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—As the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has outlined, this increases the funding available to higher education institutions throughout the country. I wish to make the point to the House that this is probably no surprise, given that this was one of the proposals in the minister's secret cabinet submission outlined the following description of the current state of universities in Australia. It said:Universities are currently in a difficult financial position. While the government funding is stable, they face rising costs in salaries and investment in new technology. The current regulation of undergraduate fees limits university revenue and, per versely, prevents students from investing in their own futures. Already, eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit, and some regional campuses are at risk.Consideration interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I understand the House is keen to have an adjournment debate tonight, so I will make one five-minute contribution and that will be the end of my contribution to this. The point I wish to make is that it was made clear in the cabinet submission the opposition released to the public that the reason the minister tried to deregulate university fees and bring in vouchers and loans with a real rate of interest was his belief that universities need extra funding. I have just quoted the crucial clause in the cabinet submission. Already, eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit and some regional campuses are at risk. The minister's answer is to massively increase fees for university students, bring in a voucher system and force students to pay real rates of interest on loans.We understand that the amendment before the House today provides a one-off injection of some money to universities. I am sure there are universities out there that are desperate for those funds, and I am sure there are universities out there that understand that, if this minister has his way, it will not stop there. If this minister has his way, his solution to the financial crisis that he has described in the cabinet submission is the full monty—the deregulation of fees, the imposition of vouchers and the introduction of real rates of interest on student loans. The agenda that this minister has is a $100,000 fee for Australian students to go to university, parents being forced to take on that $100,000 debt to spare their children, parents being forced to choose whether they pay off the mortgage on the house or pay off the mortgage on the children's education and parents, in an almost medieval manner, being forced to decide which of their children is to be lucky enough to go to university.We hoped we could believe the Prime Minister when he said, as recently as last Monday, that all this was off the agenda, but we know it is there in that minister's top drawer. I bet if the minister opened that top drawer there at the table the plan would still be there. This minister has believed for 20 years there should be vouchers. This minister and this Prime Minister have argued for 10 years for the deregulation of university fees. This minister outlined in this secret cabinet submission the case that he believes justifies the imposition of real rates of interest for student loans. In New Zealand, which followed the David Kemp formula, student debt now exceeds New Zealand's national debt. In New Zealand there is a massive brain drain because students are being forced to leave their country and, when they leave their country, the debt compounds. They will never return as long as the David Kemp policy applies in New Zealand.We know this plan will come out of that top drawer again, and we make it clear to this Prime Minister and this minister for education that, whenever it does, we will pursue them just as vigorously as we have in the last two weeks. This minister has failed on three occasions: he failed in his attempts to bring in the Job Network, he failed in his attempts to bring in VSU and his proposals to deregulate fees and bring in the $100,000 university fee have been put on hold. We say to the minister that they are the reasons that he should be sacked by John Howard. We know that as long as David Kemp remains the minister for education the $100,000 university fee lives. Until the $100,000 fee is scrapped by scrapping this minister the Labor Party will continue to oppose these policies.Question resolved in the affirmative.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.Committees12190121901219017:34:0012190Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—On behalf of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports. Because of the hour, I propose not to seek leave at this stage to make any further remarks. Ordered that the report be printed.Adjournment12191Motion (by Mrs Sullivan) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1219117:35:0012191Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I rise to pay tribute to a great Australian who passed away today, Ron Castan AM QC. Ron Castan was a great Australian. His death today is not only a loss to his family but a loss to the nation and a loss to humanity. He was a guiding light and an inspiration. He was a human rights campaigner. Whilst his loss is a sad one to us all, his spirit lives on. The guiding light from his candle will continue to burn throughout the ages. He was an inspiration and a friend to all who knew him.His friend John Basten QC says that his involvement with land rights issues grew out of a case that he undertook as a young barrister in Papua New Guinea. Ron was junior counsel with Keith Aickin but ended up conducting the case. It involved a dispute over land held under customary law. It caused him to ask why indigenous Australians could not assert and enforce their own systems of traditional title. He never accepted that Australian law should perpetrate such a social injustice, and his determined pursuit of this idea found him many years later arguing in the High Court that indeed the common law of Australia did recognise traditional or native title.The High Court accepted his submissions in the historic judgment in Mabo No. 2 v. The State of Queensland, a judgment delivered on 3 June 1992. Ron appeared for the second and third plaintiffs, David Passi and James Rice, and his arguments appear at 1992 175 CLR 1, pages 7 to 13. That was not the only case that Ron appeared in. He appeared in a number of other cases. He appeared in the historic case of Koowarta v. Bjelke-Peterson in 1982 on behalf of Mr Koowarta. That was a victory for the Racial Discrimination Act in the High Court, a majority of 4 to 3. He appeared for the Commonwealth in the Tasmanian dam case in 1983. He also appeared for Eddie Mabo in the first Mabo case in 1988. That was a slim majority of 4 to 3. In all of those cases, he argued for human rights. He argued and found favour with the majority in relation to the Racial Discrimination Act, our bill of rights that makes us all equal.Nick Bolkus remembers him affectionately. He remembers his intellect, calm advice and groundbreaking legal perspective. He says that he remembers glimpses of Ron with his family and friends, particularly at the Flowerdrum Chinese restaurant, and the warmth and generosity of a proud family man. Ron Castan himself would be embarrassed at the words spoken about him today and tomorrow at his funeral. He did not seek the limelight. He worked the corridors of this place in 1993 in response to the Mabo decision when the Keating government brought in its Native Title Act. He worked the corridors quietly and calmly in 1997 and 1998 in relation to this government's response to Wik.He had the respect of all who knew him. He appeared in many other cases in the High Court. He appeared for Jose Ramos Horta in Horta v. The Commonwealth in 1994, arguing the Timor Gap case. He appeared for Andrew Theophanous in Theophanous v. Herald and Weekly Times Ltd in 1994 in relation to restrictions on free speech. He appeared in many cases, some of which were lost but many of which were won. His inspiration and his lateral thinking were picked up by this High Court, and we as a nation are better for it. He was a thoroughly decent human being. I was privileged to be involved with him in recent years. To Nellie and the family, our thoughts and prayers are with you. Take comfort from the fact that Ron's spirit lives on. His spirit will live through the ages; history will judge him exceptionally well. (Time expired)1219117:40:0012191Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I want to spend some of the House's time on Telstra service issues in regional Australia. Telstra has a fine heritage, right back to the days of the PMG. I am old enough to remember party lines and doing my own repairs when phone lines were actually fencing wire and the slightest shower of rain would put the phone beyond reach. But, in the last 25 years or so, telecommunications advances have been nothing short of remarkable. I will not be drawn into the debate about privatisation. The Commonwealth still owns 51 per cent of Telstra. The corporatisation of Telstra in the early nineties gave it a sharper commercial focus, and I do not necessarily argue with that, but the case I will describe with the largest corporation in Australia versus small consumers should be brought to the House's attention.These consumers live in a small community on Eyre Peninsula where it is quite typical for a farming family to sell the farm and move into a house in the town upon retirement. That was what this particular couple did at retirement age. They were looking forward to their retirement and to moving into the house in the town. They had made all the arrangements with Telstra and, whatever the time lines are—I understand the notification is some months and then three days before, et cetera—at the last minute Telstra advised them that they could not possibly connect a service. I know the house well, and I know very well that there was a service there previously that had become disconnected. There would have been absolutely no issue with the fact that the wire was already there. It may well be that that service was provided to someone else in the street, but Telstra's actions and the way they have handled this issue are what I want to highlight tonight. Telstra said, `No, we can't provide the service,' and then they said, `We'll provide you with a mobile phone.' It sounds all right, doesn't it? It sounds very generous. The only problem is that, in this part of Eyre Peninsula, there is no mobile phone service. That is fine.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—What about a satellite phone?HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—No, they would not come at that, apparently. Nevertheless, we then go to the next stage. There is an issue where, if Telstra has not provided a service in such and such a time, you have a customer service guarantee payment. But this couple were told that there was no customer service guarantee payment because they had been provided with a mobile phone service—a mobile phone service that did not work. What is Telstra really saying here? Telstra says, `We think there's a digital mobile phone service, but it's a very hilly area.' Telstra says that these people live behind a big hill, therefore the signal does not get through. I have to inform Telstra that, where this community is, it is as flat as a billiard table.849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—Have they got SBS?HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—No, no SBS. We are working on that. That has a little while to go. Can you help us out over there?849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—Yes!HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—Good. Nevertheless, I want to highlight tonight that Telstra need to think about their service and do things a lot better. In this day and age, it is simply not acceptable that they say they cannot provide a service and then mislead people by saying, `We'll provide you with a mobile phone,' even though there is no access to a mobile phone tower, and then not giving them the customer service guarantee payment because they say that they will provide them with a mobile phone. That is just not acceptable. If Australia's largest corporation continue to conduct themselves in this manner, I will continue to pursue them until their standard considerably improves.1219217:45:0012192Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I rise today to express on behalf of the Australian Labor Party our deep sorrow as we learnt today of the death of Mr Ron Castan AM, QC. Mr Castan was a great philanthropist, jurist, civil libertarian, campaigner for human rights and contributor to the life of the Australian nation—a contributor always to the good of it; to the good of our character and culture as a society.He was a member of the Victorian Bar for over 30 years. He had undertaken postgraduate studies at Harvard Law School as a Fulbright scholar, after completing degrees in Arts and Law at Melbourne University. He was a member of the Smorgon family and maintained a close involvement with the business affairs of that family and its legal practice. He was of course associated with the philanthropic trusts of one of the most generous families in this nation.His civil libertarian commitments, apart from being reflected in his legal activities, were also manifest in his work for the federal government. He was a member of the Constitutional Commission in its work towards the Bicentennial in 1988 and he co-chaired the National Inquiry into Racist Violence. He was also a founding Honorary Secretary of the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service. Mr Castan and his wife, Nellie, have been benefactors of the National Gallery of Victoria. He was on the board of the Australian Foundation for Culture and the Humanities and, through his philanthropic activities, the trusts—the Nordia Foundation and the Nelron Foundation—have made substantial contributions to community and arts related activities in diverse fields, including the Gilgul Theatre Company, the AMA scholarships for Aboriginal medical undergraduates, and organisations such as the Royal Melbourne Hospital Neurological Sciences Foundation. He was an active member of the board of trustees of that foundation.His passing leaves an enormous hole not only in the Victorian Bar but in the hearts of many who have appreciated the work he has done—particularly in recent times but also over a lengthy period of time—in areas of great significance to this nation. He appeared, for example, for the plaintiffs in Mabo 1 and for two of the plaintiffs in Mabo 2. That started what has been an active involvement with a whole range of native title issues. We in the Labor Party of course have known him for many years and have appreciated the contribution he has made. His help was invaluable in discussion of the native title amendment bills in 1997 and 1998 when he was one of our advisers. He brought not only a keen and far-sighted legal mind to consideration of the issues but also a great heart and a great concern and empathy for the people whose rights he was speaking for as he helped us devise our responses to that legislation.His expertise in that had grown out of many of the legal cases in which he appeared. I have already mentioned the Mabo cases, but he also appeared for the Waanyi People in a case of North Ganalanja Aboriginal Corporation v. Queensland in 1996. In the case of my home state, he appeared for two Aboriginal groups in Western Australia v. the Commonwealth, his clients arguing that the Western Australian government's legislation was invalid due to the existence of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.Five minutes cannot do justice to the life of this great man and to the sorrow that many of us feel. He was a most active member of the Australian Jewish community and I think many of his humanitarian and charitable commitments were expressed in association with that community. There will be deep sorrow in that community tonight, just as there is deep sorrow in the hearts of all members of the Australian Labor Party.1219317:49:0012193Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—A large number of rural communities have problems attracting and retaining medical practitioners. In South Australia there are currently 35 vacancies in rural general practice. I am an MP from an outer metropolitan electorate, but I think we all need to be aware of the concerns for rural and remote communities. I know that we have discussed this issue several times. In 1995, 15.4 per cent of medical practitioners worked in rural and remote areas, serving 30 per cent of the population. The government is working hard to give rural and remote areas access to medical services that people in metropolitan areas take for granted. I believe that the Minister for Health and Aged Care deserves praise for his commitment to health services access for people in rural and remote Australia.I want to talk about the commitment of Flinders University of South Australia to rural medical practitioner access, particularly the efforts of Dr Paul Worley, Dr David Squirrell and Dr Bruce Mugford. According to North American data, there is approximately a five per cent possibility of a medical student from an urban area practising in a rural area. If the student has a positive graduate rural experience, they are three times more likely to practice in rural medicine. If a medical student is from a rural origin, there is a 30 per cent possibility that they will practice in a rural area. If they have a positive graduate rural experience, there is a greater than 50 per cent chance that they will end up practising in a rural area.Flinders University has developed two innovative strategies for medical students to experience learning in rural communities—the Parallel Rural Community Curriculum, which is being carried out in the Riverland in your own electorate of Wakefield, Mr Speaker, and the Upper Spencer Gulf Rural Week in the electorate of the member for Grey. Both programs rely on partnerships between the university, local rural communities and health providers. The initiatives provide pathways to enable students to gain an understanding of community partnerships in quality health care. The key to both of these initiatives is working with those communities. There is no point in imposing an initiative from the nearest capital city. The local community must be actively involved with the project.This week is Rural Week, which was created to provide medical students with early positive exposure to rural communities. The week is compulsory for second-year medical students of Flinders University. At the moment, 25 student doctors are taking part in Rural Week in Port Pirie. The students are billeted by service club members, particularly Rotary members—yet another example of community involvement. Activities during the week include presentations by allied health professionals, a hypothetical dealing with a rural issue, a mock disaster with the various emergency services and the students as victims, and community based epidemiological research. The feedback from the students, hosts, divisions of general practice and allied health professionals has been very positive. One of the students commented:The sense of community spirit and hearing about the diversity of practical experience available to a country GP has convinced me that working in the country would be enjoyable and rewarding, and I intend to do so for at least two years.This is exactly the sentiment that communities, Flinders University and the government are aiming for by exposing medical students to rural communities. We want medical students to have a positive rural community experience and to return after they have qualified as a medical practitioner.I think the Flinders University School of Medicine has been very innovative in this area. Another area they have been innovative in is the Parallel Rural Community Curriculum, which involves up to eight students undertaking their year 3 studies in the Riverland rural community, principally attached to a rural practice. The students live in the community for the entire year and have access to each of the year 3 disciplines for the entire year. They also learn with GP registrars and take part in the continuing medical education activities of GPs. That has been a very positive initiative.In addition, by moving to a graduate entry course, Flinders University has found that in excess of 50 per cent of its students are from rural areas. Moving away from a year 12 entry has actually advantaged people from rural areas. Four students are chosen for the school by the Riverland community, and there are 10 places for Northern Territory students and up to five places for indigenous students.Flinders University also has the Rural Health Society, which is a multidiscipline club composed of medical, nurse and allied health students who are interested in rural careers. The society provides support, seminars and rural visits for its members. It also has an `Out of Alice' project, similar to the Parallel Rural Community Curriculum, which allows final year medical students to spend six months in a particular isolated Aboriginal community in Central Australia. Another Commonwealth government initiative is the Graduate Diploma in Remote Health Practice, which is the first training program specifically for remote health practitioners. (Time expired)Motion (by Mrs Sullivan)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the adjournment debate continuing until 6.06 p.m.1219417:55:0012194Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—This coming week will see ceremonies marking the fourth annual remembrance day of the Family and Friends for Drug Law Reform. In Sydney and Canberra, Australia, in Houston, Texas, and in Dublin, Ireland, the families and friends of people who have died from the use of illicit drugs will gather in remembrance. The occasion will be an opportunity to help break the silence of prejudice and ignorance which has left many to bear their grief in an isolation tinged with shame. The memorial ceremony will help many to cope with their anger—anger at the lack of help, anger at the pressures that society placed on them to abandon their loved ones when they were most in need, and anger at themselves when they feel they should have done more.These feelings were well expressed four years ago at the first remembrance ceremony here in Canberra. Bronwyn Barnard, who is in the gallery this evening, is the sister of Dean Foster, who died in July 1996 from an accidental heroin overdose. She gave the ceremony a vivid insight into the feelings of families and friends of victims of illicit drug use. She told of her brother's situation. I quote her address in part:Since he has died I have questioned the lack of support for him and my family during his dependence, and the response by many of rejection, fear and ignorance to his situation.It has led me to speak out and break the usual silence surrounding a drug death in the hope of awakening the community to the huge need for better health management and better attitudes to both users and their families.I was shocked that he was treated by many as a modern day leper, to be put out of sight and out of mind.I saw Dean as a ship at sea without a sail, thrown from storm to storm. Surely a life buoy was what we should offer, rather than the usual response to just make more waves.Bronwyn Barnard went on to tell of how her brother held a good job and worked hard to repay the faith and trust his employer had in him in spite of his addiction.In what is for me the most touching part of her address, Bronwyn explained the significance of the locust tree symbol of remembrance. I again quote:It was still winter and the tree was bare, and I thought how symbolic the thorns were of his drug use. They are sharp, cruel and dangerous reminding me of the harsh reality of Dean's efforts to get control of his life, and the way in which the community treats people who become dependent on drugs.However my mind wandered further from these difficult memories, and I was compelled to remember the true beauty of the tree.Every year I have looked with admiration at the tree when in spring it is covered in blossoms.Large clumps of sweet smelling white flowers cascade from its branches.It is a beautiful sight. I was moved to think, yes look at this wonderful tree and remember it in its entirety.Remember Dean in his entirety, all the good things about Dean, all his good points for he was an individual with many assets and we loved him.The remembrance message sent to the group in Houston reads: Each day is adding to the toll of needless drug deaths bringing unbearable sorrow to those who remain . . . We hope as we publicly mourn our lost loved ones that more in our communities and governments will seek solutions with better understanding and compassion.Twenty years ago there were 70 deaths in Australia from drug overdose. This year there will be more than 800. How many more families like Dean Foster's family must be touched by this tragedy? Dean did not deserve to die. Dean was not a criminal; he was a good person, a good employee, a good friend. Dean had a health problem, an addiction, made worse by the current attitudes and laws of our community. How many more locust trees must be planted before we realise that being `tough on drugs' is definitely not the answer?1219518:00:0012195Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Older members of our community can easily be taken for granted in that they quietly go about their many activities without asking for help and certainly without seeking recognition for the many wonderful things that they do. However, our community depends on the contributions that older people make. Without a doubt, many community projects would fall flat, or would never have got off the ground in the first place, if it were not for our more senior citizens. And the most time consuming and most significant tasks that they achieve for us are done purely on a voluntary basis. I want to mention a few senior citizens in Eden-Monaro who have been awarded the Commonwealth seniors recognition award, not because they are the only seniors who have made significant contributions but because they are representative of the many older Australians who should be recognised.Mr Al Armstrong of Eden was the overall winner of the award in Eden-Monaro for his outstanding contribution to the community. A World War II veteran, Al was a controller of the State Emergency Service for 21 years, a volunteer driver for the Eden Ambulance Service and has been a member of the Volunteer Coastal Patrol in Eden since its beginnings. He has been heavily involved in promoting the local fishing and timber industries both locally and overseas. Al was a founding member of the Eden Advancement Society, which later became the Chamber of Commerce, and has spent many years contributing to the RSL, Legacy and the local surf lifesaving club. In fact, when I rang him to tell him of his selection he was out collecting money for Legacy.The other 19 awardees from around Eden-Monaro include Warren and Joan Buchan of Tuross Head. They received a joint award for their service to the Tuross Head Progress Association as well as to the sport of surf lifesaving. Gwen Clarke of Dalmeny received an award for her role as a carer. Her carer role includes visitation and volunteer assistance at the Dalmeny Nursing Care Unit, facilitation of a training program for carers and the lay pastors program, volunteer work at the primary school and Community Kids Club. Mrs Joyce Cotterill of Bombala received an award for providing care for the elderly at the day care section of the Bombala Hospital for over 25 years.Mr Norman Evans of Kalaru received an award for the vital role he has played in the history of that region and he has also been a bushfire subcaptain and assists the local police. Mr Eric Ffrench of Braidwood, who received an award, has been a member of the St Vincent de Paul Society for 55 years. He served as president for 30 years and has dedicated much of his life to helping the sick and unfortunate. Tony Garnock of Bombala, who received an award, was instrumental in the formation of the Rotary Club of Bombala and has been actively involved in the club for 45 years. He has contributed to many related projects, including the building of the Bombala Ambulance Station.Mrs Erica Halliday of Queanbeyan, who received an award, has performed the role of primary carer to both her aunt and her mother. She also works tirelessly to contribute to children with cancer and to crochets rugs for children who have to travel to Sydney for treatment. Mrs Elsie McGovern of Captains Flat received an award for being heavily involved in the local Senior Citizens Association of Captains Flat and is involved in community transport for elderly citizens. Denis Minehan of Cooma, who received an award, is an active member of the SES, Lions Club, Meals on Wheels, the Bushfire Brigade, the RSL, Legacy and the Australia Remembers Committee.Mr Jim Newman of Moruya received an award for his involvement, together with his wife, in providing respite care and home and community care in that region. Mrs Marie Sauverain of Queanbeyan, who received an award, has been a Meals on Wheels volunteer for almost 30 years, as well as being on a number of local committees. Mrs Shirley Shoemark of Braidwood, who received an award, spent almost 20 years as the Braidwood Central School's canteen supervisor and is a life member of the school's P&C Association. She is involved in the Braidwood Hospital Auxiliary, the Uniting Church Ladies Auxiliary, Braidwood Ladies Golf Club, Braidwood Torchbearers for Legacy, and I could go on and on.Mr John Snedden of Queanbeyan, who received an award, is an active Rotarian, helps with Meals on Wheels, supports the ACT Eden-Monaro Cancer Support Group and is involved with the Driver Reviver Scheme. He also spends much of his time helping aged people who have had a stroke or who are disabled. Fred Stove of Nimmitabel, who received an award, has been instrumental in development and upkeep of many of Nimmitabel's features including the country club. He works tirelessly for the Lions Club and many other things. His wife, Rae Stove, received an award for her longstanding membership of the Nimmitabel P&C Association and has given a great deal of her time to the school. She has also been on just about every other committee and service club in the region.Mrs Diana Strong of Cooma received an award for her work with the Red Cross for 30 years. Mrs Dort Tynan of Cooma, who received an award, is the chairperson of the HACC Forum, President of the Monaro Interchange Respite Care, and President of the Cooma Home Living Support Service. Mrs Mina Watt of Narooma and Mr Louis Whant of Pambula also received awards. (Time expired)1219718:05:0012197Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I want to join the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Banks in expressing my condolences on the passing of Mr Ron Castan AM, QC. Ron and I worked together for 10 years on the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. I know he was a very gentle and a very kind man who understood that those of us who were more fortunate in society had to take a role of looking after or considering those people who were less well off than ourselves. To the Smorgon and Castan families, on behalf of all of the people in my electorate who knew of him, his philanthropy and his great works, I express my sincere condolences.House adjourned at 6.06 p.m.Notices12197The following notices were given:Mr Kelvin Thomson to move:That this House:(1) condemns the Australian Democrat, Liberal and National Senators for not proceeding with or supporting the following terms of reference for the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services proposed by Democrat Senator Lyn Allison on 9 March 1999: That the Committee inquire into and report on: (a) the adequacy of the tax system and related policy to address the retirement income and health care needs of Australians into the new millennium; (b) strategies for building more effective national retirement income and long-term saving outcomes; (c) reforms that could be implemented following completion of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge phase-in to 9 per cent; and (d) the taxation of superannuation, particularly the Superannuation High Income Earners Tax Surcharge legislation and alternative payment mechanism; and(2) believes these to be important areas of inquiry for the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services.Mr Secker to move:That this House:(1) places on record the decline of regional infrastructure within parts of Australia, particularly in smaller rural communities;(2) notes that increasingly, rural and regional Australians are required to travel a considerable distance to access quality medical services;(3) further notes the growing size and scale of the transport industry is placing new demands on many roads throughout Australia and these roads need regular maintenance; and(4) calls on the Government to examine funding to regional infrastructure projects so that smaller rural and regional communities can have access to similar services that city people have.1999-10-21Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members121981219812198Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Labor's stunning victory in the Victorian state election merely confirms that the voice of regional and country areas will ultimately be heard. Yet as we confront another major issue in rural Australia—that is, the deregulation of the dairy industry—this federal government appears to have learnt nothing. The federal government has taken a hands-off approach to dairy deregulation while farmers and their communities grapple with all the complexities and the unknowns. It has taken a hands-off approach to an industry worth about $7 billion a year and which brings in $2 billion annually from exports. And it has taken a hands-off approach to over 60,000 dairy farmers around Australia.Like many electorates no doubt, in Braddon there are dairy farmers who support deregulation and those who do not. Industry leaders would have us believe it is not a matter of if deregulation occurs, but when. They have secured a $1.8 billion compensation package with the Commonwealth to help soften the blow on dairy farmers. It is true that D-day is coming for the dairy industry with the Commonwealth Dairy Market Support Scheme due to end on 1 July next year. But before the market forces are allowed to run free, as with deregulation, the impact on the economic and social fabric of dairy farming communities must be seriously considered. To date, I am sorry to say, it has not.The fact is that many farming families and their local communities are being left to contemplate a future less certain because of the prospect of deregulation of their industry. Nowhere is that more evident than in my own electorate—on the dairy farms of Circular Head and across the north-west coast of Tasmania. Tasmania has over 700 dairy farmers, around 400 of those are in Circular Head, which proudly boasts some of the best dairying country in Australia. I am focusing on Circular Head because its economy largely revolves around the dairy industry. It directly employs 1,000 people, and that is a conservative estimate. Six of the nine members of the local municipal council—Ross Hine, the local mayor, included—are dairy farmers. They are well aware of the uncertainty confronting dairy farming families and regional communities. The impact on farmers forced out of the industry, as many no doubt will be, and the flow-on effect to economies like Circular Head cannot be overlooked.Mr Deputy Speaker, you may therefore understand my concern at the high level of anxiety in this particular community—and it is by no means an isolated case—over deregulation and my frustration at the lack of hands-on leadership by this government on the issue. It must provide a framework to ensure the dairy industry and farming communities not only survive but prosper into the future. They need to know that this government has a vision for the dairy industry, if in fact it has one at all. Government must play a much more active role in assisting the dairy industry plan for its future. I am talking of appropriate industry support and development measures to help as many farming families as possible to survive in a deregulated market—measures to secure and enhance jobs, to ensure as far as possible that real price benefits flow to consumers in a deregulated market, to look seriously at regional development initiatives and, very importantly, to assist communities adapt to any adverse effects of change. I hope the Senate report about to be delivered on this issue gives the government some inspiration—it certainly needs it. (Time expired)1219912199Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—In two weeks, students at the University of the Sunshine Coast will be asked whether or not to affiliate their student union with the National Union of Students. The National Union of Students, or NUS, purports to represent over 600,000 students right across Australia. It is a nefarious organisation whose membership consists not of students but of other student unions from campuses around Australia.In spite of the fact that no student can ever be a direct member of NUS and thus ever feel anything like approaching ownership of this organisation, on 2, 3 and 4 November this year students at the University of the Sunshine Coast will be told a collection of lies, distortions and untruths by NUS about how it purports to represent students in order to get them to take the retrograde step of affiliating the USC Students' Guild with NUS.Today I make a recommendation to the sensible students at the University of the Sunshine Coast to reject NUS because everything about that organisation, including its accountability, is completely and utterly flawed. Let us look at some of the evidence. NUS does not conduct a secret ballot for its own elections; in fact, it positively discourages it. I am advised of allegations that the national conference of NUS involves the annual practice of handing over ballots to secure backroom deals. Of the 1,600-odd votes on the floor, only around a dozen people will end up filling them out. This certainly ought to be investigated. The NUS 1999 president said on secret ballots for the NUS's own election:They—the voting delegates—are eligible to have a secret ballot or they are eligible to allow someone else to fill in those ballot papers for them.That is totally unacceptable. The NUS also has an appalling track record in managing its basic legal obligations. As recently as last year, the NUS was nearly deregistered as an incorporated body because it had not submitted essential financial and legal statements to the Registrar-General in the ACT for over seven years—unbelievable. Almost since its beginning, the two most senior elected positions in the NUS have been divided between Labor right and left factions every year. How can this occur every year, yet we are still told that the NUS faithfully represents the broad student body—which, of course, would support all political parties right across the spectrum?The National Union of Students is unrepresentative, undemocratic, a drain on the finances of everyday students and would be an unwelcome addition to the University of the Sunshine Coast. It has a proven policy of being negative and a proven record of failure. I strongly urge the students at the University of the Sunshine Coast to vote no to NUS when the opportunity comes around in the next two weeks.1219912199Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Good morning, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a glorious day here in the national capital, as my friend the member for Braddon would say. But I am not here to talk about the weather. I want to take my hat off to the member for Groom who, on the ABC's AM program this morning, exposed the dishonesty of the monarchists' campaign and that of certain members of the government in the republic debate.I bring to the attention of this parliament the disgraceful and dishonest campaign being waged at the moment by the monarchists, who are hell bent on stopping Australia becoming a republic. The monarchists are so ashamed of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II that the ACM does not even refer to Her Majesty in their scurrilous propaganda. They cannot even bear to mention her name. Worse, in their advertisements promoting a no vote on 6 November, the monarchists are claiming that Australians who vote no will get a directly elected president. We all know that is not true. The truth of the matter is that if Australians vote no on 6 November, they will not change our Constitution at all. Therefore, when Australians wake up on Sunday, 7 November, we will still have a hereditary monarch, and a Governor-General in regard to whom only one Australian, the Prime Minister, will get a say.Mr Slipper interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Fisher will be silent.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—The people in my electorate of Lowe, from Drummoyne to Homebush west and from Rhodes to South Strathfield, overwhelmingly are crying out for an Australian, one of us, to be our next head of state. They are fed up with the lies and deception on the part of monarchists such as the member for Fisher. The monarchists' scare campaign is so pathetic that, in addition to their outrageous lies, they are peddling claims that 69 unknown and radical changes to our Constitution will need to be made to achieve a republic. This hyperbole is monstrous. The truth of the matter is that the so-called radical changes to our Constitution largely revolve around the replacement of the words `Queen' and `Governor-General' appearing in numerous sections of the Constitution with the word `President'.Blind Freddy can see what frauds the monarchists are. The changes to our Constitution will be minimal when we become a republic, and the lying monarchists know it. The reality of the monarchists' campaign is that they do not believe that an Australian is good enough to be our head of state. Well, what a joke, Mr Deputy Speaker. All I can say is: yes, yes, yes. I am proudly wearing my yes badge here today.849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—Like Mr Macfarlane.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Like the member for Groom, Mr Macfarlane, who is a member of the government and who has the good sense and honesty to promote the campaign. I want to tell people that the words for the next few weeks, until 6 November, are: yes, yes. It is time for us to cut the umbilical cord. It is time to stand on our own two feet. Vote for a republic on 6 November and stop the lies and deception that are going on at the moment, when what is proposed is simply to replace references to the `Crown' with `Commonwealth' and references to the `Governor-General' and the `Queen' with `President', and the replacement of the notion of `a subject of the Queen' with `Australian citizen'. Stop the lies and deception and, on 6 November, vote `yes', `yes'. I say, `yes',` yes', as does the member for Braddon. (Time expired)1220012200Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—Last week, along with my parliamentary colleagues Senator Jim McKiernan, Senator John Hogg, Janice Crosio and Chris Gallus, I had the pleasure of representing the Australian parliament at the 102nd Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Berlin, Germany. Berlin was a most apt location for 750 members of parliament from 138 nations to assemble and discuss motions on the effects of global financing, human rights, tolerance and international criminal justice.From my perspective, the conference was an excellent opportunity to see the mix of national political processes at work, with nations from the most democratic and open to those that still operate under totalitarian regimes. Such an experience gave me an opportunity to reflect on recent political events, both overseas and at home. In the last few months the world has once again witnessed democratic processes and the will of the people being tested, in some cases manipulated by those with vested interests, fear of loss of power or vindictiveness in mind.This year Berlin celebrates its tenth anniversary since the greatest symbol of the deprivation of freedom—the wall—came down. To walk through the Brandenburg Gate and Checkpoint Charlie and to sit in the newly renovated and opened Reichstag is to experience what freedom, democracy and people power is all about.While we were there we were also reminded of the contrary position—the debates on East Timor which Australia was proud to lead; and the witnessing of the Pakistani military coup and its resultant effect on the Pakistan delegation, which was made up of the Speaker of the Pakistan Assembly—and it enabled me to reflect on the events back home in my own state of Victoria, where three Independents who received less than 1.1 per cent of the vote determined the course of government, some with total honesty in their intent, others simply masquerading as Independents.The German President, Johannes Rau, in an address to the IPU delegates, reminded us of the gifts of democracy and those rewards which come from a truly open and representative state where the will of the people is expressed. Many assembled in Berlin would have fought against or fled cruel, despotic regimes and oppressive ideologies. We, too, in this country have people who have emigrated from nations with such regimes. They do not take democracy or freedom for granted, and it is they who remind us to be ever vigilant in defending our democratic freedom.The events in Pakistan reminded us that military power can never be a substitute for the power of the people in a true democratic nation. It cannot be redefined as such to suit vested non-democratic interests. In the last 20 years we have seen enormous strides towards democracy amongst nations. The IPU conference enabled me to walk away thinking that we should always defend the freedom of the people. (Time expired)1220112201Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—This morning I would like to talk about the election of a Labor government in Victoria, particularly the implications for my own electorate, which are very significant indeed. Located in Jagajaga is the largest teaching hospital in Victoria, the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre, an outstanding hospital of international repute because of both its research capacity and the medical and nursing care conducted in that hospital.One of the commitments of the previous Kennett government was to sell this outstanding teaching hospital, to privatise it, to take it away from the public and to hand it over to a private operator. We have been fighting this issue in Jagajaga for a very long time, since the first time we heard about it many years ago, as was usually the case with the Kennett government, off the back of a truck.I am very pleased to say that one of the main commitments of the newly elected Bracks Labor government is that this hospital will no longer be privatised. It is a great achievement for all those local people who have worked so hard to stop the privatisation of this outstanding hospital. I hope also that, with the election of the Bracks Labor government, we have the end to the climate of fear that was right through that hospital. So many people in the hospital, ranging from the most senior doctor in the organisation down to those who were cleaning the place, were opposed to the privatisation. They were all opposed to the privatisation. Now, hopefully, they will be able to speak out in the interests of their patients and the hospital to say what they think should happen to our teaching hospital.I am also pleased to say that the Bracks Labor government, in its election campaign, has already committed $155 million in capital works to upgrade the hospital. The people of our local area can look forward to an upgraded hospital continuing its outstanding work, a hospital that, because of the election of a Bracks Labor government, will no longer be sold. It will be there in perpetuity for local people, for the people of Victoria. It will not be sold into private hands. It is an outstanding achievement and one that we are so proud of. It comes as a result of such hard work from so many local people over a very long period of time.1220212202Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise today to speak on the critical issue of water in the Murrumbidgee and Murray irrigation areas and to dispel the confusion that exists even within the New South Wales government. Allocations to our irrigators are the lowest since diversions started from the Hume Dam in the 1930s. In addition to this, there are several factors contributing to the problem. In October 1996, more than 900,000 megalitres were released from the Hume Dam after movement was detected in the dam wall. Contrary to some reports, the dam has not yet recovered and, as a result, New South Wales are further in debt to Victoria.New South Wales irrigators have borne the brunt of this release. Land-holders flooded by the release are being compensated by government, but the irrigators affected by the loss of water have not received one cent. Then, in the face of very low storages, in the winter of 1999 Lake Victoria was drained to meet the requirements of the New South Wales national parks to address the management of Aboriginal burial sites at the lake. This water ran out to sea. Of course, the refilling of Lake Victoria has used significant quantities of water that could have been used by our irrigators.To compound the problem even further, the Victorian and New South Wales governments have been developing a corporatised power industry for more than four years. In Victoria, privatisation of generation and distribution occurred under the Kennett government; however, in New South Wales, the power industry is still owned by the government despite attempts by Mr Egan to convince the Labor government to sell the state's power assets. As a result of the failure of the New South Wales Labor government to address the power market, irrigators have felt the pain of leading reform in their own industry, and then falling victim to the New South Wales government and the electricity industry.The question that clearly needs to be asked is: are irrigators having their allocations reduced in order that the Snowy may corporatise with stocks in the cupboard, so to speak, to bolster the value of the asset to any potential investor? The Commonwealth have wholeheartedly supported irrigators with the member for Farrer, the Hon. Tim Fischer, and me making representations to the departments, various ministers and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister even wrote to the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, to ask for a sensible and reasonable decision from the New South Wales state government.What commercial deal is based on paying for a product and then being forced to give the product back without being credited for the amount paid? This is the deal the New South Wales government has offered our irrigators. Is this fairness? Is this decency, this offer from the New South Wales state government to our irrigators? I leave the question.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills12203s189Consideration resumed from 18 October.1220309:57:0012203Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is identical to the Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998, introduced into the House of Representatives on 2 July 1998 before the last parliament was dissolved on 31 August of that year.It represents another instalment of legislative amendments proposed by the government in implementing the Tough on Drugs strategy, as announced by the Prime Minister on 2 November 1997.Illicit drugs damage our society, especially our young people. The government is determined to do everything it can to reduce the menace of illicit drugs. The Prime Minister's outstanding personal leadership in announcing the Tough on Drugs strategy is a very clear demonstration of that commitment. Recent significant seizures of illicit drugs underline the commitment of the government.The government's strategy is threefold.Firstly, it aims to reduce demand for illicit drugs by educating people, particularly young Australians about the dangers of drug use.Secondly, it aims to reduce the harm being done to drug users, for example through education about the risks of HIV-AIDS among injecting users.Thirdly, it aims to reduce the supply of illicit drugs by stopping them from coming into the country in the first place.Each of these parts of the strategy received a significant boost in funding in the Prime Minister's initial announcement of 2 November 1997 and were emphasised in his second announcement on 16 March 1998.As well as making sure that our law enforcement agencies have the people and the tools that they need to combat this menace, we also need to make sure that they are equipped with adequate and appropriate legal powers. That is what this bill is about.The bill amends the Customs Act 1901, with the objective of providing customs officers with more effective powers in relation to the detection of illicit drugs at the border.The bill also amends the Customs Administration Act 1985 in relation to the use made of information obtained or held by the Australian Customs Service. A brief outline of the proposals included in the bill is as follows.Currently, passengers and crew who arrive in Australia on a ship or a plane are required to report to Customs. In respect of such people, Customs has powers to ask questions, search bags and, subject to establishing a `reasonable cause', conduct searches of people.But there is a gap in these powers. Customs does not currently have these powers in relation to a large number of people who have access to ships and planes that have arrived in Australia and which may have illicit drugs aboard.This group of people includes people such as maintenance crews, caterers and cleaners and, in relation to ships, visitors. This gap is a weakness which has been exploited as a means of importing illicit drugs.The proposed amendments seek to provide customs officers with the power to examine the bags or other containers in the possession of such persons to ensure illicit drugs are not being landed by them.Similarly, customs officers do not currently have any power to frisk search such persons. This inability, where the customs officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is carrying prohibited goods on his or her body, provides a significant opportunity for such persons to walk illicit drugs off a ship or aircraft.The amendments propose to provide customs officers with the power to undertake a frisk search of a person in such circumstances.It is proposed that these powers will also apply in circumstances where customs officers are involved in the boarding and searching of a ship or aircraft whether it is berthed or parked at a wharf or airport respectively or whether a vessel is boarded at sea by customs officers on an Australian customs vessel.In summary, the powers proposed are not new ones: as I have explained, Customs already has these powers in respect of arriving passengers.The proposal is simply to extend the powers to other people in a `customs place' who have unrestricted access to planes and ships for quite legitimate purposes.The proposed frisk search powers will provide the same safeguards and rights to individuals as currently apply to passengers, thereby ensuring that the dignity of a person being frisk searched is maintained. In relation to customs officers on board Australian customs vessels, there has, for some time, been a concern within the Australian Customs Service about the safety and welfare of customs officers operating at sea in an isolated environment.Customs officers are not armed. They should be able to feel safe and without fear of any threat when administering the Customs Act and protecting our borders. This is particularly the case in relation to customs officers operating at sea when boarding a ship. Unlike the controlled environment at an airport, customs officers do not necessarily know in advance the circumstances they will confront on boarding.For this reason, a special frisk search power is being sought in the circumstances. When an officer suspects that he or she is in danger of being injured by a person on the ship, the officer would be able to frisk search the suspect person without consent and take possession, if necessary with reasonable force, of any implements such as knives, guns or other implements which could harm the officers.The bill also proposes to give customs officers the power to copy a document in circumstances where a customs officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the document contains information in relation to the importation of illicit drugs. Such information will be invaluable in the detection of significant drug importations.In addition, the bill proposes a number of amendments which will assist in the detection of drugs by generally making customs controls more effective at the border. These may be summarised as follows:. A customs officer currently has the power to require a vehicle to stop in a customs place for the purpose of checking goods leaving customs control. There is no deterrent if the driver of the vehicle fails to stop. It is proposed to make it an offence in cases where the vehicle fails to stop.. Currently, the act makes it an offence for craft or goods coming from a place outside Australia to go directly to a sea installation without customs permission. A similar offence exists in relation to a craft or goods leaving a sea installation directly for a place outside Australia.It is proposed to extend the application of this provision to resources installation. The potential for sea installations to be used to breach border controls is equally relevant in relation to resources installations.. It is an offence under the act for an Australian based craft to transfer goods at sea to a craft on an international voyage. It is proposed to also make it an offence for the craft on the international voyage to be involved in such a transfer of goods.. A customs officer currently has the power to board and search a foreign flag ship entering the Australian territorial sea.As a consequence of Australia becoming a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it is proposed to extend these powers to the contiguous zone in cases where the customs officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship has been, is, or is to be, involved in the commission of an offence against the act.It is also proposed to extend the area in which the general powers to board and search ships may be exercised to include the sea to the landward side of the base line to the coastline of Australia as well as the territorial sea.Amendments are also proposed to the Customs Administration Act 1985. These amendments will modernise the official secrecy and disclosure provisions and will recognise the necessity of arrangements for intelligence sharing in acting against illicit drug smuggling and trafficking (including performance enhancing drugs) as well as in relation to other unlawful activity.Such arrangements also assist efficient operational and regulatory activity by customs and other bodies. Special safeguards are also included to ensure the appropriate protection of personal information.The bill also includes a proposal related to the control of weapons in accordance with the government's gun control policy. The objective of this proposal is that a person on a craft on an international voyage visiting Australia, for example a yacht, is to be subject to the same gun controls as if such a person arrived in Australia as a passenger, similar to all Australians.To this end it is proposed that such a person be required to keep such weapons in secure storage on board their craft for the duration of their stay in Australia.If they are unable to provide secure storage on their craft for the storage of the weapon, the customs officer is to have the power to take the weapon into custody for the duration of the person's stay in Australia. The weapon will be returned to the person upon departure from Australia.The proposals I have outlined will be of valuable assistance to the Australian Customs Service in controlling movements of people, craft and goods across the Australian border, and, in particular, enhance the ability of the Australian Customs Service to detect importation of illicit drugs into Australia. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and commend it to the chamber.10:08:0012206Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 is broadly supported by the opposition. There were a number of amendments proposed by the opposition which were accepted by the government in the Senate, and they have now been incorporated in this legislation. We believe they improve the substance of it.Nothing I intend to say today is intended in any way to slight the requirements that are carried through in this legislation of giving to customs officials all the appropriate powers to enable them to carry out their job satisfactorily, particularly in light of recent increases in professional smuggling rings, and the involvement of organised crime in both illicit drugs and illegal immigrants smuggling. It is imperative that the people who control our borders are able to take all reasonable steps to protect our country from illegal imports, and to protect themselves from the dangers presented by the people who are bringing in illegal imports, and people smuggling.I want to say, however, that we are very much in danger of sending the wrong message. Frequently, those who raise concerns about discussions in the community on the heroin trial that was proposed by the ACT government, the shooting gallery proposals that are under discussion in New South Wales and now in Victoria and, I think, also in the ACT, and a range of needle exchange programs which are already in operation, use powerful rhetoric to say that that is sending the wrong message. It is a very effective piece of public communication. But I want to say it is sending very much the wrong message if we allow ourselves as legislators to suggest that prohibition can work and can be a solution to the issue of drugs in our community. I think it is very important to send the right message, which is that prohibition is not working and cannot work. It is not a solution and law enforcement alone is not a response to the issues that confront us as a society in relation to illicit drugs.I think nothing could be more transparently clear than that as the evidence unfolds in relation to the government's Tough on Drugs initiative. This government is in danger of leading our country down a very bad blind alley if we put too much weight on the capacity of law enforcement to deal with issues which are essentially social and health related. It is simply impossible for law enforcement to stop the importation of drugs. This legislation will give to those who are charged with that responsibility appropriate additional powers to do what they can, but we must not deceive ourselves—and, in the process, deceive the Australian public—that we can avoid the hard choices about how we operate in relation to this issue within our community by, in a sense, pushing it off to the professionals in the law enforcement field and in Customs as if they can be a solution to this problem. We must not do that.There is an increasing danger in the stridency of our response in relation to these matters and the pressures it brings on those who are charged with those responsibilities, and also the pressure it brings on us as legislators from time to time to turn a blind eye to inappropriate withdrawals of the civil liberties, the freedoms and the traditions of our liberal society. There is a danger that we can wrap this all up in a response that is doomed to failure. It is simply not going to be a plausible situation that increased powers of search and seizure for Customs, additional powers to the Australian Federal Police or amendments to the National Crime Authority—all of which I believe to be appropriate and necessary—will work. These things must go towards our strategic objective of dealing with organised crime and those who wish to take profit out of the misery that they create in relation to these situations. But it cannot be an answer in relation to the overall problem we face as a community.It will not help reduce the harm that drugs cause to our youth nor will it result in a reduction of drug related crime across the country. If anything should have been an absolute signal to this effect, it was the massive seizure of heroin on the east coast of Australia just about a year ago, an amount which was unprecedented in its volume. At the time, the Minister for Justice and Customs, whom I do not charge with anything other than naivety in relation to this, suggested that it would have an immediate effect on the drug market in Australia, but there was not even a blip. Prices did not increase. The disruption by what was hitherto the largest seizure, which dwarfed in its dimension all other seizures of heroin coming to this country, did not affect the illegal street price of heroin one jot and heroin prices continue to come down.The recent survey conducted by the University of Western Australia in relation to marijuana shows that there is an illegal market in this country of about $5 billion. You can estimate that that may be wrong by a billion or so but there is a massive illegal market there. There is a massive illegal market in opioids. There is a growing illegal market in relation to a range of dance party drugs.The idea that we can deal with these issues simply by closing our eyes to the reality of what is occurring in our society and dealing with it by a supply side approach is simply naive. I say that not to diminish what the government is seeking to do by these measures, which we support, but to try to put another side to a story that must be told, another side to a story which, if we as legislators allow ourselves to get swept along with almost a rhetorical position that this is a solution to a problem, will deceive us and lead the Australian community into a very wrong approach.To conclude this point I am making, you only need to look at the statistics of those who are dying through illegal drug overdoses to realise how massively we deceive ourselves if we reckon that the increasing law enforcement activities, the additional task forces, the whole gamut of new powers that have been vested in forces, can do anything to address supply on the streets in a way which will mean that that problem disappears. If you just look at the statistics of those who are dying, the graph has gone up and up and up, and continues to go up.That calls on us to think through much more comprehensive solutions than the nasty, self-deceptive, tough on drugs language and the self-deceptive set of measures which do not go fundamentally to the proposition that we are sending the wrong message to our community by saying that prohibition is a solution. In truth, in so far as the majority of these issues do create problems for those who take drugs—and many young people I know argue that they know that their parents and others are part of a drug taking culture and they say that this is something on which they will not accept peer related messages—and to the extent that there are significant health and social issues, they have to be addressed in the terms in which they present themselves: as health and social issues within our community.One measure which the opposition raised in this regard was about the way these debates are sometimes framed that leads us to withdraw from traditions which we have held to be very valuable for a long period of time. When the bill was put forward, section 16AA made arrangements whereby, if you employed somebody, you would be criminally liable for the act of that employee in relation to certain matters under the act. That is all very good and fine insofar as it relates to corporations, because corporations are artificial entities. We have accepted that artificial entities such as corporations can only act through their servants and agents, and we have followed what has been traditional in this parliament of allowing vicarious liability for criminal acts committed by employees to be sheeted home to the corporation.But corporations do not go to jail. Corporations may be fined and, in worst cases, they may be wound up. However, Australian law has never before facilitated, to the best of my knowledge, a situation where an employer, absent any reasonable circumstances where they knew or ought to have know of the act of an employee, was attributed with a criminal responsibility for that employee. We opposed that extension in this legislation, in an area where admittedly we do not believe the government was seeking to act with any malice, in an area where it may even have been intending to tighten some of the protections in relation to security of information held by the agency. But, nonetheless, once you allow yourself to undermine that principle in this legislation, it is a very easy step to then extend it more generally in a whole range of other areas.I am very pleased that the government, when these matters were discussed in the Senate, agreed to address this situation and to say that it is not acceptable that a man or woman should be found guilty of a crime and have a criminal record simply because he or she employs someone else who commits an offence. An unknowing employer—and I am talking about an employer who does not know, or does not have any reasonable grounds to know, that that act would be committed—does not have the mental element required for most criminal offences, nor is it a matter of due course that they should be held liable for the criminal actions of another.In the evidence given in the Senate, the International Commission of Jurists argued that as a matter of principle the ICJ does not condone the imposition of vicarious liability on a master or principal for criminal offences at common law. They discussed this matter and they said that further statutory incursions into the sound common law principle against vicarious liability should not be encouraged. It is gratifying to see that this position has prevailed. The legislative creep which has allowed the introduction of provisions which apply vicarious criminal liability on individual citizens is neither warranted nor acceptable.Broadly, we are supportive as an opposition of these proposals. We know there are people now—such as those involved in organised crime and transnational groups—who seek to exploit the misery of others, not just in the area of drugs but in people smuggling, the sex trade industry and the like. There are people against whom the full resources of the law enforcement ought to be extended. We are pleased that the government have put forward these measures and are treating that side of their responsibilities seriously.We note, however, that there is a danger that a head in the sand attitude will be substituted for a proper attempt to address what can be done in the area of law enforcement; that it will be a substitute for the hard thinking and the action that is required in relation to the social and health related issues, which are inextricably bound up with the fact that we have a very significant component of our society who for reasons, whether or not we accept them, do use drugs, and there is an increasing number who use drugs.We must not end up with a situation which has dominated, for example, the United States, where 23 per cent of the prison population is incarcerated for drug offences but no other consequential activity related to it—personal use type offences—where the number of people in the prison system has been increasing massively each year, where the infiltration of organised crime in the system has been increasing year by year and where, despite the most draconian of responses and every attempt to deal with this on a simplistic supply side only basis, the society simply has not been able to address the problems that it has. It has massive AIDS problems because it does not have needle exchange programs.Our society has always been much more pragmatic than that. In this debate I want to say that it requires pragmatism. We are pragmatic in relation to our response to these measures. We support them but we want the government to be more pragmatic in relation to the social and health related side and the issues that confront us all as citizens. The picture should not be so presented that a wrong message is sent that prohibition in some ways can substitute for broader policy responses.10:24:0012209Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—in reply—At the outset I would like to thank the honourable member for Denison for his contribution and also the opposition for their support of the Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , which is before the chamber today. As I said earlier, this bill represents legislative amendments proposed by the government to implement part of the Tough on Drugs strategy—an initiative announced by the Prime Minister on 2 November 1997. I listened very carefully to the speech by the member for Denison, and it seemed to me that he did not listen to what I said in my initial contribution. It is very obvious that the enforcement provision is only part of the government's Tough on Drugs strategy. That strategy, as I said in my speech, is threefold.Firstly, it aims to reduce demand for illicit drugs by educating people, particularly our young people, about the dangers of drug use. I do not believe any reasonable person could possibly oppose that arm of the government's strategy—and I am not suggesting for a moment that the member for Denison is. The second arm of the strategy states that we aim to reduce the harm being done to drug users—for example, through education about the risks of HIV-AIDS among injecting users. The third arm of the strategy, dealt with by this bill principally, aims to reduce the supply of illicit drugs by stopping them from coming into the country in the first place.We have a complex strategy which is designed to address the social needs. We are aiming to educate people and to make them understand the dangers of drug use. We are also keen to stop drugs from coming into the country, and that is, of course, a good thing. The member for Denison seemed to suggest that the government's sole approach is based on prohibition. Certainly, we want to stop illicit drugs from coming into the country—we are not going to apologise for that—and it must be a good thing to have fewer illicit drugs coming into the country. When Minister Vanstone commented on the drug haul 12 months ago, she was absolutely correct in suggesting that, by intercepting this drug haul, the country was very much better off.The member for Denison, though, just seemed to avoid the point of what the government is doing, and that is regrettable. The fact is that the government is looking at stopping drugs from coming in as well as using education. We are certainly not going to apologise for our endeavouring to stop illicit drugs from coming into Australia. Indeed, we have had very much better success with this than the former Labor government. For instance, seizures by Customs of prohibited performance enhancing drugs have doubled over the past three years. In 1997-98 alone, Customs made 571 seizures of such drugs, a significant increase on the 27 annual seizures made just four years earlier. And that is only one element of the seizure of drugs.I believe all reasonable Australians, including all members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, would accept that illicit drugs damage our society, especially our young people. The government is determined to do everything it can to reduce the menace of illicit drugs, and the Prime Minister has shown absolutely outstanding personal leadership in taking command of the Tough on Drugs Strategy. That strategy is a very clear demonstration of the commitment of the Howard government. As well as making sure that our law enforcement agencies have the people and the tools that they need to combat this menace, we need to make sure they are equipped with adequate and appropriate legal powers. That is what this bill is all about.The member for Denison also referred to the issue of vicarious liability. History records that the opposition proposed amendments to this bill to remove vicarious liability for individuals. The government has agreed to those amendments. We think they are a good thing, and that liability is now removed from individuals.In summary, the bill amends the Customs Act 1901, with the objective of providing customs officers with more effective powers in relation to the detection of illicit drugs at the border. The bill also amends the Customs Administration Act 1985 in relation to the use of information held or obtained by the Australian Customs Service. I am very pleased once again to commend this bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr 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.Bills12210s220Consideration resumed from 14 October.1221010:29:0012210Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is designed to remove any doubt about the validity of certain decisions made by officers of the Australian Customs Service in relation to the Tariff Concession System.The Tariff Concession System allows goods to be imported at a concessional rate of duty, essentially in circumstances where there are no local manufacturers of substitutable goods.In November 1995, the Chief Executive Officer of Customs generally delegated his powers and functions in relation to the Tariff Concession System to certain officers of Customs.In July 1996, the government made changes to the tariff concession system. Those changes resulted in amendments to the Customs Act, including the introduction of additional powers and functions.New delegations were not sought for powers that were added to sections of the act which were already the subject of the November 1995 instrument. It was thought that that instrument was sufficient.The validity of the delegations for the tariff concession system was questioned at a recent hearing of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.In light of this, the Chief Executive Officer signed two instruments on 31 May this year. The first revoked all existing delegations for the tariff concession system. The second issued new delegations covering all the powers and functions in relation to the tariff concession system.Both instruments took effect on 1 June 1999.Notwithstanding this action, it is possible that certain decisions and actions taken in relation to the tariff concession system subsequent to the 1996 changes to the act may not have been the subject of valid delegations.Mr Speaker, this bill aims to remove any doubt about the validity of these decisions and actions, to the extent that they were taken in reliance on a delegation that may not have been valid.The government has decided that the retrospective effect of this bill should not apply to certain matters before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or to certain applications for refunds of customs duty, which had not been decided before 1 June 1999.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.10:32:0012211Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I have pleasure in telling the government that we are going to support the Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999 , but I suspect that is the last pleasure the government is going to get from this speech.Rather than the long speeches we hear when the government thinks it might be in a position of some capacity to advocate what good things it has been doing, this is an exercise of fixing up a problem which was really of this government's making. The only thing that saves me from having to call on the minister to resign is that the minister has in fact resigned. Geoff Prosser, who was the minister in charge of the department at the time these delegations and changes in relation to the administration of the Customs system were put in place, no longer has office.It is fair to say that, notwithstanding the carping that occasionally happens in politics, his successive ministers have been conscientious in relation to seeking to address this matter in what I believe to be a reasonable manner, given that the difficulty is one which could not be resolved in a way which is perfect. The problem having emerged, we as parliamentarians have to try our best to work through how to respond to it. I take this opportunity to thank the minister and her staff, who have had a series of briefings with me and my office and have always been very open and comprehensive in relation to the advice that they have provided to us.Essentially what happened was a bungle. Shortly after this government came to office, the tariff concession system was modified. In November 1995, the Chief Executive Officer of Customs generally delegated his powers and functions in relation to the scheme to certain officers of Customs. The act was amended in July 1996 as a result of the practical difficulties involved with matching imported goods with domestically manufactured goods. The amendments necessarily included a power to revoke previous tariff concessions. New delegations were not sought for this power as it was assumed that the existing delegation was sufficient. That assumption was made notwithstanding that the government had legal advice to the contrary effect. The government has now admitted that it was wrong to make such assumptions.The issue came to light only by chance. On 26 May 1999, a challenge to the revocation of a concession was lodged in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to matters which were not then the focus of the argument in the case. Attention turned to the question of whether or not these delegations were valid. On the discovery that the new delegations had not been made because it did not cover the new powers, a circumstance arose whereby there were a number of pending matters where similar challenges had been made, but there were a whole raft of previous, now invalid, determinations which would have exposed the Commonwealth to liabilities of hundreds of millions of dollars.The estimates that we have are that in 1996-97, the figure was $92 million, in 1997-98, $105 million, in 1998-99, $119 million, and in 1999-2000, $131 million. So we are not talking about a small error here; we are talking about something that dwarfs the MRI scam liabilities that the Commonwealth is now subject to. We are talking about something that would have a massive financial impact on the revenue projections of the Commonwealth—in a four-year period, nearly $450-odd million.The government came to us in those circumstances and said, `We propose to cauterise this by accepting that all those people who have pending litigation in respect of any challenge relating to these issues, irrespective of the fact that they were not challenges in relation to this particular defect, will be able to be protected and isolated from this legislation; but other than that, we intend to reach back and to treat as valid all the invalid determinations that have been made and to rectify the situation retrospectively.'Flowing from that, not unnaturally, a number of importers came to see the opposition to seek to persuade us to take a different view from the course we are currently adopting. I must say that it is terribly tempting, when you are in opposition, not only to expose the error, the bungle and the maladministration of the government, but also to hold them to the logical consequences of that, which is a shortfall of something like $450 million in revenue over four years. The natural consequences of saying that should then lead to a whole range of administrative dismissals—and, of course, I would say, were the minister still in office, the natural call for that minister to resign. I am not treating this lightly because it is quite a legitimate and proper point and it was put to us that the opposition would be on sound ground to resist the call for retrospective legislation and to allow the matter to fall as it was, as it related to an error within the department, within the government, and a failure of good administration, for which the government would have to wear the costs politically and economically.I think the opposition could not have been faulted had it taken that position. But there are circumstances in which we, when in government previously, made similar errors—although not of this dimension—and we had to go back to the parliament and to seek from the parliament measures to address defects of administration. They should not happen. We were properly brought to account and made the subject of considerable criticism in relation to those matters. But the then opposition, I think for the same sorts of reasons that we in opposition are now considering ourselves, in the larger public interest, being willing to take a responsible position, did not require the revenue to suffer as a consequence.That is not to say that that is the end of this story, because those who were disappointed by the government's response and the opposition's support of it will no doubt argue legally in the courts that this legislation is constitutionally invalid. They made it plain to us that, with something like $450 million at issue, there is some prospect, on the authorities, that such an argument might be, at least thinly, presented to the court. If it could be thinly presented, when such large bounty is in prospect of falling in their laps, I would not be surprised if this matter is litigated.If it is litigated and it is found by the courts that the liability cannot be extinguished by this legislation, then the government will be faced with a budget shortfall in the order of $450 million in relation to these issues. The opposition is not going to be responsible for that. We will do what we can within the limits of the parliamentary process to assist the government to deal with this situation.The bill is intended to ratify all revocations and grants of concessions which were made prior to the 1999 delegations by deeming that instruments of delegations made after 27 November 1995 and before 31 May 1999, when new delegations were brought in, effectively delegated all relevant powers under the act, as those powers were amended from time to time. It also ensures that decisions made by customs officers in relation to TCS are not invalid only because of any doubt about the ambit of the delegations.Because the government is trying to fix up an error that it made three years ago, it has been forced to introduce a bill which includes this retrospective element. We concede that there is no other way to fix up this error from the past. The only decisions made under an invalid delegation which will not be ratified retrospectively by the bill are those decisions which have been, or are being, challenged in the AAT on the specific ground that there was in fact no valid instrument of delegation at the time the decision was made. The government must do this as it cannot legislatively pre-empt the outcome of challenges which are currently in front of the AAT.That much is clear from constitutional law, that when there is a chose in action actually being litigated, constitutionally that cannot be extinguished without offending against the provisions which require that no acquisition of property occur other than on just terms. When I referred earlier to the prospect of future litigation, obviously it will be on the basis that that just terms provision in the constitution also overrides this act of this parliament in seeking to retrospectively extinguish liabilities that could otherwise have been asserted but for this.We are willing to support this legislation, although we do not do so with any pleasure. We have made it plain in discussions with officers from the department that we do regard this as a serious error, and they concede that it was. They concede that it was made against legal advice. They concede also that steps are now having to be put in place to ensure that proper understandings of the legal circumstances are much better embedded in the system. They are trying to ensure that circumstances like this cannot emerge, where the parliament is called on late in the day to address a problem which would have massive consequences for the budget.As I say, this is a line ball decision in so far as the opposition is concerned. It is terribly politically tempting to act irresponsibly and sheet home blame to a government that had failed and had bungled. There is no up side from the opposition in relation to this matter. There is not a minister to harass out of office since the relevant minister has paid the price for other failures.We can only put on the record what we believe, on balance, is in the public interest—an acceptance that errors of an administrative nature do occur and that ministers from time to time will fail. The political accountability mechanism in this case cannot be followed through because the minister has already resigned, so we are unable to pursue that politically. On balance, we believe that it would not be in the public interest, nor in the interest of those thousands of taxpayers, to have measures which, but for the discovery of this error in incidental proceedings before the AAT, would have been treated as valid in relation to a whole series of transactions.As I indicated at the outset, it gives me no great pleasure to be supporting this legislation and I am certain it gives the government no great pleasure in having to present it. I hope that there are lessons that have been learnt, because if this incident occurs again, the disposition of the opposition may not be quite so generous. Clearly, I suppose it would be right to say that, in the early period of a government, perhaps some latitude can be given to the circumstances in transition to government. None can be given from now on.10:45:0012214Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—The Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999 is designed to remedy any invalidity in the decisions made by officers of the Australian Customs Service in relation to the operation of the tariff concession system between July 1996 and May 1999. Basically, decisions relating to the tariff concession system—a system which imposes a concessional rate of duty where there is no local manufacture of substitutable goods—are made by customs officers.In November 1995, the Chief Executive Officer of Customs generally delegated his powers and functions relating to the system to nominated customs officers, and that was a delegation which took place under the previous government. Following changes to the tariff concession system in July 1996, amendments were made to the Customs Act and new powers and functions were introduced. At that time, Customs believed—and I am uncertain that this is the base of the assertion that it was against advice—that the chief executive officer's general delegation of November 1995 covered the exercise of these new powers and, accordingly, it was believed that no new delegations were necessary and, in fact, no new delegations were made.In May 1999, however, doubts were raised over the efficacy of the general delegations issued in 1995 in the course of a matter which, as the previous speaker, the member for Denison, has noted, was before the AAT, but not on this precise matter. Subsequently, the Chief Executive Officer of Customs revoked existing delegations and issued new ones covering all powers and functions relating to the tariff concession system with effect from 1 June 1999. The fact, however, is that it is possible that tariff concession decisions made between July 1996 and June 1999 may not have rested on the basis of adequate delegations.The bill does address this possibility and is designed to remove any doubt about the validity of decisions that relied on a delegation that may have been inadequate. There has been some suggestion made in the course of this debate, and outside this House, that the bill may be in breach of section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution as a law for the acquisition of property on unjust terms. As the bill takes steps to validate the collection of customs duty, it is a law with respect to taxation. The chief general counsel for the Commonwealth has provided the Commonwealth with advice that the bill is not a law with respect to the acquisition of property with respect to section 51. There are some parties who sought a review of aspects of the tariff concession prior to 1 June 1999. The bill will preserve the rights of these parties to have their cases considered and resolved.There is an element of retrospectivity involved in this legislation, and retrospectivity is quite undesirable. The mitigating factor in this case, insofar as there are any shades of grey involved in the issue of retrospectivity, is that this was a matter that went to the technicality of a delegation, rather than being the retrospective imposition of an obligation that people did not believe existed. In this instance, the retrospective aspects of the legislation perform a technical remedy designed to protect the revenue. It should be recognised that the Labor Party is supporting this bill, despite a mammoth conflict between principle and political expediency, and I think that needs to be noted.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It was too precious, don't you think?HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—I think there was a point there and I think most political parties would be tempted. But, in this particular case, I think the demands of good public policy and the impact on the revenue are such as to override those. In fact, I believe that the Labor Party, both in the Senate and in this debate, while drawing attention to their concern, came to the correct bottom line, and that is in the interests of good public policy.There has been a departmental oversight, error—call it whatever you will—which this bill is now required to overcome in order to protect the revenue. The magnitude of the revenue involved is substantial. It is unfortunate that we have had to introduce a retrospective element in order to do that. Having made that observation, I commend the bill.10:50:0012215Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—in reply—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his very competent contribution to this debate, and also the member for Denison for his speech and the Labor Party for its support of the legislation before the chamber, the Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999 .I want to address, however, some of the criticisms made by the member for Denison when he spoke. He suggested that somehow this was a grievous mistake made by the government and that the minister at the time ought to have been sacked if he had not subsequently resigned. It is a fact of life that in any modern democratic society the bureaucracy does, from time to time, make errors. In this case it was an error not by the minister personally but by the bureaucracy. That is indeed regrettable, but it ought to be recalled that this was in fact a mistake that was made within Customs. The legislation currently before the chamber is designed to rectify the possible flow-on impacts from that decision.The member for Denison also referred to the possible lack of constitutionality of the legislation currently before the chamber. There is legal advice from the Chief General Counsel of the AGS indicating that this bill is indeed constitutional. The government accepts that particular position. Originally, it was suggested that the constitutionality of the bill might be suspect on the grounds that it might contravene section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution because the bill may extinguish a right of an importer to obtain a refund of additional customs duty that had been paid. But the advice which has been received from the Chief General Counsel indicates that the bill is not a law with respect to the acquisition of property pursuant to that section of the Australian Constitution. So we are very confident indeed that this bill would withstand any challenge in the courts of this country.The honourable member for Denison also suggested that the actions of Customs went against legal advice. The facts are just slightly different. The facts are that the decisions were taken without knowledge of the legal advice which was contained in an unreported case; there was not an action taken specifically against legal advice. There is also the question of retrospectivity. It ought to be recognised that the retrospectivity is only reinstating what both importers and Customs believed to be the correct situation. The government has not extinguished the rights of those who have taken action before the AAT or the courts.To sum up, this bill is designed to remove any doubt about the validity of certain decisions made by officers of the Australian Customs Service in relation to the tariff concession system. The fact that we have this bill before the House resulted from doubts being raised over the sufficiency of the delegations at a recent hearing of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Action has been taken to remedy the situation, but it is possible that certain decisions and actions taken in relation to this matter may not have been the subject of adequate delegations. The aim of this bill, as I have said, is to remove any doubt about the validity of those decisions and actions to the extent that they rely on delegations that may not have been sufficient. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees122161221612216Consideration resumed from 27 September, on motion by Mr Andrew Thomson:That the House take note of the paper.10:55:0012216Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am pleased to rise to speak on this report, the 25th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. In its relatively short life—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It must be a hardworking committee.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—It is a very hardworking and rewarding committee. In fact, I must say that I enjoy being a member of it. It is incredibly well chaired. It has been blessed with two effective chairmen, the most recent being the honourable member for Wentworth, Mr Andrew Thomson, who brings a great deal of experience and good style to the conduct of the many, often challenging, inquiries which the committee undertakes. The committee is equally very blessed with some very hardworking staff in the secretariat, who have a great enthusiasm for digging deeply inside what might seem at first blush to be some fairly mundane or obscure things. But what they undertake, in addition to the members and senators who are involved in this committee, is a very serious task of scrutiny of international arrangements.Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know, as others in this place would acknowledge, that this has not always been the case. In the past a lot of these international arrangements were very much convened in secrecy. In fact, in recent weeks and months, we have had reflection upon arrangements with Indonesia that were convened by former Prime Minister Keating and the former member for Holt, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Gareth Evans. Under Labor, we had arrangements with other countries without the people of Australia being brought into the loop, as it were. This was a matter of great concern to a lot of people in my electorate and right across the nation. I know that members of the opposition who have been on this committee over a period of time are very pleased to be part of the process and acknowledge that they wish that their side of politics had come up with the idea of exposure for and involvement of the Australian people in the process of convening treaties.In this report, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has looked at eight treaties that were tabled for examination on 11 August. We have dug inside each of them and recommended each of them for ratification. There is no rubber-stamping. Inquiries and discussions are held with interested stakeholders.I thought it might be worth noting for the record some of the matters that were discovered in this report. One of the treaties was the Scientific and Technical Cooperation Agreement with the European Community. This is all about ensuring that Australian industry and people participating in the export of Australian goods and services are able to well understand the connections in the EC—and a very big market it is. The CE compliance stamp that is on the back of goods that we produce now means that our standards are agreed to, as far as the Europeans are concerned, to meet their requirements.What we are finding now in the world is that the European standard is the standard which everyone wants to comply and meet with. I must confess that I was a little concerned because I always thought that Australia had better standards than anywhere else in the world, so it was interesting for me, as a private member, to find out that some of our standards—4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—What about the non-tariff trade barriers?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Page talks about non-tariff trade barriers. I suspect that the member, and even the opposition, would not be surprised that these things could occur. Nevertheless, these arrangements and agreements at least ensure that we all know what the operating parameters are. There can be no confusion—in fact, there can be great certainty—for Australian industry in their conduct with markets overseas through these agreements. Naturally, we were pleased to expose that. We sought the views of interested stakeholders, industry people and so forth and gathered that people were quite pleased about that.Another matter was the Fourth Amendment to the International Monetary Fund Articles of Agreement. Again, it sounds very dry on the surface, but we have managed to find out that this will promote greater equity in the operation of international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the IMF itself, but consistent with Australian government policy. So we were able to match up the international aspirations with the domestic imperatives, and that is very important.Another one was the Mutual Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Agreement with the United States. Again, this will assist authorities in both the United States and Australia who look into antitrust matters, who look into the way that certain agreements or arrangements that might not be very good from a competitive point of view operate, and it will assist authorities to obtain information and evidence for use in trying to undo some of these antitrust matters—which, I think all would agree, are bad for the overall marketplace and, therefore, are job destroying rather than job creating.Another treaty was The Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions for Wheeled Vehicles. While Australia was one of the first countries to develop a comprehensive set of road vehicle technical standards, there are advantages to be gained in moving towards an international system for such standards, and the committee was quite pleased to agree with that particular matter.Another matter on which I would like to spend a little time—but not too much time; I do not want to delay colleagues for too long—is the Food Aid Convention. This means a commitment from Australia to maintain its annual minimum contributions. We contribute about 250,000 tonnes of food aid per annum and will do so until 2002. This actually exposes that, in the whole foreign aid question, when people raise the matter of whether foreign aid is a good or a bad thing, apart from our obligations to humanity and being a good neighbour in the international community, food aid directly purchases food from Australian producers. So the Australian food aid commitment of 250,000 tonnes—which includes commodities and transport and other operational costs of about $90 million a year—purchases food from various producers in Australia and sends it offshore. This is a good thing, and we were pleased to again agree to the ratification of this particular treaty.For the record, I would like to offer some examples of what is involved. With bilateral development in 1998-99 in our food aid commitment, 50,000 tonnes of wheat went to Bangladesh—that is a lot of wheat—and emergency relief of 4,000 tonnes of wheat also went to Bangladesh. Cambodia received 8,607 tonnes of rice. Some 11,000 tonnes of wheat went to China, and the value of that was $2.4 million. Interestingly, Indonesia received rice assistance from us of 12,322 tonnes—$5.5 million worth. No-one would argue about the 3,100 tonnes of rice that went to Sri Lanka. The Philippines also received rice from Australian producers. We have in that multilateral development the World Food Program contributions of 36,500 tonnes of wheat, with a free on-board value of $8.384 million.At the heart of this is helping people who may otherwise starve and, in assisting them, we are using Australian produce purchased by the Commonwealth government under its food aid program. I know that a lot of us in recent months have given rightful tribute to Australians who volunteer their time to AusAID projects overseas. In fact, a few months ago I was able to visit Tibet and saw for myself the work of the Australian Red Cross, the agency which, on behalf of the Australian government, is providing fresh water to thousands of people in a very remote region of Tibet.Tibet itself is very remote but, when you are at a point between Lhasa and Xigatse in a small village of a few thousand people—where they used to have to cart water in jars for a couple of kilometres and where a water reservoir is now providing water to a couple of central taps in the middle of the village—it makes you feel very proud to be an Australian that a $3.5 million spend is providing water to those people. To see an Akubra hat being worn by the local provincial mayor as part of his linkages to Australia suggests that Australian aid abroad really does assist us in a lot of ways.In finishing off my remarks, let me say that I recently participated in a tremendous service at the Brisbane City Hall. I pay tribute here to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Moncrieff, Kathy Sullivan, for pioneering a system of awards that recognise Australians who had served overseas. Margaret Markinson, a resident of Sunnybank in my electorate, put 30-odd years into working overseas. I think that is a tremendous achievement. I was pleased to be able to participate in a service to give her recognition. And Philip Lovel from Holland Park, in my electorate, stood out as well as somebody who spent a few years working in poor Pacific nations. They are only two of about 35 people in my electorate who worked hard to help us and help others around the world.I raise these matters in connection with this particular debate because what the treaties committee has done is draw out a lot of these elements to give Australians a greater understanding of why we have these international linkages, to involve Australians in the process through the parliament. Deals are not done secretly. It is not just a matter of the senior bureaucrats or the executive, it now is a matter which involves all Australians. That, of course, can only be to the benefit of all Australians. I commend the report to the chamber.Debate (on motion by Mr Sawford) adjourned.1221912219Consideration resumed from 27 September, on motion by Mrs Gallus:That the House take note of the paper.11:06:0012219May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—I am delighted to be able to speak on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration entitled, Going for gold: immigration entry arrangements for the Olympic and Paralympic Games . Most Australians will know that the Olympic Games will commence on Friday, 15 September 2000. This will be the time that all Australians have been waiting for, ever since that historical moment when President Samaranch announced the winner as, `Sydney.' This will be an exciting time for our whole nation. It will be a time for all Australians to share in the exhilaration of the largest peacetime event in Australian history.The Olympic Games will provide a showcase to allow our nation to, like a peacock, show off our greatest assets, our finest plumage, our true colours, our diversity, and a myriad of skills in areas such as sport, hospitality and tourism. Some 10,200 athletes will be involved in the games, and an additional 15,000 coaches and officials will provide input into the outcome of various sporting competitions. An expected 5.5 million spectators will attend the games and a further 3.5 billion people will capture historic moments on their television sets worldwide.Very soon after the Olympic flame is extinguished, the Paralympic Games will kick-start. Some 4,000 athletes and 2,000 officials and coaches from a total of 125 countries will participate in this event, the first Paralympic Games in the southern hemisphere. It will be the only opportunity in our lifetime to cheer for our world champion athletes in Paralympic competition on Australian soil. In terms of the number of countries involved, the Paralympics are second only to the Olympic Games.The Australian government has indicated a strong commitment to these games, and we have demonstrated that commitment by contributing a guarantee of up to $25 million, half the expected operating deficit, and by providing almost $5.5 million for the preparation of the Paralympic athletes. The government will also meet the GST liability on Paralympic ticket sales, estimated at $1.6 million.Both sporting events will leave an indelible mark on the world. Both events signal opportunities for all Australians, right across the country, to feel pride in our nation. And, of course, the games will provide a great lead into the Centenary of Federation celebrations in the year 2001.One of the greatest opportunities and challenges from hosting the games will be the attention it brings to the host nation. The predicted number of visitors from other countries travelling to Australia to share the spirit of the Olympic and Paralympic Games will put significant pressure on Australia's entry and exit arrangements.The Tourism Forecasting Council estimates of visitor volume predict an increase in arrivals of more than nine per cent in 2000 compared with this year. As expected, the majority of this rise will be due to the Olympic and Paralympic Games. I am delighted to speak today on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration's inquiry into immigration entry arrangements for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.The perceptions of our visitors during the games, many of whom will be first-time visitors to our nation, are vitally important. Our aim is for visitors to return home at the end of their stay completely satisfied with the level of ease which they have experienced in entering and leaving our country. Our aim is for visitors to feel they have had such a positive experience in our country that they will foster business and tourism opportunities. In the Going for gold report the Joint Standing Committee on Migration identifies that the immigration arrangements are based on the understanding that the efficient planning and coordination of such arrangements for both the Olympic and Paralympic Games will be a key contributor to the success of the games. These immigration arrangements highlighted by this inquiry are not only designed to facilitate visitors' travel but to protect our borders.The first recommendation of the report refers to the necessity to ensure that the same arrangements for Olympic families are extended to the Paralympic families. Under this recommendation the committee identified a special concern about timing for the arrangements and has recommended that a memorandum of understanding between the department and SOCOG be finalised as a matter of urgency. This is a vital move considering that we do not want such matters to be left to the eleventh hour.Australia has made special provisions for the visit of accredited Olympic and Paralympic family members. These provisions will apply to a clearly defined group and will apply for a short period of time. Under these provisions, accredited family members will include athletes and team officials, competition officials, accredited officials, royalty, heads of state and government and other senior dignitaries identified by the National Olympic Committee, and members of the International Olympic Committee and International Paralympic Committee. Also included are guests of the International Olympic Committee and International Paralympic Committee, national olympic committees and national paralympic committees, international sporting federations and international paralympic sporting federations. Due to the nature of these procedures, the committee has identified a need for a robust computer system. The urgent extension of electronic travel authorities, as recommended by the committee, may have an impact in reducing the potential embarrassment of refusing entry to people who wish to visit Australia to watch the games.In addition, the committee recommends that, as a matter of urgency, DFAT examines the potential embarrassment if a large number of visa applications from any country is refused and that it work with DIMA on reducing this potential. I strongly believe that it would not be in our nation's best interests and within the friendly spirit of the games if we have high refusal rates. While tourism and travel industry submissions pointed to the suggestion of waiving visitor visa arrangements, the committee was not willing to consider this line of thinking. The committee's general feeling is it would put extra strain on Australia's border entry requirements and cause delay in visitor entry processing on arrival.The committee is pleased to welcome plans to have staff and volunteer hosts with multilingual skills trained to provide hospitality services to all visitors during the games period. The committee is also pleased to welcome recommendations in relation to drugs, bearing in mind that the games period is one of potentially increased border threats through the importation of narcotics, performance-enhancing drugs and other prohibited imports. The committee welcomes the fact that family members detected carrying performance-enhancing drugs will not be dealt with any differently from anyone else carrying such drugs.Another particularly sensitive topic is that of border security. The games will see increased numbers of people seeking to exploit any consequent weakening of DIMA's vigilance by attempting to enter Australia without documents or with false documentation. This will impose heavy demands on the skills and resources of Australia's agencies, in particular on Customs. Australia's capacity to handle predicted volumes of visitors and such problems with documentation is reliant on trained and experienced staff offshore and at onshore entry points. It is considered by the committee that agencies should boost staffing levels so that they are able to adapt and cope with unexpected events.Going for gold identified the fact that the number of unauthorised arrivals in Australia is increasing and that, like other major events held in other countries in the past have indicated, there is always a chance that important international events such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games will create challenges for the host country. While Australia can expect problems such as visa overstayers and perhaps, at the other end of the spectrum, terrorism aimed at groups participating in the games, the appropriate authorities are currently minimising the likelihood of the latter occurring by undertaking a range of preventative activities and measures offshore. The committee has identified a need for the placement of additional staff at key airports to minimise the likelihood of such problems.Australia's visitor numbers will swell greatly next year. It is estimated that the Sydney international airport will handle about 178,000 arrivals during the first half of September 2000. The balance of the arrivals will go through other international terminals, the majority in Brisbane, Melbourne, Cairns and Perth. The evidence given to the committee indicates that the appropriate agencies are confident that sufficient preparations and planning procedures have been put in place, or are in train, to meet the games' demands. In this vein, the committee anticipates that this will ensure that visitors to Australia during this exciting time will assist in our nation gaining valuable opportunities for development in areas such as business and tourism in the future.Supporting the two landmark events is very much a bipartisan Australian effort. These events will showcase Australia to the world and it is within our ability to ensure that these are the best games of the century. It is vital that we have provisions in place to ensure we reach our objectives of providing efficient entry and exit arrangements to allow visitors to enjoy their experiences and to also protect our borders. I strongly commend the committee's findings.11:17:0012221Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to follow the member for McPherson who is already making her impact on the House. Certainly, her strong interest in tourism and involvement in terms of the committee is very promising for those who operate tourism facilities on the Gold Coast. They may be assured that the member for McPherson is taking a strong interest in their welfare, as shown in the Committee this morning.It is also very pleasing to see my other colleague, a former minister with me in the House, who was part of the cabinet team that made the decision in New South Wales to go ahead with the Olympic Games. I make note of the Hon. Ian Causley being here and of his strong support and involvement in the whole process of the games bid. It is important that we recognise the member for Page and his strong involvement at that time.May I also say that the Olympic Games will be the world's largest sporting event held in the first part of the new millennium. It will be the largest event ever to come to Australia. It will significantly overshadow the Olympic Games held in Melbourne in 1956 and will bring with it a large number of benefits. The benefits include $7½ billion worth of new investment in this country. They will include 1½ million tourists coming specifically as a result of having the Olympic Games in Australia. The games will also mean we will have the chance to showcase Australia to 3½ billion people worldwide who will see what Australia has to offer and, of course, we would expect, if the experience is the same as Atlanta and Barcelona, that we will benefit for many years to come from the tourism focus.Already, the television companies that will be handling the games overseas—they bid for this opportunity, the American networks paying over $A1 billion for the rights to show the games in their own country—have been out here for some time filming Australia. They have been putting cameras on the front of things such as the Manly ferry, taking them to North Queensland, to the Gold Coast, across to Perth and to South Australia, highlighting what Australia has to offer as a tourism destination. As a result, during the showing of the games, in between events, they will be highlighting Australia and showing the great opportunities for tourism in this country.So for us, if we take hold of those opportunities in tourism, it will mean significant times ahead. Already, the forecast is that, by 2005, we will be receiving some eight million international tourists in this country. At the moment it is 4.4 million, but that is expected to rise significantly over the next few years, a lot of it as a result of the Olympic Games. Therefore, it is important as part of that process that we should have the Joint Standing Committee on Migration look at the whole question of entry into Australia during the period of the games and leading up to the games. The report entitled Going for gold: immigration entry arrangements for Olympic and Paralympic Games is a significant move forward in this process in identifying some of the issues and some problems.As the member for McPherson has said—and she has outlined quite a number of the recommendations that have come forward from the committee—the number one recommendation is that we must ensure that the Paralympics officials receive the same accreditation and the same treatment as those involved in the games for the able bodied. People tend to focus on the main Olympic Games for able bodied people and, once they are over, say, `That is it.' In fact, the Paralympics will be larger than the Commonwealth Games. It is a very significant event. It is about celebrating the triumph of the human spirit overcoming adversity. To win a gold at the Paralympics is in some ways a greater triumph for the individual concerned.Someone I know personally had to have their leg amputated as a result of an accident when a bus ran over the guy when he was just 12 years old. Now he is competing and has an excellent chance of winning a gold medal in the Paralympic Games. What an effort, of both mind and body, it has taken to get to that stage. So we want to make sure—and the member for McPherson also was very strong on this point—that there are the same requirements and the same assistance for the Paralympics as for the Olympic officials, the IOC officials and all of the national Olympic committee officials.The second recommendation is that the memorandum of understanding between SOCOG and DIMA should be finalised. There has been much negotiation and discussion, but it is time to put it to bed. We have only got 11 months to go. At the time that we did this report, which we completed only very recently, they had still not finalised it. We are urging very strongly that that MOU be completed and that it be sent to the committee for further assessment so we can review it and determine whether there are other areas that concern us.A further recommendation is that SOCOG promote the advantages to accredited Olympic family members of the early submission of applications. This is a special advantage. What we are doing for all the IOC members and Olympic family members is allowing early accreditation, so they fill out their visa applications and send them in and everything is done for them. The report title is Going for gold and we want people unashamedly to say, `This is the best Olympics that the world has ever seen,' in terms of transportation, the welcoming and all the immigration requirements. If we have the Olympic family coming in with no problems, no hassles, accredited beforehand, that is great. So we are saying, `Make sure they promote it and let everyone know that there is special assistance given to the Olympic family.'Then we recommend that the proposed Entry Response Team be formed as a matter of urgency to enable full and proper training and testing to ensure that that team will be able to perform its duties efficiently. We are concerned about some delays in the training program, and that obviously needs to be rectified.We also believe that consideration should be given to allowing airlines carrying large numbers of family members of athletes access to the village on the day of departure. Ansett is the official accredited carrier for the Olympics, for which they paid a significant amount of money. Qantas has not been part of that deal, so all of their passengers have got to go to the airport. Ansett, and all of the Star Alliance group of airlines, can have check-ins at the Olympic village. The reality is that, despite the sponsorship of the Olympics by Ansett, Qantas will be carrying more passengers and, in order to have ease of access, let us get them into the village and provide first-rate access by way of check-ins at the village itself.A further recommendation was that consideration be given by border control authorities to the provision of dedicated border clearance arrangements for family members, possibly through off site processing—part of the same deal of providing every assistance. Then there is the question of providing full information. The use of the web site in more depth is significant.The most important aspect of our deliberations was the question of visa assistance. One of the things we are concerned about is the high refusal rate in terms of entry applications for visas from a number of countries. I do not walk away from the fact that when I was head of the Tourism Council I campaigned for an easing of visa restrictions. I know that the member for McPherson, without verballing her, shares some of those concerns. It is something that we will work on in the long term in the interests of tourism in this country. But it should be noted that we could receive bad publicity in the leadup to the Olympics if family members and relatives of Olympic sporting stars are refused entry on various grounds. We need to ensure that every assistance is given to those who have got official involvement in the games and to visitors to the games, and that we do not have the normal process of knocking back such significant numbers of people from specified countries. It would be significantly embarrassing if that were to happen.We also need to look at the question of the visa application fee and what impact that would have. If you are on the ETA system, you do not pay a visa application fee. There are still a number of countries that do not have the ETA system. African and South American countries are not on the ETA system, and there are obviously good reasons for that, in terms of the costs of expanding the ETA system. But it means that everybody coming from countries in those continents will have to pay the $60 charge. Often there is a processing cost as well, which the travel agent adds to the cost of the visa. We were concerned about the impact that would have.Another important recommendation is the need to assist unaccredited media coming to the Olympics. There are 5,000 accredited media; a further 10,000 unaccredited media will be attending. We want to make sure that they are given every assistance as well. If the media are not treated well, they look for bad stories to write. You have only to look at what happened in Atlanta. They were not provided with the assistance that they thought was appropriate for their wellbeing, and the bad stories rolled off almost immediately. The report is entitled Going for gold; so let us make this a gold experience for these journalists so that they give us a great image in terms of tourism in the international marketplace, in terms of international relations and in terms of trade, because these people will talk, especially to those coming from their home countries.We also believe that, with respect to the API, DIMA and ACS, the levels of use prior to the games period should be assessed and that the relevant airlines should become involved in the promotion of express cards which enable people to get faster access through the immigration lines. It is also part of our recommendations that border authorities undertake specific early testing of computer performance. There has been some question as to whether the computer systems are ready to cope with the number of visitors we will see. Obviously, there will be a surge in capacity in terms of people available to man the customs booths during this time. I hope it is improved. One of the complaints that frequently is made is that there is inadequate manning at the customs booth. I believe this is one of the key areas that we need to look at in the future.A further recommendation is to provide assistance to non-English speaking visitors through increased multilingual and graphic signage. We want to provide the right impression. It is unhelpful if we appear to be a monolingual environment, so there will be multicultural signs and lots of welcoming. This is a great opportunity to show ourselves to the world.Finally, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as the coordinator of Olympic and Paralympic responsibilities, should pursue the minimising of landside congestion at Sydney's international airport. These things are all part of the overall ongoing aspects in providing the right experience for those coming to the games. In terms of the departure, we should look at a single-line approach to ease the congestion. We also should have centres in Bangkok and Singapore, which is where there is a convergence, the hubbing, of aircraft. So again it is specialist assistance being given to those coming to Australia.In short, it is my pleasure to be part of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration that looked at all aspects of the Olympic Games and how we can prepare for them in terms of making sure coming to Australia is a smooth experience for the Olympic family, for the national Olympic committees, for the athletes, for the Paralympic teams, for visitors to the games and for the media, both accredited and non-accredited. We should look at those countries that are not part of the electronic travel authority system for visas and look at the type of assistance we can give in this case. It is going to be going for gold, and I am confident that this will be a great experience for Australia. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Sawford) adjourned.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before we move to the next item of business, I wish to inform the committee that the Department of the House of Representatives is publishing a document on the way the House works to further educate the public. I have given approval for an AUSPIC photographer to come in and take photographs for that publication.Adjournment12225Motion (by Mr Somlyay) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.1222511:32:0012225Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Early in the 19th century, the Parthenon marbles were removed by Lord Elgin from the Parthenon in Athens. I wish today to reaffirm my commitment to those great works of culture and art being returned to the Parthenon in Athens, Greece, where they belong. They are currently, of course, in the British Museum.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 11.34 a.m. to 11.44 a.m.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—The legality of British title over the Parthenon marbles has been called into question by recent research in the United States. Professor David Rudenstine, Professor of Constitutional Law at Yeshiva University in New York has uncovered new information which casts very serious doubt upon the British claim to legal title over the marbles, which were progressively removed from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin's agents between 1801 and 1811. I met with Professor Rudenstine in New York recently and discussed the outcome of his research.A parliamentary inquiry established in Britain in 1816 undertook a detailed examination of the question, but even then the removal of the marbles was an issue of great controversy and was heavily criticised in intellectual and artistic circles. The case for legal title was based on a document which purported to be an English translation of an Italian translation of an original Turkish document from the Ottoman authorities permitting certain material to be removed from the Parthenon. The Italian translation was brought back to England by one of Lord Elgin's agents.There is nothing explicit in this document which authorises the removal of the marbles, and in fact the language clearly implies the opposite: Lord Elgin is authorised to remove objects from within the vicinity of the Parthenon, provided that no damage is done to the Parthenon itself. Given that the marbles are in fact very large pieces of the Parthenon structure that had to be physically cut from it, thereby damaging the structure as well as the marbles, this caveat in the document is of central significance. The Turkish permit seems much more likely to have been intended to allow the removal of items of archaeological interest lying in the ground in the vicinity of the Parthenon rather than the destruction of the Parthenon structure itself.The conclusions of the parliamentary committee are extremely significant. The committee was asked whether or not Lord Elgin's acquisition of the marbles was legal. In effect, this was the core question in its deliberations, yet it did not answer this question in its report. Given the obvious interest in retaining the marbles because they are such important parts of classical Greek antiquity, this failure to give a clear stamp of approval to the acquisition by Lord Elgin speaks volumes. Even in the early 19th century, when property laws and international law were much less developed and the notion of imperial plunder was a lot more legitimate, the acquisition of the marbles could not be justified.If, as appears likely, the Ottoman authorities did not approve the removal of the marbles, how then did Lord Elgin get them? One factor certainly is political leverage. He took advantage of the fact that the Ottoman Empire was desperately in need of British help during the period of the Napoleonic wars, and of course he was the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.Another perhaps more important consideration was bribery. There is overwhelming evidence that establishes that Lord Elgin's agents used bribes to get the marbles. Defenders of British title to the marbles argue that, even if this explanation is correct, bribery was nearly universal in the early 19th century Ottoman Empire, and in that context the acquisition of public property through bribery could therefore be seen as quite legal.Professor Rudenstine rejects this argument emphatically. No-one who asserts the claim that Elgin's bribery was legally insignificant at the time supports it with any authoritative references. There is ample evidence that the British at the time condemned bribery amongst their own public officials.The story of the marbles' removal and the subsequent British dealings with them reads something like a thriller. As a result of Professor Rudenstine's work, we now know a good deal about these matters, and British title to the marbles is clearly extremely shaky. Professor Rudenstine is working on a book on the legality of Britain's acquisition of the marbles which should transform the international debate about their future. Hopefully this work will play an important role in the eventual return of the marbles to their rightful home in Athens.Australia has something at stake in this issue. In the not too distant past we saw Truganini's remains returned to Australia from the Museum of Man in Paris. The question of cultural artefacts of fundamental importance to a nation being able to take their rightful place where they belong in that nation is a global issue, and we have a very important interest in promoting this.We should join with people all around the world to urge Britain to return the marbles to Greece where they belong—perhaps for the 2004 Olympics, which are scheduled to be in Athens, and maybe in the form of a gift or a permanent loan so that Britain does not necessarily have to concede that it never had genuine title. One way or another, whatever face-saving devices are required, whatever arrangements are necessary, the Parthenon marbles should be returned to Greece and to the Parthenon, where they belong and whence they were wrongly taken. (Time expired)1222611:49:0012226Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—In a free society, a free press is a key institution. A decline in the public's faith or regard for the free press, therefore, is a major threat to our free society. Certainly, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the public in Australia feel disengaged from the media in general.I submit that we need to provide some sort of avenue for people to redress any inaccurate or unfair reporting in television, including datacasting, radio, newspaper, magazine or Internet publications and to provide a public forum for airing grievances relating to accuracy, balance and interpretation by journalists and media outlets on issues and persons involved. We also need to improve public confidence in the activities of news media reporting, so as to ensure that this integral part of the public policy processes, which protects the freedom enjoyed by individuals in Australia, is maintained.The concentration of media ownership in this country means that existing mechanisms like the Press Council and the various radio and television industry associations—and even broadcasting licensing hearings—do not provide the sort of avenue for redress and review that people want. I thought I would put an idea of a mechanism like an office of the media ombudsman on the record to see if the media shoots me down in flames. This office could receive complaints and submissions from the public regarding the style and substance of media reporting in all forms of media. It could, in conjunction with the union—the old AJA, now called the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance—establish guidelines for the proper conduct of journalists, always mindful of the fundamental importance of freedom of the press. The OMO—the office of media ombudsman—could address the responsibility of the media to report fairly and accurately while defending the right of the press to act in a way unencumbered by rigid control and could become a vehicle for improving the decline in public confidence in the media demonstrated by a marked decline in circulation of major publications and viewers and listeners of television and radio programs. The only way the average person can fight back against the media is to disengage—to not buy, to not watch, to not listen.Currently, media outlets are further eroding their standing in people's eyes by their reaction to this decline in engagement with the average person, this decline in circulation and `sets in use', by attempting to attract more consumers with more sensational stories, more outrageous headlines and more concentration on the bad news rather than the good, and with more dramatic pictures—to choose content which entertains rather than informs. This makes the problem even greater. As a result, many citizens have been subjected to treatment by media outlets which entertains at their expense rather than being subject to an accurate report on events to inform the public.Many people in my electorate and throughout the Australian community have lost faith in the media reporting, believing nothing of what they hear and little of what they see. The cynicism further erodes the value which the media should bring to a free society.If few have faith in media reporting, then correct and accurate portrayals of important events and the activities of certain people—perhaps those in public office, elected, appointed or statutory, as well as citizens who have been involved in criminal activities, alleged or proven—will be greatly devalued. It will be like the boy who cried wolf; people just will not believe it.The role of journalists should be to record a journal of events, to report what has happened. Journalists, therefore, are the finders of what become historical records of current times. If the accuracy of those reports is in doubt, then history will be incorrectly recorded. Recorded history is already different in different nations and cultures, depending on the view of the recorder of that history. In this regard, it is vital for journalists to properly record our current events, so history accurately records them too. In this regard, the introduction of a mechanism for review of the fairness and accuracy of the activities of media outlets will serve today's and future citizens very well.The decline in the public confidence of journalists is a critical matter. Journalists should be regarded highly as the upholder of the public voice on important issues. Journalists are part of one of the basic institutions in a free society. The proposal I have outlined today does not threaten this in the same way the ABC TV program Media Watch does not threaten it. However, the concept of the media ombudsman does give individual citizens who feel let down and unrepresented by media voices an avenue for seeking redress. In time, it will perhaps lead to a lifting of standards which will repair the standing of this basic and most important institution in our society. I look forward to comments on my proposal.1222811:54:0012228Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—In November in Seattle in the United States of America, a ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation will commence discussion for the millennium round of global trade negotiations. The millennium round will include negotiations in the areas of investment, agriculture, forest products and government procurement. The World Trade Organisation is the most powerful trade body in the world, with some 134 members and with an additional 33 countries wanting membership. World trade agreements provide rules that are binding on its members and provide for the settlement of disputes by panels.The Seattle meeting will be yet another opportunity to include social clauses that insert core labour standards into WTO decisions. President Clinton indicated last week that the United States would be pushing in Seattle for a working group to look at integrating labour standards into the World Trade Organisation's work program. President Clinton summed up the situation best when he said that the World Trade Organisation needed to be more responsive to the views of civil society. This proposal from the United States is one with overwhelming merit. This is not a proposal about forcing compliance with some comparative wage rates but rather about ensuring that there are basic rights for working people. It should and will include such topics as child labour and forced labour.As President Clinton acknowledges, the meeting in Seattle will attract a large protest by the combined efforts of environmentalists, human rights advocates, trade union and labour organisers. In responding to the criticism of the WTO, its new head, former New Zealand Prime Minister Mike Moore, asserted:People who march in Seattle will be marching against opportunities for poor people to sell their products and services.This is an extremely simplistic response to the genuine concerns of those protesting.There is a view in the global community that the World Trade Organisation's biggest fault is that it views trade issues in absolute isolation from all other areas of public policy. Some of the World Trade Organisation's decisions since its creation in 1995, following the completion of the Uruguay Round of GATT, have confirmed that view of isolation. The WTO has found in favour of commercial interests against dolphins and turtles protected by US acts of Congress. There is also the famous banana case—the banana war—where the World Trade Organisation ruled in favour of US banana interests in Central America over the small-scale Caribbean producers. It is believed that these banana interests were linked to Central American death squads involved in killing local trade union organisers. The World Trade Organisation attacked a law passed in the American state of Massachusetts against companies which invested in and dealt with the dictatorship in Burma.These activists are not the only ones criticising the performance of the World Trade Organisation. President Clinton went one step further. He said that much of the criticism of the World Trade Organisation was of its own creation, given that for too long it had `been treated like some private priesthood for experts where we know what's right and we pat you on the head and tell you to just go right along and play by the rules that we reach.' The President has also proposed some form of access to the deliberative processes of the WTO for interest groups to be heard.I have stated in this place previously that free trade must also be fair trade. Australian companies must be able to trade fairly with countries and compete fairly against countries. This fairness surely includes the conditions under which the goods or services are produced. I am pleased that the Australian trade union movement, through the ACTU, has welcomed the American initiative on labour standards. The federal opposition has recognised that this may be a constructive way to deal with these issues; however, as usual on anything to do with workers' rights, the Howard government has rejected it outright.Countries should have the right to reject products that have been produced under disgraceful conditions such as forced labour—slavery. Why should they have to be accepted because the World Trade Organisation says so without regard to the conditions under which they are produced or the damage that their production causes to the environment? Of course, governments must actively pursue trade opportunities and new markets; however, trade is not a means to an end itself. Trading nations' legitimate labour, environment and public health concerns should not have to be sacrificed to the almighty god of free trade.What is the purpose of trade if expected standards, such as basic human rights, are disregarded or the environment destroyed to produce that trade? Trade must be fair not only for the nations dealing with each other but also for everything and everyone—those working to produce the goods, the environment and the conditions in which they are created.1222911:59:0012229Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Members in this place are well aware of my longstanding commitment to young people in general and, in particular, to those most vulnerable and at risk of abuse. Today I want to talk about a particular aspect of child abuse—the emotional abuse and neglect of children. It is difficult enough in many cases to ascertain whether or not a child has been physically abused, but it is even more difficult to pinpoint where and when emotional abuse is occurring or to prove neglect. However, these problems are just as serious and as prevalent as the more obvious forms of child abuse.I commend Leisa Scott for an excellent series of articles in the Australian in the last couple of weeks which have served to highlight this very problem. As outlined in one of Scott's articles, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare defines neglect as `the failure to provide conditions that are essential for the health and physical and emotional development of a child'. Of the statistics highlighted in her articles, perhaps the most frightening is the fact that a quarter of verified child abuse cases in Australia are cases of emotional abuse and another quarter are cases of neglect. We are still assured by workers in this field that these confirmed cases of neglect are just the tip of the iceberg. Scott supports the statements by care workers to the effect that early intervention and intensive long-term help are the keys to overcoming this problem. Other identified ways of dealing with this problem are neighbourhood centres where parents are able to drop in for company and advice, supported by adequate public transport to enable them to access these services. She also argues, not unreasonably, that this situation could be alleviated by more funding and measures to make foster caring more attractive so that more cases of abuse and neglect can be responded to. It is important that, when we are discussing the availability of resources to deal with this problem, we emphasise that child abuse and neglect are not the exclusive domain of people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Sadly, child abuse and neglect can be found in any walk of life or socioeconomic circumstance.Many of us will have the fondest memories of our childhood, even though our families may not have been financially well heeled. However, another aspect of this also needs to be borne in mind. Our social workers and other officers of the respective state government departments can only respond to a problem if it is reported to them. Sadly, there is still an attitude on the part of many in our community of not wanting to get involved or perhaps not knowing what is the appropriate action to take.To be present when emotional abuse or the improper treatment of a child is taking place can be a very difficult situation. One can experience a range of emotions: wanting to intervene but not knowing how or what to do; not wanting to make the situation worse; or feeling that you may have misinterpreted what you saw or heard. All of these things may cause members of our community to hold back from taking appropriate action in the face of the abuse or neglect of a child.It has been said that the only requirement for evil to flourish is that good people do nothing. There would certainly seem to be more than a grain of truth in this in relation to child abuse and neglect. If we do nothing to intervene and to try to help our neighbours and their children, then child abuse and neglect will flourish in the neighbourhood. To put this in a more positive way, I believe a great deal of good can be achieved by all of us, as members of the community, if we are firm about what is acceptable treatment of our children and what is not and are prepared to speak about this when necessary.By standing up for what is right in this area, each of us as members of the community can help to create an environment in which our children can grow up in security, love and confidence. On that note, I commend the workers and carers who devote their lives to children who—because of their circumstances—have to live with foster families. I also commend the foster families who make extraordinary sacrifices for the emotional wellbeing of these children.1223012:03:0012230Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Like a lot of members of parliament, I was delighted yesterday when a school came to visit Parliament House. It was Clairgate Primary School from my electorate. They not only had a look at Parliament House but went to the Parliamentary Education Office, a facility that is really of great value. I talked to the teachers and they said how beneficial it is for the students to be able to be here physically, to see how the institution works and to role-play at the Parliamentary Education Office.Clairgate are an unusual school in my electorate. They are the leaders, I would say, in the use of computer technology and the Internet, something that I commend them for. Students there are taught Indonesian. I know that in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, they tend to be far more advanced in the teaching of Asian languages than we are in New South Wales.A couple of years ago we had a meeting in Clairgate's little hall with the year 6 students—it is one of the schools I tend to be able to get to quite frequently—and I was staggered at the questions they were asking me, and they were particularly pummelling me about Badgerys Creek. It is all the more commendable, I think, that these people are able to think for themselves and articulate a point of view.I really need to thank the school captains, Joshua Roberts and Alyce Taraboulsis, because yesterday they presented me with a petition which I will read into the House record:Dear Mr Price,Because we are a school near Badgerys Creek, we are concerned about the impact the airport will have on us and the surrounding area. We, Clairgate Public School have put forward a petition against the building of the airport. We request that you represent this petition in parliament to prevent the construction of the airport.Yours sincerely,Clairgate Primary.I seek leave to table this petition.Leave granted.I thank the Main Committee. A petition, of course, is a very ancient rite in terms of citizens requesting action, and I think it is marvellous, whether we agree or disagree about the airport—I happen to agree with them—that they are beginning to exercise very important rights and duties of citizens.I should also inform the House that at our recent New South Wales state ALP conference we reworked a battle that occurred two years ago at the national conference, and that is to say, in the policy document, whether there should be a second airport in the Sydney basin or a second airport for Sydney. It is probably well-known that I and my colleagues lost that particular fight, but at the conference that was recently held, the words, `for Sydney,' were inserted in the platform. In New South Wales we now have a Premier and Leader of the Opposition opposed to the airport and the policy document—which I certainly pledge myself to adhere to—of the New South Wales conference. The supreme body of the party in New South Wales now says that we should have a second airport for Sydney.The minister's announcement about Badgerys Creek, which was promised within six weeks, three months ago, is now running long overdue. I sincerely trust that there will not be another coalition stunt to make this announcement on Christmas Eve in the expectation that people will not react. I regret to say that I really think the people of Western Sydney would react quite severely to such an announcement to go ahead with the airport.Main Committee adjourned at 12.09 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing12232The following answers to questions were circulated:12232(Question No. 673)67312232Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 1 June 1999:(1) Has the Minister or a department or agency administered by the Minister provided grants to the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) or bodies related to the NFF since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purpose was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Donald McGauchie (b) Dr Wendy Craik or (c) other officers or staff of the NFF been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in (a) sitting fees, (b) board fees, (c) travel costs and (d) related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).12232Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:1.(a) each case(i) nature of the grant(ii) purpose it was provided for(b) total sum providedThe department provided a Stakeholder Participation Grant in 1998-99 to NSW Farmers' AssociationTo assist NSW Farmers' Association to participate in the Regional Forest Agreement consultative process. Funds were provided towards costs incurred by the recipient in participating in the Comprehensive Regional Assessment/Regional Forest Agreement process.$20,0002.3. (a) sitting fees(b) board fees(c) travel costs(d) related expenses (a) Mr Donald McGauchieNilNilNilNil(b) Dr Wendy CraikNilNilNilNil(c) other officers or staff of the NFFNilNilNilNil12233(Question No. 914)91412233Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report by US Congressional Research Service in 1995 titled "World Oil Production After Year 2000: Business as Usual or Crisis?" that warned Australia could sustain its current oil production for no more than 10 years, and that deficient world oil productive capacity could cause an oil crisis within 15 years; if so, will the Government respond to the report; if so, when.(2) Has the Minister's attention also been drawn to a statement made in World Oil, October 1995, that unscientific reserve claims for political reasons may obscure the fact that most large, economic oil fields have been found, and permanent oil shock is inevitable early in the next century.(3) Will predicted shortages of oil have a profound impact on the Australian economy; if so, what measures will the Government take.12233Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) No. I am not aware of this report, and am unable to comment on the sources used by its authors or the scientific basis of the assessments undertaken in the course of its preparation.The Australian Government has at its disposal substantial, world-class expertise through the Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO) in the assessment of petroleum reserves and the potential for further reserve discoveries. AGSO has determined that, at current rate of production, demonstrated economic reserves of crude oil in Australia account for about twelve years of demand; sub-economic demonstrated reserves and inferred reserves account for several further years' demand.It is worthy of note that estimates of Australian reserves-to-production ratio have not varied significantly for more than a decade, indicating that continuing additional discoveries and additions of reserves in already producing oil fields have added to Australia's production capacity.Identified world oil reserve estimates by the World Energy Council suggest an ultimate reserves to production ratio of some 62 years, based on current knowledge of available reserves. This estimate relates to conventional oil production only; it does not include non-conventional oils, such as shale oil, reserves of which are some 2-3 times those of conventional oil.Australia's resources of non-conventional oils, particularly shale oil, which AGSO assesses as sub-economic at current oil prices or inferred rather than demonstrated, are also substantially greater than reserves of conventional oil. AGSO considers the level of confidence in these resources would increase significantly if the current Stuart shale oil pilot project in Queensland were successful.(2) No. I am not aware of the report or of any evidence that may have been cited in support of the claims.There is a high level of interest by petroleum exploration companies and governments around the world in evaluation of petroleum discovery prospects in hitherto unexplored areas.There is a continuing strong interest, also, in exploring for petroleum in Australia's offshore areas, with 23, 27 and 20 permits having been awarded from the last three annual acreage releases. Indeed, Australia has been ranked as the second most popular country outside of North America for new petroleum exploration and production ventures.It is evident from ongoing levels of exploration activity that those most concerned with petroleum field exploration and development do not necessarily hold to the view that most large, economic oil fields have been found. Nor is it consistent with a view that there is political advantage to be gained from an unscientific overestimation of available reserves.(3) The ready availability of competitively priced energy is a key factor in the international competitiveness of the Australian economy and the continued economic and social well-being of Australians. Energy supply and use are also significant factors in responses to major environmental challenges facing Australia. They are therefore of considerable importance in economic decision-making, by governments as well as by business and individuals.However, it is not simply a matter of determining in isolation the impact of availability of a single form of energy; supply and use of all forms of energy, the ability for inter-fuel substitution, the open and effective operation of markets within which energy is traded, greater efficiency in supply, transmission, distribution and end-use, and the development of new, innovative alternative forms of energy and high efficiency technologies are all key elements in an holistic approach to energy and its impact on the economy. The Government has policies and programs in place which address each of these elements. 12234(Question No. 918)91812234Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) What are the respective powers and functions of the Commonwealth and State Governments as detailed in the Forests Industry Structural Adjustment Program (FISAP) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed with Western Australia on 4 May 1999.(2) Has the Commonwealth since sought to amend or terminate the MOU; if so, what are the details.(3) Does the Commonwealth remain committed to contributing $20m towards a South West FISAP, as he announced on 4 May 1999; if not, what are the details of any variation proposed by the Commonwealth.(4) Subsequent to the WA Premier's announcement of 27 July 1999 that logging of old growth karri and tingle forests will cease when current contracts expire, does the Commonwealth consider that the South West region requires additional structural adjustment funding; if so, what further measures are proposed to assist affected workers and communities.(5) What estimated sum will the Commonwealth provide under FISAP to WA in 1999-2000 for (a) business exit assistance, (b) worker assistance, industry development assistance and (d) rescheduling assistance.(6) What sum has the Commonwealth provided under FISAP to WA since 4 May 1999.12234Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Western Australian Hardwood Timber Industry Development and Restructuring Program, also known as WA FISAP, provides for the program's implementation on a joint basis between the Commonwealth and Western Australian Governments. The MOU outlines the WA FISAP's objectives, program assistance components, basic administrative arrangements and the funding commitments of the two Governments. A copy of the MOU has been given to Mr Ferguson.(2) No.(3) The MOU for the WA FISAP, signed on 4 May 1999, provides that the Commonwealth will contribute $15 million to a joint WA FISAP. As part of the Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement, the Commonwealth also agreed to contribute $5m for developments in the South West region. The Commonwealth stands by these commitments.(4) Yes. The responsibility for addressing the impacts on forest businesses and workers of Premier Richard Court's announcement of 27 July 1999 rests with the Western Australian Government.(5) (a) and (b) Implementation of the WA FISAP, including expenditure under Business Exit Assistance, Worker Assistance and Industry Development Assistance, is dependent on finalisation and agreement of specific guidelines for each component. Once guidelines are finalised and the timing of application, assessment and approval process is agreed, an estimate of likely Commonwealth expenditure in 1999-2000 will be available.(d) Nil. The MOU for the WA FISAP does not provide for Rescheduling Assistance.(6) Nil.12234(Question No. 932)93212234Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) What are the respective powers and functions of the Commonwealth and State Governments as detailed in the FISAP Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed with Victoria on 16 August 1998.(2) Has the Commonwealth since sought to amend this MOU; if so, what are the details.(3) Has he given private undertakings to Mt Beauty Timbers that the Commonwealth would meet one-third of the cost of retooling the firm's mill if the State Government provided the rest of the funds.(4) Has the Victorian Government agreed to provide funding to Mt Beauty Timbers; if not, what reasons have they given.12234Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The MOU includes the following provisions:. the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments will each provide $13.8 million to the Victorian FISAP;. a hardwood timber industry development strategy will be completed by both Governments, in consultation with the hardwood timber industry, to provide a framework for the development of guidelines;. guidelines for assistance will be jointly agreed by both Governments; . a Forest Industry Development and Adjustment Committee, consisting of Commonwealth and State officials, will be established to implement the program, assess applications and make recommendations to Ministers on the allocation of funds under the program;. an Advisory Panel will be established by the relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers to provide views to both Governments on the progress and direction of the program;. a Program Office will be established by Victoria to provide support to the program and carry out day-to-day administrative and financial functions.(2) No.(3) No. I have advised Mount Beauty Timbers that the Commonwealth is prepared to provide a commitment of the order of one-third of a restructuring proposal examined by PricewaterhouseCoopers. This assistance would be subject to an agreed investment strategy and be funded under and be subject to guidelines of the Commonwealth's FISAP. The provision of the remainder of the funds by the State Government is not a requirement.(4) While this is a matter for the Victorian Government, I understand that it has not agreed to provide funding to Mount Beauty Timbers, on the basis that licensed log supply commitments will be maintained.