1999-11-223914REPS1223701999-11-22Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees12237122371223712:31:0012237Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure I present the committee's report entitled It's your House: Community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committees , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committeeOrdered that the report be printed.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Politics is a battle of ideas, but in that battle the only ideas that count are the ones that people can relate to. The community is not afraid to endorse new ideas when the argument for change has been clearly presented and the community has been included in the debate. But, conversely, the community is reluctant to support new ideas when they feel they have been excluded from the policy development process; they feel the idea is being pushed onto them.In such situations the community will overwhelmingly reject these ideas. This phenomenon has lent itself to the community perception that parliament is no longer relevant to ordinary people—that parliamentarians are remote and that parliamentarians do not listen to or understand the needs of the community. Some of the campaign slogans made during the recent republic referendum compounded that lack of trust and understanding of the work of parliamentarians.So how does the institution of parliament—and parliamentarians—reconnect with the community? The Standing Committee on Procedure has recently explored a range of House procedural measures aimed at encouraging the community to become more actively involved in parliamentary processes such as petitions and community work. In doing so, the committee has ventured beyond the parameters of its normal, dry, procedural field of activity to look at the interaction between the House and the community.QI4PRICEMr Price—Under your leadership.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Thank you, Member for Chifley. The committee is encouraged by several initiatives that are already being implemented to improve the outward focus of the House and its committees, including increasing the use of the Internet and other modern communication techniques, which I know the member for Chifley is a great advocate for; the development of a new bulletin about the House and its committees, the inaugural edition of which is due to be launched this week; experimentation with new techniques in the advertising of committee inquiries and the presentation of findings.The committee canvassed widely for ideas among members of the House, especially committee chairs, deputies and secretaries. The committee was encouraged by the response from our colleagues who were clearly enthusiastic for innovation and development. In a touch of irony, the committee received only a small number of submissions from the community. This is a firm indication itself of the challenge before us to make the institution of parliament more acceptable and accessible to the community.The committee's inquiry covered five main areas: petitioning the House; the process whereby people can reply to adverse comments made about them in the House; whether the procedures of the House are themselves a barrier to understanding what is happening; access to proceedings of the House; and getting people involved in the important work of parliamentary committees.As it presently stands, petitions are the only direct way that people can communicate with the House. The committee wants to improve the impact of petitions without imposing unrealistic burdens on members of the House. The committee has recommended that members have the flexibility of the option of presenting petitions during 90-second statements in the House, or three-minute statements in the Main Committee. The committee also recommends that government responses to petitions be encouraged by the presentation of an annual return of petitions and responses to them. This form of accountability would be welcomed by those who made the effort to bring their concerns to the attention of the government.The features of current House procedures that offer people who have been mentioned in parliament the right of reply appear to be working satisfactorily and there seems little reason to significantly alter these arrangements. However, the committee has concluded that these features could be further promoted on appropriate Internet sites and that information relating to committee proceedings should be included in explanatory material.The committee acknowledges that unique terminology and procedures are a key part of the House's heritage and character, but the committee believes that there is some scope for improving the readability and the logical structure of the standing orders. The committee has recommended that the Clerk of the House look at redrafting the standing orders to achieve this.In an effort to encourage community interaction with the parliament, the committee has recommended a trial allowing members to lodge questions on notice on behalf of constituents. This trial would allow each member to lodge up to 25 questions a year for constituents whose names would appear on the Notice Paper. Members would still be permitted to lodge as many questions as they like on their own behalf.Improving access to members of the community to see, hear and read parliamentary proceedings is fundamental to assisting people to understand the workings of the House and its committees. In the course of its hearings, the committee received valuable information from the Broadcasting Committee about developments in broadcasting. The Procedure Committee supports the Broadcasting Committee in its efforts to increase the potential audience for parliamentary proceedings.The majority of the committee's report is concerned with the promotion of the work of committees. House committees do not enjoy the same levels of public recognition as Senate committees, and yet House committees perform valuable work that affects the daily lives of Australians. This publicity imbalance needs to be addressed.Many of the recommendations in this report are aimed at making committees more independent and flexible in the way they operate. For instance, committees should be able to keep themselves informed on issues in their area of responsibility, utilising a wide range of methods, such as talking to community groups, obtaining Internet feedback and getting petitions lodged with the House. If committees identify pressing concerns, they can then seek a formal reference of inquiry from the minister.This report also contains recommendations aimed at providing more information about committees and their activities through other media. Other recommendations include measures to make House committees more media friendly; initiatives to encourage easier dialogue with committees where they are less tied down by unnecessary bureaucratic processes; and steps to ensure that committee members and those dealing with them understand their rights and obligations. A check list of strategies to maximise community involvement in a committee inquiry has been included in the report to suggest some ideas which committees may consider in appropriate circumstances. The committee hopes that the list will be expanded and updated to keep fresh ideas flowing.The committee also considers that individuals and community organisations involved in committee inquiries should be able to learn the outcome of their contribution. Committee findings should be made available in terms which the contributors and those likely to be affected by the recommendations can understand. Reports should be debated and government responses should be made in a timely manner and be accessible to those with an interest in the inquiry. Several recommendations address these particular issues. Finally, the committee has recommended a simplification of the rules allowing committees to meet and take evidence using videoconferencing.The key element in all the recommendations is that committees themselves are in the best position to understand what approach and processes will work best in each different circumstance. Committees should have the freedom to adapt their techniques as the circumstances dictate. The options and proposals canvassed in the report are certainly not exhaustive but, hopefully, will provide a catalyst for change. Some of the ideas in the report have already been put into action since the inquiry began.There is scope for the more extensive use of the Internet and other technologies to gather feedback and interact better with the community. But traditional communication methods should not be neglected. Not everyone has access to high-tech communications. As times and technologies change, the House and its committees need to be flexible, adaptable and creative to ensure that the community better understands the importance of the parliamentary institution in our democratic society.I commend this report to the House because it is slightly out of the loop of the usual Procedure Committee inquiries into dry particular areas of the standing orders. I also thank the committee secretariat, particularly Robyn Webber and Julia Morris, who did a sterling job. I congratulate the government on its previous changes to committees that made them smaller and more intimate, because our committee members work extremely well and very honestly together. I thank the members for Chifley, Batman, Parramatta, Forrest, Gilmore and Canning. I know that the members for Chifley and Canning will speak on the report following my short remarks. I thank my colleagues for the very good-humoured and efficient means by which they approached this committee. I look forward to working with them on the next report, which, hopefully, will not be too far off.12:41:0012239Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I commence my contribution on this report, It's your House: Community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committees , of the Standing Committee on Procedure where the chairman of the committee left off. I sincerely thank the chairman for his significant contribution to, and leadership of, the committee and for his contribution to this report. I also thank Robyn Webber and Julia Morris, the secretariat members, for their invaluable contribution. As the chairman has said, one does not expect much of an arcane committee like the Procedure Committee. However, I think this is an important report. Most significantly, it is about an important subject—that is, opening up the parliament to the people.The committee makes some significant changes in the area of committees. This is the one area where members of the public know not a lot about how the parliament operates. They do not understand, for example, that in the overwhelming majority of cases both government and opposition members work together on committees in a bipartisan way and in the nation's interests. If we are to salvage the reputation of members of parliament, exposing more of the good work that committees do in allowing members of the public to access them will serve us well. I have often said that committees are the universities of the parliament. They expose members of parliament to the best minds in academia, industry, the Public Service and, most importantly, in the community. They fulfil a very important function in terms of the whole operation of this House.It is true to say that standing orders stifle their work and are too rigid as far as committees are concerned. Part of the recommendations we are making go to freeing up committees, particularly so that they can keep members of the public fully informed, should they be interested in the work of a particular committee. We do that by allowing much greater access to the media. It allows the committee to decide whether the progress of an inquiry can be fully reported. The committee is allowed to be proactive about that. Rather than just mentioning things like how many submissions were received and when the hearings are going to take place, committees, should they so desire, would be able to comment on the evidence to date and the issues that are really troubling them. In that way, they can make the whole process far more user friendly and allow the public to keep in contact.One of the significant steps is to allow a committee to present a short report and to have that report tabled outside the proceed ings of the parliament. The short report would consist of an executive summary, presumably, and the recommendations. This means that the committee can maximise publicity of the hard work and deliberations it has put in to come up with recommendations. Its work would then not be swamped by what is happening in the parliament.For the traditionalists, the full report must still be tabled in the parliament, so parliament would be losing nothing and I think the public and parliament would be gaining a lot. Currently, standing orders do not provide for any time period within which a government should respond. Different governments have set different time limits and not one government has been able to meet those time limits. For the first time, standing orders would reflect the four months required for a government to respond to the recommendations.Petitions are an ancient right of citizens, but most members of the House would agree that under current procedures they do not carry great weight. In its recommendations, the committee is putting some punch into petitions by making sure that the formalities of a petition are less rigid and by allowing members of parliament to choose whether they want to table the petition themselves in 90-second statements or three-minute statements, rather than, with all due respect, having the Clerk of the House read them out. As exciting as his modulation is, perhaps it does not do justice to some of the petitions.The petitions will stand automatically referred; they will not necessarily gather dust in the bowels of the parliament but will stand referred to committees. Committees can take up an inquiry on a petition. There would an annual report of ministerial responses to petitions. That annual report would stand at zero at the current stage. Obviously, I am disappointed that the committee did not accept my suggestion that members of the public should be able to approach the bar of the House and read out the prayer of their petition, but I would be less than gracious if I did not acknowledge that these proposed changes go a long way to putting the punch back into petitions.I am pleased that the committee saw fit to adopt a change which I had proposed; that is, that ordinary men and women should be allowed to approach their member of parliament and have a question placed on the Notice Paper, and have their name recorded in Hansard. This is a trial and there is a limit of 25 such questions per member but, in a very real way, I believe that this is opening the procedures of the House to the people. Last but not least, Mr Speaker, I think we are all hopeful that the government—and you in particular—might accept the recommendation of a reworking of standing orders to make them more intelligible, more logically consistent and more readable. I hope members will see this report as serving them well. We hope that the government will lose no time in accepting and implementing the recommendations. I commend the report to the House.12:49:0012240Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—I am pleased to speak on the tabling of the report It's your House: Community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committees . I would like to begin by thanking the chair, deputy chair and members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and, most importantly, the secretariat staff who did so much work. One of the major concerns I have when I visit various community groups and schools in Canning—and I am sure it is an experience that most other members have—is that many of the people we meet do not feel in any way connected to what happens in Parliament House. For that reason I am very pleased to have been involved in the preparation of this report, which aims to increase the opportunities for citizens to be involved if they so wish.One of the recommendations that I am particularly supportive of is the proposed changes to submissions to parliamentary committees. In the past, I believe that the processes and the language used to invite submissions were intimidating and may well have discouraged people who did not have any experience in dealing with committees from contacting the group or making a submission. It is important that the procedures we adopt in parliament, which parliamentarians feel comfortable with because of their years of experience, do not act as an impediment for citizens feeling free to use those same procedures to express their views.An advantage of making access to committees more user friendly is that it will increase the number of people who make submissions. This will result in the committee members receiving a wider range of views and having the chance to make more informed recommendations. Another important recommendation is that which encourages the development of materials for the use of schools, which will explain the functions of committees and the work that they accomplish. I believe that students in our schools often are not made aware of how the parliament works and how they can have an impact on the decisions which are made. Another important recommendation is the changing of standing orders to allow for the use of new technologies. In many cases, by using the technology available the costs would be decreased and it would also allow people who may not get access to committees to be witnesses.With regard to petitions, it would be an improvement if the member tabling the petition had the opportunity to speak about the issues. Quite often the petition is tabled and the people who have done all the work to collect the signatures never have the opportunity to have their issue, which they think is important, raised and dealt with in great detail in the parliament. By allowing members to introduce petitions in an alternative way, the issues could be highlighted and other members could have the opportunity to see whether it is relevant to their electorate as well. Adopting the recommendations to increase the amount of information and detail given on the parliamentary Internet site will improve the opportunities for people to have access to details of what is happening in parliament and to the workings of the House. As the number of people using the Internet is continually increasing, this is an effective means of improving the understanding of the way parliament works. It would be an opportunity to portray the work done by committee members in a positive light if a group could be encouraged to prepare a documentary following the work of a committee inquiry. Again, I believe any approach which improves the public understanding of what committees achieve should be promoted. I commend the report to the House.12241Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I take this opportunity to express my thanks to the chairman and the members of the committee. Clearly the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and its recommendations are of critical importance to the occupier of the chair. I will read the report and its recommendations with interest.9V5Mr SPEAKERMr PYNE—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills12241r65612241Bill presented by Mr Albanese.12:52:0012241Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Today I am reintroducing my private member's bill, Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Bill 1999, into this parliament. I first spoke in the House of Representatives of the discrimination suffered by same sex couples with regard to superannuation almost three years ago, on 10 December 1996. Since then I have introduced this private member's bill to the House twice—on 22 June 1998 and again on 7 December 1998. Today I am introducing my bill for the third time. Why is it that a bill that simply asks for equality of treatment for same sex couples is considered too dangerous for debate?I have spoken in this House about equality for same sex couples in relation to superannuation over 10 times in the last two years. My office has received hundreds of letters of support for my bill since its inception—interestingly enough, only one in opposition. In April this year the Body Shop entered the debate and launched a `same sex, same rights' campaign to support my bill. Letters and petitions flooded in from all over the country.In June of this year the report by Commissioner Chris Sidoti of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, entitled Superannuation entitlements of same sex couples, was tabled in parliament. The report condemned current legislation that allows discrimination against same sex couples. The report regarded this as contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Commissioner Sidoti recommended that Commonwealth legislation be amended to allow surviving same sex partners to benefit in superannuation schemes. So why has this advice been ignored, just as have been the opinions of the public, of the superannuation industry, of the legal community, of the trade union movement and of the gay and lesbian community?The Labor government's superannuation initiatives mean that now more than 93 per cent of full-time employees, 67 per cent of part-time employees and 59 per cent of casual employees are covered by superannuation. The success of these initiatives makes it even more important that the fruits of universal superannuation are exactly that—universal. I have argued throughout this debate that my bill is not about special rights for gay and lesbian couples. It is about introducing equal rights, rights that every other Australian worker living in a domestic relationship with someone they love would be perfectly entitled to expect. This private member's bill allows for a gay or lesbian worker to properly provide for their surviving partner and children in the event of their death. As the legislation currently stands, gay and lesbian couples are clearly discriminated against.I am proud to reintroduce this bill today, although I am not proud that in Australia in the late 20th century a bill such as mine is still stymied by a government scared of taking a stance against discrimination. I want to place on the record that if this bill is forced to lapse again, if the government still refuses to take a stand, I will be moving an amendment to the next appropriate piece of govern ment legislation that comes before the House. My amendment will give same sex couples equal rights regarding superannuation.I know that a number of coalition MPs support my private member's bill and I thank them for their courage in their public support of that bill. By moving an amendment to government legislation in the House of Representatives, I will force the government to vote on the issue rather than simply sweeping it under the carpet. The government cannot ignore this issue. It will not go away. Change is inevitable. That was acknowledged when the ALP and minor parties were successful with Senate amendments to remove discrimination in do-it-yourself superannuation funds. When that bill came back to the House of Representatives, the government reluctantly accepted this position and voted for that legislation.What we need on this issue is vision and principle. On policy issues that require guts, issues that require real moral leadership, this government prevaricates, it delays, it stalls. This is not a government of social reform. It is a government dedicated to social division. I urge members of the House to support this bill.Bill read a first time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business122421224212:57:0012242Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I move:That this House:(1) notes the reported discovery of Cook's ship Endeavour off Newport, Rhode Island;(2) acknowledges that if it is indeed the Endeavour , this wreck is the most important single artefact in Australia's history;(3) notes that the United States and British Governments are preparing for a legal battle over rights to the wreck;(4) calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to immediately notify the world community of the importance of the wreck to Australia and stake our claim to its ownership by virtue of its significance to our nation;(5) calls on the Government to support a fundraising campaign to enable the recovery and eventual return of the wreck to Botany Bay; and(6) ensures that plans for this important venture are in place and that the public fundraising and community awareness campaign is made a centrepiece of Australia's Centenary of Federation celebrations in 2001.The Holy Grail of maritime archaeology is not the Titanic ; it is the Endeavour . The wreck of the ship that charted Australia and led to its creation as a British colony lies in the waters of Newport Harbour. The Endeavour was built as a collier in 1764. The background and details of that ship have been covered many times by students and by young Australian children researching the history of our country. If they look up any encyclopedia they will find a description of the Endeavour . For example, I quote the Australian Encyclopedia , published by Grolier, which says:Built as a collier in 1764 and originally named the Earl of Pembroke , this vessel was purchased by the Admiralty on 29 March 1768 and registered on the list of the Royal Navy as the bark Endeavour . She was ship-rigged, with square sails on all three masts; just under 30 metres in maximum length and with a maximum beam measurement of 5.8 metres, her capacity was just short of 369 tons—imperial—. . . Prior to Cook's first voyage the Endeavour was extensively altered by the building of an additional deck and the raising of the quarter-deck to provide space for the scientific staff. After her return from the South Seas she was employed as a store-ship on four voyages to the Falkland Islands, then in March 1775 was sold out of the Royal Navy. Her subsequent fate is uncertain.That last sentence says, `Her subsequent fate is uncertain,' but that has at last been solved. All that was known about the whereabouts and the fate of the Endeavour was encapsulated in that encyclopaedia item until, by a series of seemingly random events, things took an interesting turn. The Australian Maritime Museum was approached by someone with a box reported to have been carved from the keel of the Endeavour . The museum researched the issue and discovered that the Endeavour , among other things, had been subsequently named Lord Sandwich .That might not seem like much of a fact to be reported, but it was reported and it meant something very significant to a researcher in the United States, Dr Kathy Abbass in Rhode Island. At that time she had been researching 13 vessels sunk off Newport in 1778. She leads a group of recreational divers trained in archaeological techniques. They were combing through the wreckage of those 13 vessels in search of their history. She knew that one of the 13 hulks that they were investigating was the Lord Sandwich. She read the report by the Australian Maritime Museum and she realised at that point that her group was certainly on the edge of history. The Seattle Times paper reported some of the circumstances surrounding that. It said:Cook's round-the-world voyage from 1768 to 1771 filled gaping holes in what was known about the geography of the South Pacific. He mapped the eastern coast of Australia, discovered that New Zealand consisted of two islands instead of one, and was the first European to set foot on Hawaii.After Cook sailed Endeavour back to England in 1771, the vessel was refitted as a store ship. It was sold in 1775 as a coal transport, its original use. . . The ship's ultimate fate has been a mystery for more than two centuries, but Australian researchers recently concluded that Endeavour had been renamed Lord Sandwich.British troops had occupied Newport during the early years of the American Revolution. With French naval forces approaching in 1778, British troops ordered ships taken out into the harbor and sunk. Abbass knew that a prison ship called the Lord Sandwich was among the scuttled vessels.She traveled to Britain and found that Endeavour and the Lord Sandwich off Newport were both three-mast barks with exactly the same carrying capacity—368 71/94 tons.As many as three vessels named Lord Sandwich were sailing under the British flag back then. However, Abbass says the Lord Sandwich in Newport Harbor is the only one with Endeavour's dimensions.. . . . . . . . .Historians knew that Cook had the Endeavour repaired in several parts of the world, so marine archaeologists plan to see whether the wreck in question has pieces of wood indigenous to places the explorer visited. It's also known that the Lord Sandwich that was scuttled in Newport transported German mercenaries from Europe to America during the Revolution. Archaeologists plan to look for signs of their presence—such as uniform buttons—to confirm the find.I have had a discussion with Paul Hundley, curator of the Australian Maritime Museum's USA exhibit, which was a bicentennial present to Australia by the US. He confirms that scientists now have no doubt that the Endeavour lies somewhere in the mud of Newport Harbour. Dr Abbass and her group had focused on one of the three wrecks that seemed to be about the right size.Paul Hundley was one of three representatives of the Australian Maritime Museum sent over to conduct a monthlong excavation of one of the 13 ships in the harbour that had been identified by Dr Abbass as being likely to be the Endeavour. The federal government, to its credit, contributed $52,000 of the $100,000 cost of undertaking that excavation. Among other things, they recovered ballast, coal and timber from the wreck. The full findings of the study will be announced at a special forum in Quebec in January. In Australia, immense community interest has followed that search. Mr Hundley told me that he has spent 10 hours in total since August conducting radio interviews. It has resulted in headlines around the country, with items talking about the `Raiders of the Lost Bark' and that sort of thing.However, after that monthlong endeavour it seems that it is unlikely that the ship that they are excavating was indeed the Endeavour. According to Paul Hundley, the timbers on the vessel that they spent quite considerable time examining were too small. It certainly is unlikely that that is the Endeavour, although we will wait until January to get that chapter and verse. But all that does is narrow down the field. The search will now focus on another one of the 13 vessels and the real effort is to begin.The Australian Maritime Museum wants to be the lead agency in this search for the final resting place of the Endeavour. Over the coming field study season, following research that is being carried out at this moment, they hope to identify which of the 13 is the Endeavour. They will then endeavour to excavate the ship and determine its identity for certain. At that stage they anticipate there will be a meeting of the interested parties. The US and United Kingdom governments as well as Australia and New Zealand will definitely be interested in what is to be determined there. They will have to decide the likely treatment of the wreck. Members would recall that the recent efforts to recover the Mary Rose, the flagship of the Royal Navy many years ago under Henry VIII, have cost $50 million so far and there are many more dollars to be spent on that exercise. However, that particular vessel was well preserved in its resting place. In this case, only 10 per cent of the hull of the Endeavour remains.There is a dispute over the ownership. The Royal Navy paid out its former owner and the Admiralty of the United Kingdom owns it. However, the United States government has a claim and, naturally, Australia is going to be an important party in that exercise. We can argue about the place of the Endeavour in history but certainly not Cook's. From the perspective of Europe and the modern world, Cook was the making of Australia. He gave form and substance to our continent in the minds of the people of that era. His contribution needs to be recognised. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?MP6BAIRDMr Baird—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:07:0012244Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—In 1768 the Admiralty was looking for a suitable vessel to carry a scientific expedition to the South Seas to make astronomical observations and to search for Terra Australis Incognita, the unknown southern land. A fast ship was not required; what was needed was a seaworthy, strongly built one with a large carrying capacity, necessary for such a long-distance expedition.A vessel named the Earl of Pembroke, which was a collier built at Whitby in 1764, was inspected by the Navy board surveyors and purchased for the princely sum of £2,269 13s 4d—they obviously drove a hard bargain to get down to the 4d—and it was renamed His Majesty's barque Endeavour. The Admiralty designation of James Cook's command, His Majesty's barque Endeavour, refers both to the type of vessel and to Cook's naval rank. To an 18th century seaman, a barque was a small, bluff-bowed, square-sterned merchant vessel without a figurehead. As James Cook was a lieutenant in 1768, the vessel under his command could not, in terms of the Royal Navy's strict hierarchy of rank, be called a ship, even though she was ship-rigged—that is, three-masted, setting square sails on each mast.According to the Maritime Museum, the Endeavour was nine feet five inches long, measured on the deck; 29 feet two inches broad; 11 feet four inches deep in the hold; and with a draught of about 14 feet. So it was not a very large vessel. Into that space were crammed 94 men and the stores to sustain them and their ship on the voyage. As well as scientific instruments, which included a portable observatory, the Endeavour carried 10 four-powder carriage guns and 12 swivel guns for self-defence. She also carried a whole lot of provisions for a year, including beef and pork, dried peas, hard ship's biscuits, oil, vinegar, beer, brandy and as much water as could be stowed. All of that was crammed into the hold and the storeroom. The shot for the guns went into the shot locker and the powder went into the magazine forward, which was kept under constant guard by the marine sentry.There does seem to be quite a bit of conjecture about the fate of the Endeavour. According to the Maritime Museum, after the voyage of exploration the Endeavour was employed as a store ship, making a couple of voyages to the Falkland Islands with supplies for the garrison there. They say that in 1775 she was sold out of the service and returned to the merchant trade, for which she had originally been built. In 1790 she was sold again, renamed La Liberte and entered the whaling trade, according to the Maritime Museum. They say that in 1793 she ran aground near Newport, Rhode Island, was badly damaged, condemned and sold for breaking up.The member for Blair has referred to other sources of information, including Dr Abass, who claims that the Endeavour was sold out of naval service in 1775 but, in the face of a deteriorating political situation in the American colonies, was offered as a transport ship to carry troops. She was renamed the Lord Sandwich and she came to be used as a prison ship in Newport Harbour in August 1778. Under threat from a superior French fleet and combined French and American troop frigates, two sloops of war and small vessels were sunk in Newport to keep them from enemy hands. That is said to have been also the fate of the Endeavour. That was in 1778. Yet, according to the Maritime Museum, in 1790 she was sold and renamed La Liberte, so there is a bit of a divergence of history there.Hopefully this can all be resolved as a result of the exploratory work that is being undertaken. Like the member for Blair, I have contacted the Maritime Museum and have spoken to Bill Richards and to Paul Hundley. I would like to report on those conversations. Mr Bill Richards confirmed that a team of three did go over to Newport, Rhode Island to have a look at this ship at the bottom of the harbour. I hope that that was not the beginning of the bottom of the harbour schemes. I am advised reliably that they actually started in Sydney Harbour, so we are fairly safe there.The team went to the bottom of the harbour at Newport, Rhode Island, diving on a wreck for several weeks. They brought back some stone, coal and wood. These samples were farmed out to various research laboratories to try to tell where the ship might have actually been and where it had travelled from, and to seek to match that up with other historical records. But nothing came from that work that positively correlated with the Endeavour.Cathy Abass, the team leader, is planning a dive again next year. You can understand it is pretty cold now at Newport, Rhode Island, so they would be looking at around July or August next year. Paul Hundley confirmed to me what he told the member for Blair—that the ship that Cathy Abass chose is not the Endeavour. They are quite confident now that it is not the Endeavour. In one sense that is good news because they have eliminated one of the possibilities. There are 12 other ships lying at the bottom of the harbour, but only three of those are the right size.Mr Hundley is going to be presenting those results, as was discussed. He wants the Maritime Museum to take a leading role in deter mining which ship is the Endeavour. Only three of those 12 are the right size. He said that the evidence is irrefutable that one of those three ships is the Endeavour. Once this work has been completed, he would like to see a travelling exhibition explaining what remains of the Endeavour and with maybe a cast of part of the ship. They are not proposing to lift the whole remains of the ship, rather to present a cast of part of the ship, the story that goes with the Endeavour and perhaps some relics. That seems like a pretty good idea. He advised that it would be too expensive to try to raise the remainder of the vessel. That is true. They are looking at a return journey in July to August next year. I support the member's motion. It would be terrific if we were able to support that expedition.13:15:0012246Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—The motion we are considering is:That this House:(1) notes the reported discovery of Cook's ship Endeavour off Newport, Rhode Island;(2) acknowledges that if it is indeed the Endeavour , this wreck is the most important single artefact in Australia's history;(3) notes that the United States and British Governments are preparing for a legal battle over rights to the wreck;(4) calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to immediately notify the world community of the importance of the wreck to Australia and stake our claim to its ownership by virtue of its significance to our nation;(5) calls on the Government to support a fundraising campaign to enable the recovery and eventual return of the wreck to Botany Bay; and(6) ensures that plans for this important venture are in place and that the public fundraising and community awareness campaign is made a centrepiece of Australia's Centenary of Federation celebrations in 2001.I congratulate the member for Blair for moving this motion and I draw the attention of the House to point (3), which `notes that the United States and British Governments are preparing for a legal battle'. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will forgive me for saying that, given the results of the referendum, perhaps we should be in touch with our Queen to ask her to use her good offices with the UK government to ensure that our concerns—83VEMERSONMr Emerson—The PM has a special relationship.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—Our PM has a special relationship with the Queen of Australia—I would not dispute that. We should ask her to have paramount in her thoughts and mind the serious point that this is perhaps one of the most important naval relics for Australia.In the short time that is left to me, I will find it hard not to go over some of the ground that has been traversed by previous speakers, but I want to make at least one new point, which is that it was Cook's work in Newfoundland, where he did a lot of mapping and charting of the coast and also reported on an eclipse, that really brought him to the attention of the Royal Society, which ultimately gave him commission of the Endeavour. I thought also of interest is that he joined the naval service as an able seaman. I think it is quite an outstanding feat that he became so famous for his work, having joined at the very bottom level of naval service. As other speakers have commented, Endeavour was a barque—not because of its construction but because Cook was a lieutenant.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.1224613:18:0012246Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I move:That the House calls for a parliamentary committee inquiry into the ways and means by which the Commonwealth can advise and assist employees recently made redundant due to the insolvency of their employer, or facing the threat of redundancy, including:(1) how to organise themselves into co-operative organisations to either purchase or lease the company for which they work when it becomes insolvent or nears insolvency, if after a rigorous analysis of the company's finances such action is deemed to be prudent, sensible and standing a genuine chance of success and thereby maintain their employment; (2) how to make the required reforms to the financial structure of the company in question in order to make it economically viable; and(3) what management training programs may be necessary in order for employees to successfully administer their business and avoid insolvency in the future.I believe that the government needs to look at new and innovative ways to provide security for our Australian workers. The motion proposes an ongoing commitment to the security of Australian jobs and businesses. It must be a responsibility of government at the federal level to use whatever means are available to protect Australian workers' jobs. We need to be innovative, to look forward, not backwards, to uphold our reputation as being a forward thinking nation.Government members in this debate will probably talk about the August 1999 discussion paper on employer insolvency of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. I am going to refer to that, only in one part, because it clearly states that the `Federal workplace relations laws cover 60 per cent of employees in Australia' and that the Corporations Law deals with company insolvency.I use that as a reference because, out of the minister's own mouth, he is saying that the Commonwealth covers over 60 per cent of employees in Australia. That is why I believe that what I am proposing has got to be led by the Commonwealth. We do not need to sit back and say what is a state right and what is not a state right. Debate on where we should be going in the future has to be led by the federal government and the Commonwealth. I refer again to that particular paper that the minister placed as proof that the majority of workers in Australia are covered by federal laws. However, as I stated, I have always been of the opinion that, whether or not certain areas are covered by state or federal laws, it is binding on the Commonwealth to lead the discussion.I do not disagree with the steps that need to be taken to strengthen the Corporations Law and thus provide more protection for employee entitlements—in fact, that is something that I have been pursuing here for many years— because, whether we like it or not, businesses today operate in a radically different environment to that of even 20 years ago. We have modern telecommunications and transport which have absolutely revolutionised the way that business is now conducted. The most successful firms continue to develop new processes and new skills and they have broad shifts with the global economy. I have seen profound changes in the performance of a number of firms within this nation. In recent years, most of the new jobs created in Australia have been created in those small to medium size businesses.I am not condemning employers, because I personally believe that the great majority of employers are diligent in running and maintaining their businesses, but there is ample evidence now available that shows that sometimes companies collapse because of external factors. Over the last two decades there have been massive changes in the world economy. These changes can vary from the price of oil to the fluctuation of interest rates. Most companies can adjust, but there are those businesses that do collapse, and with them go not only the jobs of the employees but also the skills and the expertise that has been built up over that period of operation. The financial and emotional hardship experienced by those who are immediately affected also filters down to the community at large. In his discussion paper, the minister for workplace relations also talks about how the coalition government has helped ease the burden of redundancy on employees through the Regional Assistance Program and the Job Network. He also claims that he has been working very hard to find solutions to employee entitlements for over 18 months now.I say to him and to government members: look further and find new and innovative ways in which action or government intervention can be taken before the company becomes insolvent and before workers become redundant. Insolvency in this country is a problem which affects more than 13,000 businesses each year. It is an issue which causes great amounts of distress for the employer and the employee. The employers lose their businesses while the employees lose their jobs. This situation is a reality for many Australians who, through the insolvency of their employer, find themselves redundant.This parliament has the opportunity to use its position to inquire into the consequences and causes of insolvency. The parliamentary committee that I am proposing in this motion will have the duty to investigate and report on the avenues available to employees who are facing the threat of redundancy or who are already redundant due to the insolvency of their employer. Parliamentary committees have achieved a great deal of success in this country in producing real solutions with forward thinking ideas to solve problems that have faced Australians in the past. I am aware of the work that has been done by the current Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations. This committee has commenced interesting debate into the issue of employee share ownership, for example, but at the same time it has also brought to our attention some serious obstacles that many employees may face when attempting to implement these sorts of schemes.This motion I have moved today is aimed at finding ways to ensure employees' jobs are protected and employers' businesses are salvaged. The Commonwealth, through this proposed committee, could engage in research and ongoing study into the feasibility of the company's survival. Australia is regarded as a benchmark for social reforms by other nations. Most of these have come from successive governments which have been forward thinking and have been able to take a stand and come up with real solutions to problems which face Australians every day of their working lives.Employee ownership schemes are one of the many solutions offered and often pursued by some businesses to solve their economic difficulties. As the evidence brought to the employment committee suggests, employee ownership schemes are successful in increasing profits, increasing worker morale, reducing absenteeism and moving companies facing insolvency into profitable margins. Most of the evidence given to that employment committee comes from reasonably large busines ses where there are a large number of employees who are kept well informed on the progress of the scheme and are therefore willing to invest. However, implementing schemes such as employee share ownership can cause problems for small business which the committee and its members have identified. One such problem highlighted by the committee is the availability of information regarding how to implement employee share ownership schemes.Many businesses, particularly small and medium size businesses, would not have the know-how to implement employee ownership schemes. If their company were to consider implementing such a scheme, one would question whether the employer would be capable of providing their employees with adequate information on the proposed scheme. Many small businesses are family owned and taking the step of introducing such large-scale financial restructuring is beyond their field of expertise.Employees who have taken the opportunity to invest in employee ownership schemes may also need to be trained in management practices, as the employee has gone from being a worker with little or no say in the finances of the company in which they work to being a partial owner of the business. What can a parliamentary committee recommend to these employees? This is particularly a problem for small businesses which do not have the capital or the know-how to effectively implement schemes which will assist the company in its restructuring. The committee's inquiry, as suggested by my motion, could provide information for current employers and employees of small businesses on the steps needed to be taken to successfully enhance the chances of the enterprise's success. The concept of employees in Australia owning a majority, or even 100 per cent, of a business has never been thoroughly investigated by this government, and that is why I have moved this motion today.A recent booklet published by Pricewaterhouse called Employee buy-outs provides interesting information on what an employee buy-out is. It also provides two case studies as examples, as well as information obtained from a study in the United States on employee ownership, which states:A United States study by the National Centre for Employee Ownership matched companies with Employee Share Ownership Plans (ESOPs) against non-ESOP companies. ESOP companies significantly outperformed non-ESOP companies by 40% in sales and 46% in employment growth. Also ESOP companies with well established systems for participative decision making performed better than ESOP companies without participation.In other papers it is argued that, whilst it is not easy to negotiate legal and regulatory requirements, it can be done, it needs to be done and it is being done. Why can't this government and the minister take off their rose tinted glasses and come up with some worthwhile solutions? We are elected representatives of this nation. We constantly stand up in this parliament and refer to Australian families. Let us work together to ensure that we now create an environment where every family is a working family. As we approach the new millennium, I urge members on both sides of this chamber to get behind this motion and help save the jobs of future Australians. We must stop thinking in the past. Let us act now, not only to protect the workers but also to protect the workers of Australia's future. I commend the motion to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:28:0012249Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I am happy to follow the member for Prospect, a member for whom I have a high regard. However, on this occasion I have to take issue with her on a number of remarks she made about the so-called rose tinted glasses of the government. For the benefit of the record I will reflect briefly on what has transpired since this government came to office and before we were elected. In fact, it was under the term of the previous Labor administration in 1992 that Australia became a signatory to the relevant International Labour Organisation convention. What happened in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996? The answer to that is: absolutely nothing happened. So it is very pleasing for me to see the opposition discovering a new found interest into the entitlements of workers in situations of insolvency. In contrast, I congratulate the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who has provided considerable leadership in this field. He has released an issues paper, to which the member for Prospect referred, which widely canvasses the issues and puts forward two broad responses to the question of how we better secure the needs of employees in a situation of insolvency.The member's motion actually calls on the government to refer this matter to a parliamentary committee. I am happy to report to the House that the matter has already been referred to a parliamentary committee. In fact, it is now before the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Corporations and Securities, a committee on which I serve. On 29 June 1998 the Senate referred the matter to the PJSC for inquiry. The issues to be considered by the committee at that time were:Whether there needs to be further reform of the law regulating industrial relations and/or corporations so that it appropriately and adequately deals with the following issues:(a) the trend for companies to declare themselves insolvent in order to avoid paying employees their legitimate entitlements;(b) the trend to use shell companies to avoid the normal contractual obligations arising from the employer-employer relationship or with creditors;(c) protecting workers' entitlements in the transmission of business;(d) corporate avoidance or evasion of Workplace Relations Act protections;(e) protecting worker entitlements in circumstances of privatisation or contracting out;(f) protecting against manipulation of corporate structures to avoid employee rights and entitlements;(g) protection for workers employed by insolvent employers;(h) the interrelationship between the Corporations Law, the Workplace Relations Act, awards and industrial agreements; and(i) minimising the adverse effects on employees of insecure employment forms. So the House can take some encouragement from the fact that the matter has in fact been referred to a joint standing committee of the parliament. When the government then announced its intention to bring forward a piece of legislation, the committee held in suspension its deliberations, waiting to see exactly what sort of proposal the government would come forward with. We have, however, produced an issues paper, which has been sent to the minister and to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation for their consideration in the process of drafting the appropriate legislative response.I want to reflect briefly on the two proposals which the government is suggesting, the two proposals put forward in the minister's discussion paper. One is a basic payment scheme, which would involve capped payments to workers who lost their jobs as a consequence of insolvency. That is the sort of scheme currently implemented in a number of European countries, in particular Norway and Sweden, where it is 100 per cent government funded. It is also a scheme under which the government might take on the legal rights of the employees and may in fact litigate the assets of the former company to try and secure workers' rights, as obviously it will be difficult for workers to litigate themselves. The estimate of cost of that basic payment scheme which the minister has put forward is $100 million a year for Australian taxpayers.The second scheme he has suggested is a compulsory insurance scheme under which medium and large size enterprises would be required to contribute to a compulsory industry fund, which would then be drawn upon by the employees of individual companies in the event of insolvency. This is the model, as I understand, which has been broadly endorsed by the ACTU, and in fact a number of unions have set up trust funds which are presently unfunded. Their objective is, through a process of negotiation and perhaps intimidation, to require individual companies to sign up as subscribers to those funds.I salute the government's efforts in the area of Corporations Law to tighten the net, and in particular the commitment which has been made by the minister to introduce a new offence to stop directors from entering into transactions or arrangements that avoid payment of employee entitlements and, secondly, to strengthen the existing prohibitions against insolvent trading. In many—I would suggest the majority—situations companies become insolvent not as an act of manipulation of legal structures but as a consequence of the inability to continue trading successfully in a particular commercial environment. But where there is evidence of a deliberate manipulation of legal structures, of directors seeking to evade their responsibilities to employees remedies ought to be strengthened.In the final minutes available to me, I just want to sound a note of caution about the response which the government makes to this problem now before cabinet. The limited liability company is one of the great success stories of Western democratic capitalism. It involves a stroke of genius. It has been the platform upon which we have built the most prosperous, productive and successful economies in the world and, as a consequence, the highest standards of living enjoyed by people anywhere in the world. In addition, it creates an atmosphere of enterprise, which means that there is actually the opportunity to find a job in the first place.We ought to recognise in the discussion this House is having today that there is often a trade-off between strengthening the security of existing employees as against creating opportunity and incentive for new enterprises, new companies, to go out and create new jobs for new employees. We ought to try and avoid sacrificing the interests of the latter in order to protect the interests of the former. In fact, as a modern Labour leader, Mr Blair, in England has pointed out, if you want to talk about social justice, there is just as much of an interest by the unemployed to be able to find a job as there is for those employed to keep their existing job. What we want to do is avoid a situation where, for example, the productive companies, the competitive companies, the companies which in many instances have already taken measures to ensure the protection of their employee entitlements in a situation of insolvency, are penalised and forced to underwrite the lack of competitive output, the lack of productivity and the lack of conscience in the other, underperforming companies.We do not want to be loading up the economy with just another layer of business costs. We as a government ought to be in the business of driving down business costs and creating opportunity rather than reducing opportunity and driving up costs. For example, under the compulsory insurance scheme there is a very real risk that, if you were to move employee entitlements up in the rank of priorities, ahead of, for example, secured creditors, you would find banks more and more reluctant to lend money to get those enterprises off the ground in the first place. The last thing we want to do is see a decrease in the access to capital of small and medium size businesses. The last thing we want to see is an increase in interest rates and an increase in fees associated with lending and a reduction in the availability of lending. We also want to avoid the additional cost burden that is not related to the performance of individual companies. This is the risk with industry schemes and, for that reason, I am very reluctant to support the idea of further compulsion in the area of insurance. The idea of adding $100 million in costs to the Australian taxpayer every year to underwrite these things is of further concern. We want to create the most productive, the most competitive and the most enterprise oriented economy in the world. While we need to take commonsense steps to protect the interests of the currently 3,000 workers in this country who are owed $30 million, we must avoid the situation where we kill the goose that lays the golden egg.13:38:0012251Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Once upon a time, factories closed their doors if they could not make a profit. If they could make a profit, they stayed open. Nowadays, however, perfectly good profit making factories get closed down because they do not make a big enough profit to satisfy their shareholders. For example, US Steel in the United States withdrew from steel manufacturing not because it could not make a profit—it could make a seven per cent return per annum—but because it preferred to maximise returns to shareholders by putting its capital into the money market for a 14 per cent return. US Steel's CEO, David Roderick, said, `We are in the business to make money, not steel.' Labor activist in the Eden-Monaro electorate, Steve Whann, has pointed out to me that it happens here in Australia too. In July this year the Greenseas tuna cannery at Eden, three hours drive from here on the New South Wales South Coast, the town's largest single employer, closed its doors for the loss of 145 jobs. One of the factory workers told me when I visited Eden on Saturday to discuss the issue that the town felt as though there had been a senseless death in the family. The transnational company Heinz-Wattie took over this plant as a going concern from Kraft, and now they have shut it.It is one thing for them to decide that they do not want to run this factory anymore and that they cannot make a go of it, but it is another thing altogether for them to try to stop anyone else from trying to make a go of it because they do not want the competition. To do this is, firstly, a monumental breach of trust with the people of Eden who have worked for this factory year in and year out and bent their backs to make it a success. Secondly, it is almost certainly a breach of section 45 of the Trade Practices Act, which makes it illegal for a business to enter into a contract, an arrangement or understanding or to propose a covenant which has the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition. Heinz-Wattie told the ACCC that they have not discouraged expressions of interest to operate a tuna cannery on the site. So why do I think that is what is happening here? Firstly, because of statements Heinz-Wattie made to workers and the media at the time that the plant closed. One worker's diary of a company meeting records the question being asked: `Why can't someone buy this plant and produce tuna? Would Heinz allow this?' The answer was, `Heinz would reserve the right that tuna canning would not be allowed at this site.' Secondly, there were expressions of interest to continue it as a going concern, but they have come to nothing. Bega Council wanted the factory to be run as a cooperative. The Spring Bay Fishing Company has been negotiating with Heinz to take over a large part of the plant for months, but nothing has emerged from these negotiations. The plant is idle and people have left Eden as a result.Thirdly, and even worse, equipment has been stripped from the factory in the meantime. The labelling and packaging section, the sterilisation system and the product forming machinery all disappeared almost immediately. Even after expressions of interest were lodged to operate it, the boiler was taken out, the oil extraction plant was removed and the wiring was ripped out. What could possibly be the gain to Heinz-Wattie from this? If you were negotiating to buy a house and each time you went back the owner had removed a window, a door or the electricity, would you think they were serious about selling you the house? Fourthly, why won't Heinz-Wattie allow the local fishermen to continue using their equipment and avoid having it fall into a state of disuse and disrepair? Don't they care about their equipment rusting away? One of those fishermen said to me on Saturday, `We ought to be telling transnational companies, "Yes, you can come in here and buy up companies and buy up businesses but, if you stop manufacturing here, you can't gut the business. You've got to offer it for sale as a going concern."' I think it is pretty hard to disagree with that, and that is why I am very happy to support this motion by the member for Prospect. I also think that the ACCC, which gave Heinz-Wattie a clean bill of health on this issue back in August, ought to be re-examining it in the light of the asset stripping and game playing which has gone on since then—all of it to the detriment of the decent, hardworking people of Eden, who have shown Heinz-Wattie a damn sight more loyalty then they have received in return.13:42:0012252Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—During the ravages of the Keating court in Australia, nothing was done by that government to protect the rights of employees who lost their jobs due to the hundreds of bankruptcies that that government created.Opposition members interjecting—SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—You did nothing to help the people whom you claim to represent. The members on the other side who have raised this matter with a hearts and flowers connotation ought to look at their own record compared with that of the current government. This government is leading in this area. It is looking after those who have lost their jobs. There is far more flexibility in workplace agreements so that people can actually write in their own protections if they wish. If they want to do that they can, and there is an obligation then for their wages, back wages and entitlements to be paid. Since July, the federal government has intended to take such measures aimed at deterring such corporate restructuring when undertaken in order to avoid paying employees' entitlements. Amendments to the Corporations Law, which have been announced by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, and which are intended to be introduced into the parliament later in this present sitting, will make it an offence for a company director or any other person to enter into a transaction or an arrangement with the intention of preventing employees of the company from receiving their employment entitlements and with the intention of significantly reducing the amount available to pay such entitlements. It is also proposed to introduce a provision permitting employees who have not been paid their full entitlement to recover compensation directly from the parties to such a transaction. There is a definite process by which bills must be paid by a company that goes bankrupt, and the order is this: wages, superannuation contributions, injury compensation, leave entitlements and retrenchment payments. They come ahead of the ATO and all other things. The member for Prospect has put up another motion today to say, `Why don't we look at employee-sponsored buyouts?' We have dealt with the main issues; you failed to.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Statements by Members122531225312253Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Today I lament the defeat of the republic referendum. However, I am heartened that 45 per cent of Australians said they wanted an Australian—one of us—to be our head of state. Clearly the monarchy is broken and our Constitution does need fixing so we can have our own head of state. In my electorate of Lowe, 57 per cent voted `yes' for a republic—the fifth highest vote in New South Wales.The real point I want to make to this House this afternoon is that I think it was disgraceful that the Prime Minister allowed senior ministers like the member for Warringah to go around Australia saying, `You can't trust the politicians'. I ask the member for Warringah: do you trust your Prime Minister? Does your Prime Minister trust you? For the record, Mr Abbott, you do not speak for the member for Lowe, you do not speak for the Leader of the Opposition, and you do not speak for anyone on this side of the House. You speak for yourself and for your government. From now on, anyone is entitled to question anything you say because, by your own admission, you cannot be trusted.What a sad day it is for democracy when a senior member of the government is allowed by the Prime Minister to engage in a monumental triumph for opportunism. I say to the member for Warringah: you should do the decent thing and resign from this House because one thing is for certain and that is, in your own words, you are not to be trusted.1225312253St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Sandon Primary School in the city of Armidale in my electorate of New England. Last Friday I had the honour of opening the upgraded facilities at Sandon Primary School on behalf of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp. These upgraded facilities include the replacement of demountable buildings, in which classes had been taught, with a new state-of- the-art teaching facility.Sandon Primary School boasts a short history but one that is nothing short of a great success. Since the school opened as a mainstream primary school in 1993, it has progressed in leaps and bounds. In 1993 it had three mainstream primary classes and two classes for students with special needs. The total enrolment was 70 children. It has since expanded to 205 students, with seven regular primary classes and two special education classes.Sandon Primary School is different from the typical mainstream primary school in that it has successfully integrated students with special learning disabilities into the school's program. The school has 13 students enrolled in the special education classes, and they are taught by six very dedicated staff. Sandon Primary School now boasts the most up-to-date educational facilities in New South Wales, and the city of Armidale has a new school.I would like to thank Sandon Primary School for giving me the opportunity to meet with them again and I congratulate them. (Time expired)1225312253Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—On Friday, 19 November in the business section of the Sydney Morning Herald , it became very clear that this government is about to make a decision on Badgerys Creek. I bring this to the notice of the parliament because the article stated that the Minister for Finance and Administration, the member for Macarthur:. . . said it was inevitable that the Government would establish an airport at Badgerys Creek in some form, whether it be as a major hub or purely for small volumes of passenger traffic. "It is fair to say that at the end of all of this process there will be an airport at Badgerys Creek.I ask the member, as the member for Macarthur first and foremost and then as the Minister for Finance and Administration, whether he is making these comments now because he realises that, because of massive change in the seat of Macarthur, he will not be able to win it at the next election. Is he also making these statements because he no longer sees these problems being experienced, and is he doing it as a political turn?Also, I do not hear one word coming out of the member for Lindsay, a minister in this government. At the next election, something like all of the people in her electorate who objected to the building of an airport at Badgerys Creek—11,000 of them—will be placed outside her electorate. They will come into the seat of Prospect. I can tell them and the people of Western Sydney whom I represent that they will continue to have very forceful representation from me. My community and the people in Western Sydney completely object to the building of Badgerys Creek Airport. The EIS clearly demonstrates that what this government did was an utter waste of money. You could drive a tank through the holes in the EIS. Badgerys Creek should not and will not go ahead. (Time expired)1225412254Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—On Friday and Saturday, an event of great significance occurred in my electorate. It was the Online Australia Field Day, held on both Friday and Saturday. I would like to congratulate Helen Dawes and Ross Davey from the Centre for Electronic Commerce and Communications. The event was based on successful field days, which members of this House from regional and rural areas would be very much aware of. The field day showcased a number of things that are of vital importance to regional and rural Australians: our access to modern telecommunications, the Internet, e-commerce, rural affordability and rural access. All regional and rural Australians want one thing and that is to ensure they have the same access as their metropolitan cousins. It was a very successful two days. I understand that the success of this field day means that it will now be taken all over Australia. I congratulate the organisers and all concerned.1225412254Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—I have spoken previously about the underfunding of South Australia's public hospitals and the need for a further injection of $20 million to address the problem of overloading. The state health minister, Dean Brown, conceded the sector was in crisis but could not deliver one extra dollar. Instead, he tried unsuccessfully to get more money out of not only Premier Olsen but also the federal government. He has been unsuccessful in getting more money out of the state government because of his rivalry with the Premier. It seems the Liberal Party's internal political battles are more important than fixing the state's hospital system. He has been unsuccessful with the federal government because the Howard government knows that much of South Australia's hospital crisis was created by Dean Brown's own cuts to hospitals when he was Premier.The Howard government compounded those problems with its own set of cuts. Now Dean Brown has latched onto Ian Castles' independent report, which identified the need for an additional $1 billion in health funding nationally. The federal government has not yet responded to that report. However, the Minister for Health and Aged Care was cited in the media as saying that $100 million over five years would relieve the pressure on South Australia's hospitals. That is $20 million a year—the same amount I nominated a few months ago. If Mr Brown cannot get at least an extra $20 million out of the Howard government, he should confess to having reduced public hospital funding in South Australia by more than $100 million a year. He should admit it was bad policy and ask Mr Olsen to at least partially rectify his mistake with an additional $20 million annually.1225412254Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today in relation to the closure of the Commonwealth Bank branch in Kirrawee. We have had the spectacle of the state member for Miranda making much ado about the closure. He has been seen on television laying wreaths in front of the Commonwealth Bank and he has spoken to the local media at length, but he has ignored the reality that it was the Keating government that actually privatised the Commonwealth Bank. To suggest that governments of any persuasion are able to influence a privately owned bank about whether they open or close their doors indicates that the member for Miranda is not in touch with what is happening in the current economy. He may as well organise a protest rally outside the pie shop if it closes rather than the Commonwealth Bank per se. He has been leading delegations, organising protest rallies in Kirrawee and, of course, lifting expectations that government members can actually change the course of events. I am very concerned about that. Obviously, as the local member, I feel it would be much better if the branch could remain open, but I recognise that the Commonwealth Bank is doing all that it can with ATM machines and the ability to make deposits through real estate agencies and the post office so that the needs of pensioners are met. (Time expired)1225512255Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—On Friday, 19 November, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee conducted what was to be the final day of evidence in the inquiry into the sale of Australian Defence Industries. Dr John White, the former Chairman of Systems Engineering Consortium, or SECA as it was then known, told the inquiry that they had spent between $10 million and $12 million and put in over three years of work putting their bid together only to have it knocked out by the Office of Assets Sales a few days before it was due to be lodged.The OAS is administered by the Department of Finance and Administration, for which Mr John Fahey is the minister responsible. The OAS gave no reason as to why they scuttled the SECA bid and have offered no explanation for their decision. The SECA bid included holdings from the Swedish defence manufacturer, Celsius, which has 49 per cent of the Australian Submarine Corporation, and the bid included purchasing the remainder of the ASC. This is precisely the policy Labor outlined in the run-up to the last federal election—merging ADI and the Australian Submarine Corporation. Dr White believed that Australia's best strategic interests would be served by joining ADI and the ASC, resulting in a secure, long-term defence manufacturing capability, and the Howard government torpedoed the project. The Minister for Finance and Administration should come clean and inform this parliament of the reasons why the SECA bid was scuttled.1225512255McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I want to draw the attention of the House to the removal of the $32 levy for the Victorian catchment management authorities, particularly the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority which has done an outstanding job in improving the environment in that region, improving the quality of the water, improving the rivers and improving the salinity control. At the local level, the newly elected member for Geelong, Mr Trezise, is on the public record as saying to the people of Geelong and Corangamite, `Don't worry, the $32 levy will be funded by the federal government'—yet again a state government moving away from its responsibilities and asking the federal government to take up the funding. He is on the record in the Geelong Advertiser of last week as saying:Water improvement projects currently on the agenda in the region would be undertaken using money from the 1998-99 water levy, Natural Heritage Trust funds and other State Government sources.So there we have it on the public record. Whilst gaining political kudos by removing the levy, they are going to use the federal government funds to make up the shortfall.1225512255Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I had the pleasure recently of launching the 2000 Ipswich Regional Masters Games. With the attendance of 14 sporting associations confirmed and an anticipated 900 competitors, this will be one of the largest sporting events ever held in Oxley. The launch of the Ipswich Regional Masters Games is a timely reminder of the true spirit of a community based sporting carnival. Profit is not the motivation for the organisers or the competitors. The opportunity to share the camaraderie of sport will ensure that the Masters Games are a great success in this region. In May 2000 I will be celebrating the achievements of every person in Oxley who still believes in the value of healthy competition regardless of age.It is also timely because it is the Year of the Older Person. I would like to mention two people: Vivienne Stanbury, the president of the committee that helped put this together, and also Brian Ward. Without these people this would never have happened. It was organised out of a suburb called Goodna which is in my electorate and which is fast becoming the very centre—almost like a city—of the area. I would also like to congratulate the sponsors—the Goodna RSL, the Ipswich City Council and Rubicon Constructions—for their financial and other support. I also wish all the competitors all the very best in their competition next year and remind them that everyone who participates in this competition will be winners regardless of how many medals, if any, they take home.1225612256Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—The last month has been an important month for the veterans community in Dunkley and the Greater Mornington Peninsula. We started the month with the dedication of a post-World War II memorial to all those service men and women who have served our country in conflicts and in peacekeeping duties after the Second World War. That occasion reinforced how Mornington's Memorial Park is a sacred site for the veterans community not only down on the Mornington Peninsula and in the electorate of Dunkley but also in the whole south east of Australia, as it brings together memorials and commemorative dedications for all conflicts and all wars in which Australian service men and women have served. That dedication was followed by Remembrance Day occasions which involved many young schoolchildren in our area and many from the veterans community. That was then followed up at the Mornington Memorial Park with the dedication of the British-Commonwealth Occupying Forces Memorial which, I understand, is only the second one in the country. This was followed by the Prisoner of War Commemorative Occasion at the Mornington Memorial Park and concluded with a presentation of certificates of appreciation to service men and women.That underlines the recognition that the Dunkley community gives our service men and women for the service they have provided to our country and their contribution to making sure that younger generations can live in a peaceful, proud and prosperous country and benefit from not only their service but also the good policies of the Howard coalition government.1225612256Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Howard government early last year deemed that unemployed people 17 years or younger would be required to undertake training or study to continue to receive Youth Allowance. The federal government provided funding under the Full Service Schools program for secondary schools to adopt suitable programs to accommodate students who were returning to school. The funding provided was totally inadequate. I warned about this early in the year, to the howls of protest from members opposite saying that this was not the case. Park Ridge High, Browns Plains High, Marsden State High and St Francis College have not received one dollar.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Miscellaneous1225612256Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have received a return to the writ which I issued on 1 October 1999 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Holt in the state of Victoria to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Hon. Gareth John Evans. By the endorsement on the writ it is certified that Mr Anthony Byrne has been elected.Mr Anthony Byrne made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! On behalf of the House, I welcome the new member for Holt.Miscellaneous1225712257Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Members will be aware that at the start of proceedings today a report was tabled by the Standing Committee on Procedure entitled It's your House . The report examines ways in which the community might become more involved in the work of the House and its committees.Against this background, I have pleasure in informing the House that, from today, the proceedings of the House of Representatives are being broadcast live on the Internet. In addition to the House of Representatives proceedings, the live Internet service will also be simultaneously broadcasting the proceedings of the Senate, the Main Committee of the House of Representatives and up to four committee hearings. Text information about the parliament, initially Hansard reports and transcripts but now a wide range of material on the workings of both Houses, has been available on the Internet since 1995. Until now, however, that information has been text or still images.The parliament's Internet site is being extensively used with an average of more than one million hits per month throughout 1999. With recent developments in Internet technology, it is now possible cost effectively to broadcast across the Internet television coverage of proceedings of the House of Representatives, the Senate and committees. The number of Australian households connected to the Internet continues to grow and, increasingly, new and existing Internet users have personal computers capable of downloading video material.The Internet is accessible to people in most areas of Australia, particularly rural and regional areas, and offers the parliament the opportunity to provide uninterrupted access to its proceedings free of editing, interpretation or abbreviation. The introduction of the Internet broadcast service is another important step in meeting the objective of taking the parliament to the people. The Internet broadcast service can be accessed via the parliament home page which is www.aph.gov.au.Miscellaneous1225714:05:0012257Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, could I have indulgence to inform the House of something?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence granted.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I just want to inform the House that it is my intention to visit elements of the Australian Defence Force serving with the INTERFET force in East Timor next weekend. I know that in meeting Major General Cosgrove and others I will speak for the entire nation in conveying our thanks, gratitude and respect for the job that they have done and continue to do.I know from discussion with him that the Leader of the Opposition also wishes to visit the troops. I want to inform the House that the government and the Australian Defence Force will be more than happy to fully facilitate a visit by the Leader of the Opposition as the expression of respect for the fighting men and women of Australia should be always a matter of bipartisan support.14:06:0012257Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—On indulgence, firstly, I welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister that he intends to visit the troops over the weekend, and he does indeed go with the good wishes of all sides of Australian politics in the messages that he will convey to them about our support for their endeavours and our admiration for the way in which they have conducted themselves. I also thank him for the advice he has just given me that a visit that I requested of his office has been approved by him, and I look forward to the opportunity of conveying a similar message myself during the course of next week.Questions Without Notice122571225712257Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I refer the Prime Minister to his statement that `the people that are on the rich list can pay the GST and the ordinary taxpayer is not going to subsidise it'. Why then, Prime Minister, won't you support amendments that remove the special GST rebate for casino high rollers?12258Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As to the rebate, there is none. The GST is payable on the margin. Understand the legislation.1225812258Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of progress in relation to the commitment by the Commonwealth, states and territories to work together to put in place a new national initiative for the diversion of illicit drug users?12258Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am delighted to inform the House that there has been a great deal of cooperation between the Commonwealth and state governments across the normal political divide in relation to the diversion strategy that was first outlined at a meeting of the Prime Minister, premiers and chief ministers on 9 April. At the premises of a marvellous organisation called We Help Ourselves at Lidcombe in Sydney last Thursday, I was able to announce that agreement had been achieved between the Commonwealth and all the states.The Commonwealth is making available $110 million to fund a diversion program which essentially provides, for first-time drug offenders in particular, the option of undergoing treatment and rehabilitation assistance or, alternatively, being caught up in the criminal justice system. We believe that this represents a major breakthrough and step forward and one that recognises that for first-time drug offenders incarceration and being captured in the criminal justice system is not a desirable alternative. If a proper choice can be afforded to those people, then they and society will gain the benefit.Diversion is built on the concept of early intervention. We want to prevent people entering into long-term drug abuse where they face serious health problems, financial destitution, social dysfunction, a criminal record and, in some cases, acts of violence and property crime. In many respects, this approach is another expression of the philosophy of mutual obligation. We have an obligation to provide people with a way out of the path to drugs. But they must make the choice to accept treatment and rehabilitation services or face the consequences of being caught up in the criminal justice system.I thank the state governments of all political persuasions that have cooperated with the federal government on this issue. I was pleased to see represented at the announcement I made in Lidcombe last week the police forces—not only the Australian Federal Police through the commissioner Mr Mick Palmer but also the South Australian Police through its commissioner, who has played a leading role in the law enforcement side of the campaign against drugs.I have said before, and I repeat, that you need resources for law enforcement, you need resources for education and you need resources for treatment and rehabilitation. In an unprecedented way, to the tune of more than $500 million, this government is providing resources in each of those areas. Over time, I hope that those initiatives will make a contribution towards reducing the scourge of drugs within Australian society.1225812258Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is also to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm reports that you are planning to send a $200 GST gift voucher to Australia's small businesses? If so, have you seen claims by Nicole Feely of the Victorian Employers Chamber that every Australian small business will be up for $3½ thousand to pay the GST compliance bill? How is $200 going to help a small business deal with a $3½ thousand GST compliance problem?12258Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—There is a variety of ways in which this government is assisting in the process of transition to the introduction of the new taxation system. Whilst I cannot say that I recall precisely every single detail of every single initiative, I do know that a voucher was involved in part of the package of the initiatives.I want to take up the point made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeks to do—not unnaturally for a Deputy Leader of the Opposition without a tax policy, without an employment policy, without a health policy and without any serious policy alternatives in any area—is a little bit of nitpicking. I invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in his moments of greater charity—and others, including the person he quoted whom I know—to take into account the aggregate benefits to the business community of our new taxation system.The business community is thriving in Australia in a way that it has not experienced at any time since the end of World War II. The business community in Australia has lower interest rates than it has had for more than 30 years. The business community in Australia now has in prospect a far lower company tax regime. Small business will benefit enormously from the reductions in capital gains tax contained in the Treasurer's policy. Small business has benefited enormously from the industrial relations reforms of my colleague the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Small business has benefited from many other policies.Of course there are some compliance costs involved; we have never disputed that. If you look at the aggregate, you will find that there is far more on the credit side, there is far more on the plus side. Taxation reform is a great boon for Australian business. Australian business will benefit from tax reform. It will be stronger, more competitive and less costly to run and, indeed, it will boost its profitability over time.1225912259Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Would the minister inform the House whether there are criminal elements involved in the latest incidents of people smuggling in Australia? Have any charges been laid recently in relation to people smuggling in Australia?12259Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh for her question and I note her interest in these matters. There have been criminal elements very much involved in the latest incidents of people smuggling in Australia. Not only is people smuggling against our law—the law now imposes penalties involving 20 years jail and fines of up to $220,000 as a maximum for those convicted of smuggling five or more people into Australia, so it is a serious criminal offence in its own right—but it has involved significant intimidation and the use of violence. People have been prepared to provide information and journalists who have been researching these matters have been attacked when obtaining information in this area. Threats have been made against people who have been smuggled into Australia about speaking to Australian officials or police. There is the use of false and stolen passports and bogus documents from various countries. There are reports that efforts have been engaged in to bribe foreign government officials and police and that money laundering occurs as well. The amount of money involved is very large; reports suggest as much as $3 million was received by one individual involved in smuggling a large group of people into Australia recently.Obviously, we are working with other governments under international treaty arrangements for combating organised crime to identify and attack those criminal elements in the trade, but there are others who are used. We have seen people recruited to crew boats to Australia. Obviously, they are being manipulated by organisers. They face significant sentences for their actions. At the moment, there are 45 crew detained in Darwin awaiting trial. There are 18 in Western Australia. Already, there have been some convictions in that area and pleas of guilty. The boats that have come from China are certainly involved in organised criminal activity, both in China and here. We are looking at the linkages here in Australia, particularly with criminal groups here that may be arranging to receive covert arrivals.The AFP have charged two people involved in the onshore party that met the Kayuen, which was intercepted off Port Kembla. Three people in the shore party of the North Queensland boat arrival that came in May are presently before the courts. I assure the House that we take these matters very seriously. It is a whole of government issue. It involves not only my department but also the Australian Federal Police and other agencies. We are investigating the current crop of people smugglers in Australia and overseas. I am advised that I can expect some further charges to be laid against organisers at various levels.These issues, of course, are complex. It takes time to build up evidence to ensure convictions. But I assure the House that large numbers of people have been detained. The perpetrators of this criminal activity are people whom we will pursue here and abroad to the greatest extent possible to ensure that they are convicted and dealt with in relation to these offences.1226012260Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Do you think your $200 GST gift voucher is an adequate response to the compliance nightmare faced by Australian small businesses?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—It is not a compliance nightmare!DT4Mr CREAN—It is not a compliance nightmare? Well, go and tell them that. Will it be enough to pay for the GST computer software and hardware that consultants, lawyers and accountants will need to cope with this nightmare of a tax?12260Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition used the expression `an adequate response'. I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the historic reform of the Australian taxation system is an adequate response to the mess we inherited from Labor when we took over the administration of this country. The reality is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a wholesale sales tax man who is still chained to the wholesale sales tax system. If he had an atom of political honesty in him, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would campaign from now until the next election on a platform of bringing back the wholesale sales tax system, bringing back all those rates of 45, 32, 22, and 12 per cent. We all remember the rates very well. They were increased to their present level without warning and despite denials immediately after the 1993 election.Any new taxation system involves transition costs—nobody is denying that. Of course it involves transition costs. But any new taxation system carries with it enormous benefits. What this taxation system will do will be to reduce business costs by between $7 and $8 billion per year. It will reduce fuel bills by about $3.5 to $4 billion per year. It will reduce the cost of exports from this country by close to $4 billion per year. It carries with it the largest personal income tax cut in Australia's history. We also plan, via the business tax reforms, to bring the rate of company tax down in this country from the present level of 36 per cent to 30 per cent.We intend to bring in unprecedented new benefits for small businesses with turnovers of less than $1 million. That will be of benefit to something like 97 to 98 per cent of all farmers in Australia, as well as to hundreds of thousands of other small business operators. We are abolishing provisional tax. We are introducing other changes which, when you add them up, reduce to minuscule proportions the transition costs involved inevitably in bringing in a new taxation system.1226012260Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, would you advise the House of the details of stage 2 of the new business tax system? In particular, what is the effect of business tax reform on revenue?12260Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Menzies for his question. On 11 November this year the government announced the second stage of business taxation reform. The government indicated that in principle it would accept the high level reform recommended by the Ralph inquiry, sometimes known as option 2, that we would work with business to clarify the concepts behind it and that those reforms would come into effect not before 1 July 2001.In addition, we announced the government's response to remaining integrity measures, in particular integrity measures restricting the alienation of personal services income and integrity measures restricting losses from non-commercial activities. These measures, when taken together with measures previously announced by the government back in Sep tember of this year, have the effect of making the business tax reform package mildly revenue positive. In the first year there is a cost of some $100 million; in the second year a benefit, additional revenue, of some $700 million; in the third year a cost of some $500 million; and in the fourth year a revenue increase of some $400 million. The consequence of that is that we are accomplishing the historic reform of business taxation in a revenue neutral or, rather, mildly positive way.The Australian Labor Party have been trailing their coat on business taxation all the way throughout this process, saying that they wanted to negotiate and be part of the historic reform of business taxation. They indicated that, if the government accepted the integrity measures which made the package revenue neutral, the Labor Party would be supporting business taxation reform. The government has done that. Now is the time for the Australian Labor Party to do something they find extremely difficult. Now they will have to make a decision, a very difficult matter for the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Hotham. They have been trailing their coats now for several months, saying that if the government announced its position on these integrity measures and if the package became revenue neutral they would be supporting it. We hear this constant refrain: because they cannot make a decision, they need more and more information. Now it is suddenly not enough to have a Treasury costing, it is not enough to have a Ralph costing, and it is not enough to have a revenue positive position. The heat is on Labor now to make a decision. They have been in opposition for four years, and they are yet to make a decision.We know why they keep taking this position—because it is easier to oppose when you have no policy. To actually take a decision and support something requires a policy. The acid comes on to the Leader of the Opposition and his backup man the member for Hotham, fresh back from his sojourn in Paris, to see whether they can finally come out and announce their position on business taxation reform. The truth is that it was the Australian Democrats who were the responsible opposi tion party on indirect taxation reform. If Labor cannot make a decision, it will be the Australian Democrats who become the responsible opposition party on business taxation reform again.The Senate report comes down at 5 o'clock this afternoon, and the Labor Party ought to have a policy. It ought to have a position. It is up to Labor whether it can be part of positive policy making in this country or whether it sidelines itself from the great historic shift in taxation reform again.1226112261Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I refer the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to the views of his departmental head on the prospects of the government issuing a GST small business voucher. I quote Dr Shergold:I can confidently predict that that will not be one of the options. I believe that is highly unlikely.Minister, do you disagree with your departmental head or were you simply rolled by the Treasurer?12261Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The position is this. Once the tax policy position was being designed, we have obviously as a government been concerned to ensure that we have a sensible process to assist in the transition to the new arrangements. We set up a Small Business Consultative Committee. We asked them to go out and talk to small business and ask small business what they thought we ought to do by way of education and support in the transition process. Whilst financial support of the sort that has been the subject of questions is part of the response, the small business community have said to us that what they want is quality information, a decent education and information program. Basically that is what we have been putting in place.It is true that we proposed to have a voucher type system. That was an idea that came out of the Small Business Consultative Committee. It will be used to attract discounts on the supply of training services, facilities and the like. So that is a very practical component of this information campaign for small business. But it is much wider than that. For example, the Treasurer recently announced the immediate expensing of capital equipment purchases to help with the commencement of the GST, worth $175 million—a very good deal for small business. We have also relied upon a network of business organisations with a program worth well over $100 million to get them to go out to their constituencies, including people who are not members of those organisations, to ensure that they have a wealth of relevant information appropriate to their industry sector.We are also running a train the trainer program through a tender process, recognising the fact that we need to bring up to date the skills of people who will actually be carrying out this information program. We have a hotline.DT4CREANMr Crean—A hotline—that'll do a lot of good!WI4Mr REITH—Well, the hotline is very useful. We also have a web site. The Treasurer will correct me, but I think in August that had 2½ million hits and in September 3½ million hits.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—It had eight million altogether.WI4Mr REITH—Yes. So this is a very comprehensive program for small business. We are confident that it is going to do the job and ensure that we have a smooth transition to the new system.1226212262Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. There have been a large number of unauthorised boat arrivals in Australia in recent months. Would you inform the House what the government is doing in other countries to ensure that people who want to breach our borders, and the people smugglers behind this terrible trade, know that this government has taken firm action to deter illegal entrants?12262Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question. I know his electorate has been very significantly impacted upon as a result of the large number of unauthorised arrivals that we have seen in Australia in recent months. The numbers are very large historically and the composition of groups who have come to Australia has changed significantly. It is a complex issue. It is not altogether new. When people come to Australia unlawfully and have no lawful basis to be in Australia, there is an obligation upon my department to remove such people from Australia as quickly as possible. That sends a very clear and unambiguous message to those who have no lawful basis to be here—that they should not come.In relation to those that come from elsewhere where there may be entitlements that they are able to pursue, that is an issue that I have been raising and pressing in recent days. I am glad to hear that perhaps the opposition is going to support the measures that I have announced in relation to dealing with that question. A clear and unambiguous message is first required in order to engage in an overseas information campaign. Without a message, a campaign is useless. On 29 October, I launched an overseas information campaign targeting the smugglers and those who are using their services. I will table a copy of the campaign documentation which I have sent to all members. Australian diplomatic representatives abroad have been tasked in first asylum areas and transit areas to work with the UNHCR and governments to do whatever is possible to ensure that people smuggling does not destroy the international protection system. This is a high priority for the government. It is urgent and it is ongoing.Earlier this month I visited the People's Republic of China. I met with senior representatives of the government. They reaffirmed to me their continued cooperation in taking strong action against those involved in trafficking. They told me that information they had received from us had been useful in prosecuting people in China and I told them that information that they gave to us was helpful for our being aware of people perhaps coming to Australia. I was informed that the boat that arrived recently at Christmas Island was one that they had not been able to apprehend before it left. They agreed to cooperate with us. They agreed to widely disseminate within China some posters that we had had prepared. Much larger versions of the one I am showing to the House are able to be distributed with the cooperation of Chinese authorities. I am particularly gratified at receiving that. I table the document.Earlier in the year, the secretary to my department led a delegation to Indonesia of senior officials of the Department of Defence, Customs, Coastwatch, AusAID and the Australian Federal Police to discuss trafficking issues and the strategies to deal with them. Obviously, we will continue these activities with countries in the region and further afield. It has been a high priority of the Australian Ambassador, John McCarthy, with the Indonesian government in recent days. We are going to continue to work through international fora to ensure that these issues are continually raised. I went to a conference in Bangkok where I was able to pursue these matters with a large number of government officials present. I know my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs pursued these matters further in Thailand last week with the Thai government.It is important for honourable members to know that there is strong international support for what we are proposing. In addition to saying on Friday that the refugee convention does not stipulate what kind of visa a sovereign state should issue to refugees in fulfilling their obligations, the UNHCR had this to say:Refugees are particularly vulnerable to "migration networks", organised criminal rings which have made of human trafficking a most lucrative transnational activity. This people trafficking has taken on enormous proportions. UNHCR is supportive of measures which are designed to minimise such activity while maintaining and strengthening the international refugee protection regime.That is a very important statement about the measures which we are involved in and which should be totally supported by the Australian community. I table that document for the benefit of honourable members.1226312263Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to your previous answer on the multimillionaires who are casino high rollers. Is it the case that a GST will not be imposed on any cash or services returned by the casino to the high rollers? Prime Minister, if a casino makes a commercial decision to provide this benefit to high rollers, why should average taxpayers, including all other punters, be required to subsidise it?12263Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is not a question of other people subsidising; it is a question of the Leader of the Opposition grasping the simple fact that the way a GST operates is that you tax the operator's margin. That is how it operates—at the margin. It does not go to expenses involved in the operations of the casino; it goes to the margin. It is as simple as that. This issue was dealt with extensively before and it remains the case. Of course, the basis of the GST has always been that you tax the margin. We did not hear any criticism of this from the opposition before the high-roller issue arose. They were not running around saying, `You should not tax the margin.' I am quite certain that, if we had not taxed the margin, they would have found a reason to complain about that. The reality is that when you have no policy all you can do is complain. And the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating that.1226312263Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force figures show unemployment trending down and that a record number of people are in employment. Well done. Can you inform the House as to how this has been achieved? Are you aware of any alternative proposals aimed at dealing with unemployment?12263Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Mitchell for his question. It is true that the official Australian Bureau of Statistics figures have come out since we last met and I am pleased to be able to advise the House that we now have a record 8,878,800 people in employment in Australia. The seasonal unemployment rate is 7.1 and trend unemployment has also been continuing its downward trend. That is the equal best figure, Prime Minister, since the middle of 1990. That is an excellent result and it does speak volumes of the government's reform program. There is no doubt that, when Australia is better managed, more people get a job. Furthermore, you get a higher wage as well as a result of this government's policies.It is worth remembering that, when the Leader of the Opposition was at one stage the minister for employment, unemployment reached 11.2 per cent—a testimony to Labor's mismanagement when they were in power. The fact is that we had an appalling unemployment situation when Labor were in office. That was because Labor were never prepared to grapple with the difficult issues to bring about real reform that would actually have given Australia a better performance. That reminds me of those good words from the former Minister for Health Dr Neal Blewett, who said of the member for Brand that he was `flawed by a streak of the most un-Churchillian timidity'.The fact is that Labor still do not have an employment policy. They promised a policy back in July. Oh, no, they could not produce it then. Then they said they would produce a policy in September. Oh, no, by the time we got to September East Timor was the problem. Then when we said, `Where is your policy?' they said, `Oh, no, we haven't got a policy because we've got the referendum and we cannot have more than one ball in the air at a time.'Apparently there was to be a document prepared by some academics at Monash entitled `Workforce 2010'. It is ready but, oh, no, they cannot release it now. By the time it is released it ought to be renamed `2011' or `2012'.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Wit!WI4Mr REITH—These are the longest policy documents in the making that we have ever seen in Australian politics. It will be nearly 12 months before we finally see this workplace policy on employment or this employment policy discussion paper.There is no surprise in this. The Leader of the Opposition has been opposition leader for nearly four years, or will have been certainly by the time we ever see this document. When it comes to actual policy, he struggles to have what it takes to develop a policy that is worth releasing. That is his basic problem. He has got the member for Melbourne with his views about policy, he has got Senator George Campbell who is out there attacking the member for Werriwa's policy and he has got a new member coming in. What is his background? What do you expect? He is another trade union official. He can answer that one in his maiden speech. This is the problem with the Labor Party. As the member for Werriwa said—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—WI4Mr REITH—This is my coup de grace, let me finish it surely.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. We are aware this bloke has been around Brisbane hospitals in pyjamas and with bunches of flowers, but there has to be a bit of relevance to questions, even from his own side.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—A point of order has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I have to say that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, in commenting about employment generally, could hardly be called out of order when he was commenting about the employment of the member for Holt.WI4Mr REITH—The serious point to be made is that an opposition does have a public responsibility to issue policies. I finish with the words of the member for Werriwa on 20 October, 12 months ago, who said—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Loath as I am to interrupt the Banana in Pyjamas, there is a question of relevance here. This has absolutely nothing to do with the government's employment policies.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition puts the chair in an impossible position. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business was, after all, about to quote. I do not know what he was about to quote. I would trust it was relevant to the question asked, but I cannot rule until he has uttered the quote he indicated he was going to quote.WI4Mr REITH—Just picking up on the last part of the question, it was: was I aware of any alternative proposals? This is what the member for Werriwa said on 20 October:In April 1996 Kim Beazley said to me that Australian Labor was falling 10 years behind comparable parties in our policy development and our ideas. Now, that was the case then. We've probably got as much ground to make up now.That was 12 months ago. We want to see your employment policy.1226512265Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Given that your current batch of GST changes stops the GST being imposed on state stamp duties, what are you doing to stop state stamp duties being imposed on the GST? Won't the end result for consumers be the same—a tax on a tax?12265Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am pleased to see that the Labor Party are interested in a tax on a tax because, under their wholesale sales tax, 22 per cent wholesale sales tax is added to the price of a car and stamp duty is put on the tax. In fact, if you want to go through the Labor Party's policy on wholesale sales tax, you first of all add a tariff to an imported car, then you add 22 per cent, including on the tariff, and then you put a stamp duty on the price inclusive of tariff and wholesale sales tax—a tax on a tax on a tax. This system happily went on for 13 years with a tax on a tax on a tax. If they were to get re-elected, they would be bringing back the wholesale sales tax.As I said before, Australia is going to be the chair of the OECD next year. If you were to turn up as the chair of the OECD and give a lecture to the OECD on modern taxation and why France and Germany should abolish value added tax and bring in wholesale sales tax—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was very specific. It was what he is doing in relation to the states imposing the GST on their stamp duties. He has not answered that question at all. The impact of that is to impose a tax on a tax— something that he said would not happen and that he would get rid of.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made his point and will resume his seat. The Treasurer was responding to the question, and I invite him to continue.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I was just making the point that, at the moment in Australia, you have tax on tax and, in many cases, tax on tax on tax. You asked what we are doing about the state stamp duties. We are in the business of abolishing state stamp duties—something that eluded the Australian Labor Party for 13 years. Did the Australian Labor Party have a policy to abolish stamp duty on shares? Stamp duty on shares is being abolished on 1 July next year. Did the Australian Labor Party have a policy to abolish bed taxes? No. Bed taxes are being abolished from 1 July of next year. Did the Australian Labor Party have a policy to abolish financial institutions duty? No. Financial institutions duty is being abolished from 1 July 2001. Did the Australian Labor Party have a policy to abolish bank account debits tax? No.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was quite explicitly this: what steps has the Treasurer taken to ensure that states do not impose their stamp duties on top of the GST? A simple question—there was no embroidery in it at all.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer had indicated in his concluding remarks that he was coming to that point, and I invite him to do so.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It is a very simple point: we are in the process of abolishing state taxes. That is what we are going to do. That is what solves the problem once and for all. I was going through stamp duty on shares. You asked me when: stamp duty on shares, 1 July 2000; bed taxes, 1 July 2000; financial institutions duty, 1 July 2001; followed by bank account debits tax; followed by stamp duties on mortgages; followed by stamp duties on commercial conveyances.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—When?CT4Mr COSTELLO—When? You never wanted to abolish stamp duties. I also make this point: all of the stamp duties which the Labor Party were happy to leave in place forever, in perpetuity, applied to the price inclusive of tax. They applied to cars including tax. They applied to houses including tax. They applied to all of the things where the wholesale sales tax applied. We have a provision which will abolish those stamp duties, and in addition, because all of the revenue goes to the states, we have the capacity, if the states profiteer, to pull back on the Commonwealth guarantee, as I have previously indicated. This is the sole policy to address this particular problem—a problem which the Labor Party had no policy of addressing, just like they have no policy on anything.1226612266Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House about the federal government's commitment to upgrading the interstate mainline track and in particular the government's approach to addressing the significant rail congestion problems throughout Sydney.12266Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The government is very committed to revitalising rail in Australia. We are planning for the future because it is estimated that our total freight task will double over the next two decades. We cannot have all of that on our roads. We are going to need rail, and we have got an investment package of around $250 million of Commonwealth money, which is being usefully leveraged up all over the country to upgrade the interstate mainline track.The member who asked the question—who, of course, was an extremely good minister for transport in New South Wales—would be well aware that, at this point in time, there is no dedicated freight line through Sydney at all. I recently announced that around half of the federal government's contribution of $250 million in the rail investment program—that is to say, $124 million—will go towards a long overdue dedicated freight line through Sydney. At the moment, trains can wait for up to 24 hours for the lines to be free of passenger trains. You get massive backlogs, and indeed all of this simply encourages people to put their freight back onto trucks and onto our already congested roads.The total cost of the particular exercise we are talking about here could be anywhere between $500 million and $1 billion, so there is an opportunity for the government's funding to be used to leverage up funding from other sources, quite possibly for a BOOT type arrangement—build, own, operate and transfer. A study by Maunsell-McIntyre to investigate options is under way at the moment and will be completed shortly.I do urge the current New South Wales Minister for Transport to get behind the construction of the line and to recognise the importance of improving access through Sydney. This is vitally important. We have made real progress in fixing up the east-west corridor; in fact, it now has a very high percentage of the freight between Perth and Melbourne. We have been doing things properly. Under a program called One Nation, strangely enough, the ALP put some money into rail. They put taxpayers' money into a stretch of rail on the track at Pura Pura because the average train speed was down to about 70 kilometres an hour. When they had finished doing it up a la Labor Party reform, the trains travelled at about 25 kilometres an hour. We have been getting on with the job.Mr Crean interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—It's true; go and check it. After you had fixed up the railways the trains went slower. Now we have to get the north-south corridor working properly—that is, Melbourne, Sydney, in between and beyond. But I do emphasise this: when it comes to dispersing this money—it is a very important point—for projects in New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, until those states conclude satisfactory arrangements with the Australian Rail Track Corporation for single point operations for interstate access, we will not be handing over the money. I again call on the New South Wales Minister for Transport, Carl Scully, to get on with meeting his commitments—to finalise ar rangements with the ARTC and get on with the job of upgrading the track in New South Wales.1226712267Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Does the Prime Minister recall being asked on 21 October this year on radio 6PR talkback this question from Shirley:Look, I'm really upset and really, really angry. Yesterday I went to pre-pay my Mum's funeral and I was told that I had to pay $500 extra for the GST. How can you possibly charge people GST on a funeral? It's terrible.Prime Minister, do you recall promising Shirley that you would investigate why she was being charged $500 extra on her mother's pre-paid funeral, which cost $5,000? Have you done this, as you said you would, and what did your investigation reveal? Have you explained to Shirley why she will have to pay $500 extra if her mother dies after 1 July 2000?12267Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do remember the exchange; I always remember my exchanges on Perth radio. The Leader of the Opposition has had a few exchanges on Perth radio recently, and I am sure he remembers them. I invited the lady to send me the details. I will check with my office to see whether they have come, and if they have I will be very happy to make sure the Leader of the Opposition is provided with the details.1226712267Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the latest developments in new apprenticeships and how this compares with previous policies in this area? What effect will these developments have on the future of Australian business and the job prospects of young people?12267Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Groom for his question. The Howard government is now rebuilding Australia's apprenticeship system after the appalling run down of that system under the Labor Party. Members of the House will remember that in 1995 the number of apprenticeships and trainees as a proportion of the work force was the lowest for three decades. I am pleased to inform the House that employers are giving the New Apprenticeships system of the Howard government the very clear thumbs up. They are employing more apprentices than ever before. At the end of June 1999, there were 244,800 new apprentices in training in Australia—nearly a quarter of a million new apprentices—over 100,000 more than in 1996. Two-thirds of these were at higher skill levels. No fewer than two-thirds were at traditional apprenticeship skill levels or higher. This is quality training to solve Australia's skills problems that were exacerbated by the destruction of the apprenticeship system under the Labor Party.Employers' support for the New Apprenticeships system is also evidenced in their support for the New Apprenticeships centres. A recent survey found that 82 per cent of employers were satisfied with the services provided by New Apprenticeships centres. A recent evaluation of the user choice system, which gives employers the opportunity to choose the off-the-job trainer for their apprentices, found that employers strongly supported the increased choice and the quality of services that they were getting through user choice.There is no doubt at all that this government has put into place policies that are reviving job opportunities for young Australians. Youth unemployment is now lower than it has been at any time since the statistics began to be collected in trend figures. The government is committed to addressing Australia's skills needs and to providing real job opportunities for young Australians.1226712267Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is to the Treasurer. Do you stand by the government's promise that the GST will not apply to residential rents? Have you seen comments by Ms Vanessa Priest, tax partner with Sydney accountant Greenwood BKT, that, where a residential premises is rented furnished, that part of the rent which is for the furnishing will be subject to the GST? Treasurer, is she right? Will the GST be hitting the thousands of Australians who rent furnished accommodation?12268Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have not seen those particular comments, but the government's position is and always has been that residential rents are input taxed. That means that all of the inputs that go into the residential rent are taxed but there is no GST on the rental itself. I suppose if she is referring to a separate agreement which amounts to a rental for furniture and there were a separately identifiable amount then you might be able to make that argument out. But I will look at those comments.DT4CREANMr Crean—It is all in the same agreement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked his question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—While I am on my feet, Mr Speaker, let me clarify something. As I said in relation to my last answer, bed taxes are abolished on 1 July 2000. Financial institutions duty and stamp duties on shares are abolished from 1 July 2001.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the Treasurer adding to his former answer?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am clarifying it, Mr Speaker. I may have said that the stamp duties on shares were abolished on 1 July 2000 but that is in fact on 1 July 2001, the same day as the abolition of financial institutions duty.1226812268Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister inform the House of the likely gains to Australia's economy that will flow from China joining the World Trade Organisation?12268Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his question and acknowledge his interest in our relationship with China that has been evident over a long period of time. It is important for the House to note that last week China's bid to join the WTO took a significant step forward with its agreement with the United States on their bilateral relationship moving towards its accession into the WTO. Interestingly, going back earlier in the year, Australia concluded our in-principle agreement with China on its entry to the WTO. It was negotiated by the former Minister for Trade, Mr Fischer, ably assisted by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer.There are some significant gains for Australia, and we have supported China's accession to the WTO consistently for that reason. Australia sells a lot of exports to China. China is Australia's fifth largest trading partner, with two-way trade worth $10 billion a year. Our agreement with China will see tariffs and non-tariff barriers slashed, providing a major boost to export access potential worth hundreds of millions of dollars to our economy on an annual basis. In the in-principle agreement that we have concluded with China, tariffs on our exports of manufactured goods will fall from an average of 25 per cent to an average of 10 per cent. Some of the products that will benefit from China's accession that Australia exports to China are alumina, pharmaceuticals, steel, motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts and optical fibre cables. Also, importantly, the tariffs on Australia's farm exports will effectively be halved from 31 per cent to 14½ per cent. So exports of farm produce such as sheepmeat, cheese, oranges, wool and beef will all benefit from China's accession to the WTO. It is for this reason that Australia has actively and energetically supported China's entry to the WTO.We have been encouraging the United States and the European Union, who are yet to complete their in-principle agreement with China, to do so so that we can get on to achieve those outcomes as far as Australia's exporters are concerned. This agreement with the US augurs well for the WTO meeting to start in Seattle in a week's time, where we are seeing a strengthening of the World Trade Organisation and the rules based system.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, could I add to the minister's answer by informing the House that Australia has scored a remarkable win in the Second Test against Pakistan by four wickets, Langer making a wonderful 127 and Gilchrist celebrating a great Western Australian contribution with 149, their partnership being 235. I think I had better ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker122691226912269Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Mr Speaker, on 22 September I asked question No. 924 to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts about the impending closure of the analog mobile phone system. To date I have not received a response. In accordance with standing order 150, I ask you to write to the minister on my behalf and seek reasons for the delay in replying to my question.12269Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will take up the matter on behalf of the member for Lowe.1226912269Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Mr Speaker, I notice that a number of members have had pens placed in their desks. My question is whether you organised for these pens to be placed in the desks. If not, could you please ensure that we do not receive further advertising material in the chamber? It is worth while noting that it is open to any organisation that wants to pass on to us some sort of advertising material to have it placed in our offices.12269Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Shortland. The chair was quite unaware of this and in fact was not a recipient of any such material. I point out to the House that a number of members have during question time drawn my attention to the matter raised by the member for Shortland. I understand from the Serjeant-at-Arms that the company in question were involved in some furniture restoration in the chamber and they have clearly used the opportunity which was necessary for them to have access to desks, in order to offer varnish restoration, to place pens in each of those desks. It was clearly not something done mischievously. I take on board the member for Shortland's chastening remark. I point out to her that it is one of those things that is rather difficult to police, but I clearly would not encourage it and do not believe it should have happened.1226910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:1226920ZJ6Barresi Phil MPTo the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of St Mark's Anglican Church, Mill Park, Victoria 3082 petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Mr BarresiZJ6Mr Barresi(from 20 citizens)1226916HH4Jenkins Harry MPTo the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of All Saints' Anglican Church, Nunawading, Victoria 3131 petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c. Mr JenkinsHH4Mr Jenkins(from 16 citizens)1227071FK6Kelly De-Anne MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:This petition is to show that we, the undersigned citizens, respectfully claim that Australia must preserve and uphold its present National Flag which has proudly represented this country ever since the federation of its sovereign States in 1901, and then being confirmed under the Flags Act (1953). We do so because:It truly reflects our history and heritage, our culture, law and language,It embodies our common law rights and liberties, our very birthright,It signifies the Christian ethic, friendliness, international goodwill,It enshrines in memory the wartime sacrifices of our gallant servicemen and servicewomen,It symbolises our past achievements and inspires future loyal efforts.So therefore do we petition that our present Australian National Flag be not changed, replaced or diminished in any way whatsoever without such a proposal being first voted upon and approved by a majority of Australian citizens in a national referendum.And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mrs De-Anne KellyFK6Mrs De-Anne Kelly(from 71 citizens)12270761FK6Kelly De-Anne MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:We are proud to fly the Australian Flag and will oppose any changes to it.We support the Constitutional Monarchy and admire our Constitution. We will fiercely resist all attempts to undermine our present system and impose a republic.We believe in loyalty to our Nation, pride in our Constitution and admiration for our existing national flag. We respectfully call for our elected representatives to do the same.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mrs De-Anne KellyFK6Mrs De-Anne Kelly(from 761 citizens)12270420JK6McClelland Robert MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the people of East Timor have overwhelmingly voted to become an independent and sovereign nation and the Indonesian Government has failed to fulfil its responsibility to maintain security in East Timor during the period of transmission to independence.We therefore petition the House to require the Government and all responsible Ministers to:(a) Withdraw Australia's de jure recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor;(b) Sever Australia's remaining military ties with Indonesia;(c) Support calls for international institutions including the IMF and the World Bank to suspend all assistance to Indonesia;(d) Call upon Australia's regional neighbours to bring all possible pressure to bear on Indonesia at a bilateral and regional level including through the APEC forum; and(e) To act urgently to establish a peacekeeping force to end the military created anarchy that exists in East Timor and to protect the security of all citizens of East Timor.Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland(from 420 citizens)122701311JK6McClelland Robert MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Sydney calls to the attention of the House that the recent allegations of bribery and scandal regarding the bidding process for hosting an Olympic Game has the potential to seriously damage the integrity and reputation of the Olympic movement.Your petitioners therefore request that the House support the permanent staging of future Olympic Games at their original home in the city of Olympia, Greece, thereby eliminating the need for lobbying of individual IOC officials.Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland(from 1,311 citizens)122705OK6Nairn Gary MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of Queanbeyan who are also electors in the electorate of Eden-Monaro draws to the attention of the House that this week marks the centenary of the Federal City Committee (FCC) of Queanbeyan and the FCC resolution that the Commissioner Mr Oliver be informed `. . . that Queanbeyan intended to put in a claim for consideration of the site for the Federal Capital.' The Federal City Committee (FCC) was formed at a public meeting called by the Queanbeyan Mayor, Alderman W. Pike, on Tuesday 17 October 1899 `. . . to take steps to bring under the notice of the Commissioner the claims of the Queanbeyan district . . . in the matter of a suitable site for the Federal Capital . . . 'Although the first speaker at the FCC meeting, Dr Blackhall advocated that the FCC committee be limited to four gentlemen, the Hon. E.W. O'Sullivan M.P., Mr Cox and qualified engineers Messrs G. O'Hanlon and Hungerford, the Rev. Father Collender proposed an amendment that all present at the meeting should be members of the FCC.This was seconded by Mr Caddem who objected to `Government officials and complete strangers' being entrusted with forwarding the claims of the Queanbeyan district and said that a `good case' could be `presented by a large and representative committee' and `. . . they should not forget that other districts were on the alert with their claims, and they must be prepared to meet influence with influence, ability with ability.'Mr O'Hanlon supported the amendment and said that `. . . old residents of the district with perfect knowledge (were) far preferable for the committee to practical engineers without that knowledge.'Democratically everyone present at that meeting on 17th October 1899 became a FCC member. A subcommittee was then formed with twelve members: Mayor W. Pike—Chair, Mr Cox—secretary, Mr Cadden—treasurer, Hon. E.W. O'Sullivan M.P., Dr Blackhall, Dr Richardson, Mr Grady, Mr O'Hanlon, Mr F. Campbell, Mr A.J. Cunningham, Mr James Cunningham and Mr John Gale to deal with the site selection.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will acknowledge and remember the 1899-1999 Centenary of the formation of Queanbeyan's Federal City Committee and remember that the residents of Queanbeyan on Tuesday 17 October 1899 took `. . . steps to bring under the notice of the Commissioner the claims of the Queanbeyan district . . . in the matter of a suitable site for the Federal Capital . . . ' (NB: All information from the Queanbeyan Observer & Mining Record 20th October 1899).Mr NairnOK6Mr Nairn(from five citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business122711227115:08:0012271Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I move:That this House: (1) welcomes the Government's commitment to provide $9.2 million to fund education and increase awareness to consumers about asthma;(2) notes the development of best practice in asthma management plans and integrating care for people with asthma;(3) recognises the increased funding to research to improve our understanding of asthma; and(4) welcomes the promotion of improving the understanding of the effects of asthma on 2 million Australians.In putting forward this motion today I am urging the House to recognise and acknowledge the commitment of the federal coalition government to deal with what has become a very serious health issue for many Australians. As I am sure many members will know, Australia has one of the highest rates of asthma in the world. It is a dubious honour, much like our appallingly high rate of youth suicide. Studies have shown that both Australia and New Zealand have not only much higher levels of diagnosed asthma but also more severe cases of asthma than European countries do. This may well be the result of differing risk factors in the Southern Hemisphere, including climate and the types of pollens. The greater prevalence of asthma in Australia in comparison with Northern Hemisphere countries with similar standards of living poses some enormous problems for the community as a whole and for asthma sufferers as individuals. I wish to acknowledge some great work being done in my own state of Queensland by Dr David Duffy and Dr Nick Martin at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research at Herston. Dr Duffy conducted studies into the genetics of asthma, using families of twins, from 1995 to 1998. This very extensive work was funded by previous NHMRC funding, which enabled him and his team to survey twins and their families through the use of questionnaires and DNA analysis. Some 50,000 families participated in this survey.The risk factors associated with asthma have been the focus of the work of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, along with collaborative work with an Ameri can pharmaceutical company. Does asthma run in families? That is one of the key questions. A lot of this work has focused on genetics and on what genes are prevalent in asthma sufferers. Dr Duffy is interested in pursuing a topic that has become all too familiar to me: mature age onset asthma. His discussions with me have indicated that he has applied for funding in the past but has been unsuccessful. I hope that he will be able to continue his research with NHMRC funding. The current statistics on asthma are very frightening indeed, and very telling. Overall, the figures indicate a decline in asthma mortality across all age groups. In 1989 some 964 people died from asthma, compared with 715 people in 1997. Even so, this number of deaths from asthma is far too high. What makes it even more unacceptable is the fact that up to two-thirds of asthma deaths could have been avoided or prevented. Surprisingly, the drop in the number of deaths has been accompanied by an overall increase in the number of people being diagnosed with the disease. Ten years ago, some 1.4 million Australians had asthma. Today, that particular figure has climbed alarmingly to two million. That is roughly 11 per cent of Australia's population.What is more, evidence also suggests that asthma is becoming more severe. In terms of the way in which asthma affects specific demographic groupings, the picture is even more alarming. One in four primary school children has asthma—and yesterday as I was reading the Canberra Times I was happy to see that a coordinated trial project has begun right here in Canberra on the effects of asthma on schoolchildren—that means that roughly 25 per cent of kids in the school playground could be struck down by an asthma attack during their lunchbreak. In fact, asthma attacks are probably the most common cause of hospital admissions for school-age and younger children. One in seven teenagers has asthma, and one in ten adults has asthma. Here, asthma is the seventh most common reason for hospital admissions. Asthma is also the tenth most common reason for people to visit a general practitioner. The cost to the community, both emotionally and financially, is a burdensome one.In the 1993-94 financial year, asthma cost the health system $477 million. The National Health and Medical Research Council—the NHMRC—estimated that in 1996 the cost to the health system could in fact be anywhere up to $720 million a year. The cost to individuals and families, especially in terms of mortality, is even higher. As a sufferer, I can assure the House that coping with asthma is not easy. I am sure that anyone who has asthma will tell you that it is not a pleasant experience when an attack strikes you. I am very fortunate to be only a mild sufferer.I knew very little about asthma until late last year, when I was struck with late-onset asthma, and I believe this is a very common thing for older, more mature members of the community. More research needs to be done in this area, and I am sure that Dr Duffy and his team in Queensland will look at this when their research allows them to. I think it is a high priority for the Queensland Institute of Medical Research.I knew nothing about how this inflammatory disease affects the air passages and I thought it happened to only a small number of people. As one can see by the statistics that I have quoted, it is indeed prevalent in a large percentage of Australia's population.Inflammation causes narrowing of the air passages coupled with an increase in mucus production. When this happens, it becomes extremely difficult for air to move in and out of the lungs. In other words, people have great difficulty breathing. We still do not know the underlying cause of asthma, but we do know what factors can trigger asthma attacks. Things like cigarette smoke, cold weather, chest infections, household dust mites and pollens can all cause severe attacks, and so can anxiety. It is, of course, very difficult to deal with a disease which has so many triggers.Whilst coping with asthma is not easy, the evidence before us today suggests that prevention is the best way to deal with asthma. As I mentioned earlier, there has been a decline in the number of deaths attributable to asthma at a time when there has been an increase in the number of people being diagnosed with the disease. The nexus between these contradictory phenomena should inform our policy and, based on the government's 1999-2000 budget initiative, that is what will happen.Clearly, the fact that a decline in asthma deaths is running parallel with an increase in diagnosed sufferers shows us that improvements in the management of asthma are having a very positive effect on the disease. As we do not have a cure for asthma, the key is community awareness of the disease and, specifically, how to manage it. That is why the Howard government's announcement of $9.2 million over three years to fund education and awareness about asthma is a very welcome initiative. Specifically, the government will be concentrating on developing a national strategic approach to improving asthma management. This will include the development of resources to improve the content and availability of information about asthma, helping asthma suffers to better follow asthma management plans, and the development of best practice guidelines for health professionals.I do believe we have come a long way with the management of asthma. We still have a considerable way to go, and I am in favour of this huge amount of money being spent. With anything associated with funding, there never seems to be enough, but I think this government has made a very positive step towards addressing the problem and understanding the management of it. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:18:0012273Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—As asthma affects the lives of so many Australians, I am sure that members on both sides of the House are pleased to support and encourage any initiatives which can help increase public awareness of the many problems associated with the management of asthma. We also seek to improve education and support for people with asthma and the development of effective management plans to help people deal with their disease.The decision to make asthma the next national health priority is an important one, as asthma will now join cancer, heart disease, mental health, diabetes and injury prevention as a major health initiative in Australia. It is also important because it means that asthma is a disease which requires significant support in funding, research and education. Australians who do not have asthma and who do not know anyone with the disease will be helped to have an improved understanding of the impact asthma has on individuals and families and of the cost to society as a whole.Approximately 11 per cent—over two million—of Australians are affected by asthma. It is of grave concern that the prevalence and severity of asthma is increasing. It is worth noting that Australia and New Zealand have the highest rates of asthma in the world.Symptoms of asthma have been found in 17 per cent of children, and asthma is one of the leading causes of admission to hospital in children under 10 years of age. It is also one of the top 10 reasons for people visiting their general practitioners each year. The strategies which have been implemented in the past have meant that the number of deaths caused by asthma have declined from 964 in 1989 to 715 in 1997.The high rate of asthma places a huge cost on our society, both in the impact on the lives of those with asthma and in the cost of treatment. In 1992, the estimated cost per annum was between $586 million and $718 million, with the government spending in excess of $170 million per annum on asthma drugs. This makes asthma the third highest group cost. For people who have asthma, it can have a major impact on their daily lives. It is a major reason for children being absent from school while young. It can have a detrimental effect on levels achieved, and it can affect future employment and education opportunities. For parents and carers it means increased time away from work to care for a child with asthma. This can have an impact on productivity levels. For adults, asthma can mean lost productivity in the workplace due to being away from work to deal with the effects of asthma.It is important for employers to be made aware of the causes of asthma, as a major cost to society is the loss of productivity due to occupational asthma. Occupational asthma is when an employee has asthma which is triggered by something in the workplace. It is estimated that occupational asthma costs Australia $260 million in lost productivity and absenteeism each year. Occupational asthma is the only form of the disease which is preventable. In 1998 AsthmaWA chose to highlight this form of asthma in Asthma Week as part of a campaign to inform and educate employers of the need to have a workplace environment which does not trigger asthma. Education must play a key role in improving the awareness of the impact asthma has and to ensure that people with asthma have a management plan or strategy to minimise the risks of the disease.By listing asthma as a national health priority, an important step has been taken, as it means that there has been a recognition that asthma as it increases is having an impact on the lives of those living with the disease and on our country. It also means that people with asthma will be further encouraged not to underestimate the risks of their disease and it will help parents and carers work with their general practitioner to put in place the correct strategies to deal with living with asthma. It is important that the dangers of asthma be recognised by everyone. In making asthma a health priority and associating it with diseases that the majority of Australians recognise as dangerous, its importance is more likely to be realised. The National Asthma Campaign has developed a blueprint for dealing with asthma, and this has provided the guidelines for the development of the National Asthma Plan. The plan recognises the importance of an increased and better understanding of asthma and support for people with asthma in the management of their disease. It stresses the need for community awareness and better professional education.Another advantage of making asthma a national health priority is that it will increase the amount of funding available for research. There is a great need for increased funding. In Western Australia, AsthmaWA received 13 project grant applications and eight new investigator applications worth a total of $600,000, with a pool of just $160,000 available in 1999. The amount of funding needed for research is far higher than groups such as AsthmaWA should be expected to raise. AsthmaWA said that all of the projects which were not funded had been assessed as being important and worthy of support. However, they are in desperate need of additional funding, which hopefully they will be able to access now that asthma has been listed as a national health priority. Increased funding is the vital means for research into a cure, better diagnosis, treatment and understanding of asthma.In Western Australia a new research centre has been incorporated at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. The Asthma and Allergy Research Institute has the primary goal to produce high quality research into the treatment and management of patients with asthma, allergy diseases and other chronic respiratory conditions. Its work and goals have been endorsed by many of the groups across Australia which assist people in dealing with asthma and its management. The importance of funding for research was emphasised when we were informed that there are exciting projects being investigated. The general belief, though, is that a result is still at least 10 years away. Some of the projects which are being trialled worldwide at the moment are an asthma vaccine, a method of assessing a child's genetic risk for asthma and a genetically engineered drug called E25. It is the responsibility of all governments to ensure that the funding is available for research.It is also important to ensure that the community is well aware of the prevalence of asthma and its dangers. Those with asthma need to be supported in the management of their disease. Children need to be helped to understand asthma and know the responsibility they have in its management to minimise the impact on their lives. I congratulate the many groups and volunteers who work to support those with asthma and the many achievements they have had in making the lives of those with asthma easier.15:26:0012275Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Most of us would have at some time witnessed the panic of a child gasping for breath in the grip of an asthma attack, and it is more of a nightmare when it is our own child. Hopefully, none of us will ever be witness to a fatal attack of asthma, yet it happens far too often and is tragically growing in frequency. Australia has amongst the highest incidence of asthma in the world. It is estimated that over two million Australians are asthma sufferers. Tragically, the prevalence is increasing at an alarming rate. For example, the incidence of asthma in New South Wales schoolchildren doubled between 1982 and 1992.While asthma may not be the killer that high profile diseases such as cancer and heart disease are, its danger ought not be underestimated. It is one of the leading causes of childhood admissions to hospital and it is one of the leading causes of absenteeism from school and work. In 1997, 715 people in Australia died from asthma attacks. The estimated cost of asthma to the Australian community is around $600 million to $700 million per annum. There is no known cure for asthma. However, with proper diagnosis, medical management and education the level of illness and the frequency of attacks and the rate of death can be reduced. Certainly in recent years the death rate has decreased in proportion to the prevalence of the disease—an encouraging sign of the effectiveness of treatment.The recently announced government grant of $9.2 million will assist in increasing public awareness. This should help with assisting in prevention and in reducing the impact of the disease. Part of this funding will help in the development of a national asthma strategy implementation plan. Amongst other things, its aim will be to facilitate and coordinate research into reducing asthma morbidity and mortality. Government commitment of greater resources to research will also over time help to improve our ability to provide assistance for asthma suffers, to improve their quality of life and to help develop practical prevention strategies—if not in preventing the disease itself, at least in minimising the frequency of attacks.The government's announced increased funding for medical research earlier this year holds out significant hope for asthma sufferers. The doubling of research funding to the NHMRC to $614 million over the next six years will assist in critical work on asthma and on, as well—obviously—many other diseases. Work by Sydney University, under government funding of $11.5 million for a cooperative research centre through the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, will focus on asthma. This $11.5 million has been matched by the pharmaceutical industry, and the work will be led by Sydney University's Institute of Respiratory Medicine.The research teams will be focusing on asthma prevention in children. They will work on evaluating the cost effectiveness of available treatment regimes and the current barriers to the control of asthma. They also plan to undertake long-term clinical trials of existing and new drugs to analyse their relative effectiveness on different patients, and they will specifically focus on infants and children who develop asthma by testing changing exposure to allergens and diets. Other areas of research will include housing design and the prevention of occupational asthma. Further areas of research offering hope involve the identification of genes associated with asthma and work on a vaccine to prevent the development of asthma.Australia needs to focus on education, information and research because of the high incidence of asthma in this country. I am pleased that this government is actively supporting such research and education programs. It is important to realise, however, that most asthma sufferers do lead normal, active, healthy lives. Many of our leading sports men and women have asthma and, in fact, a number initiated their involvement in sport as a response to their asthma conditions. Yet it is essential that we continue to work towards reduction in its incidence and improvement in treatment to improve the quality of life of asthma sufferers. The implementation of the measures outlined above will help Australia's asthma sufferers and their families manage their condition, reduce the frequency and severity of attacks and ultimately reduce the morbidity and mortality rates associated with asthma. I commend the government for its commitment to tackling asthma and assisting sufferers of this disease.15:31:0012276Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Over three years, $9.2 million is a start for a national asthma campaign. For a number of years groups of medical and allied health professionals and groups such as the Asthma Foundation have been struggling to manage outbreaks of asthma in a constructive way. A national asthma campaign has existed for some years, and a national asthma strategy has been formulated. Now, perhaps, it will be possible to see some progress in the application of the strategy and some coordinated action throughout the country.A lot of the hard work has been done by dedicated people. Asthma, as people have mentioned, is a very debilitating disease. It is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways characterised by airways narrowing causing the distressing symptoms of shortness of breath. It is a burden to the community with a health cost of over $700 million per year. Asthma is a major cause of childhood admissions to hospital. It affects all age groups and all those who care for sufferers. Asthma impinges adversely on homes, schools, workplaces, sporting activities, leisure and travel. Thirty per cent to 40 per cent of the population may have had symptoms of asthma by the age of eight.Approximately 1,700 asthmatics are admitted to a major Tasmanian hospital in one year. These patients are a small proportion of sufferers. They are lucky enough to be treated in a hospital where they can be educated about their asthma. Nationally, over 700 people die from asthma each year. The social and economic cost to Australia is enormous. It is estimated that half of these deaths are preventable through proper management. Tasmania is acknowledged as having the highest rate of asthma in the country. Bridgewater in my electorate of Franklin is a local hot spot for asthma. It is imperative that a decent share of the $9.2 million allocated to asthma education and research be allocated to Tasmania.Research is a clear need. The best thing for asthma sufferers would be to find a cure. The next best thing would be to find a long lasting, cost-effective reliever with no side effects. There are few resources for asthma education right now. At the Royal Hobart Hospital there are three diabetic educators compared to one part-time respiratory nurse dealing with asthma. Community education is left to general practitioners, pharmacists and Asthma Tasmania, which has one part-time nurse. The state asthma organisations receive no government funding at all. One wonders whether $9.2 million is enough to fund the employment of sufficient asthma educators in hospitals as well as to stimulate a level of research that will really make a difference. One wonders how far $9.2 million over three years will go in a national awareness campaign such as for diabetes. One wonders whether there will be any left over for research and education.Asthma management varies from person to person. The triggers vary; treatments vary. At times, intensive resources are required. It is vitally important that what is done with the funds available is done well. Can we fund a national discharge protocol that will provide a link between hospitals and general practitioners? When a GP's patient is discharged from hospital, the GP should receive a letter detailing the treatment the patient received for their asthma. Can we fund an education campaign for GPs about the necessity for regularly reviewed asthma management plans? It is my understanding that a lack of asthma management plans is widespread throughout the community.Finally, I commend the government and the honourable member for Petrie for raising this issue in the House. I only hope that this is the start and that more funding is being contemplated to achieve all the goals of the national asthma strategy.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.1227710000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before calling on the honourable member for Grayndler, I wish to make a very short statement. I understand that a case concerning the National Rugby League competition is before the courts and that the case is due to proceed today. In these circumstances the Speaker has considered whether the sub judice rule should be invoked to restrict debate in the House. The Speaker has noted that the case is a civil one, that a jury is not involved and that the House is not due to make a decision on the motion. The Speaker has concluded that the debate should be allowed to proceed.15:36:0012277Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I move:That this House:(1) notes the national and international status of Rugby League;(2) applauds the actions of rugby league supporters in demonstrating their support for clubs to remain in the National Rugby League (NRL) competition;(3) notes that teams which are financially sound, have superb facilities, a support base and an outstanding junior team development structure are vital to the future survival of rugby league;(4) notes that to abandon any sense of history, spirit and community involvement will destroy Rugby League;(5) recognises that local institutions play a central role in defining a sense of community and giving our youth role models to aspire to.;(6) notes that the Super League/ARL dispute resulted in significant disillusionment from Rugby League supporters and that any forced exclusion of teams will exacerbate this;(7) declares that Rugby League's greatest shareholders are its fans; and(8) calls upon the NRL to include South Sydney in the 2000 competition.I am proud to move this motion today. Last Saturday evening, I gathered with 1,750 others at the largest function ever held at the Sydney Convention Centre—the `Save our Souths' dinner. For the majority of those present $100 was a substantial spending com mitment—certainly the most they have ever spent on an evening. But, like the 50,000 who marched from Redfern to Sydney Town Hall on 10 October, it was a gathering of true believers: people who believe that you cannot simply abandon any sense of history, spirit and community involvement in rugby league; people who understand that any organisation which ignores its past is destined to have no future; people who have lived their lives building human and social relationships that cannot be reduced to monetary value; people who recognise that local institutions play a central role in defining a sense of community—but, most importantly, people who have a right to be heard.In the great democratic institution of this parliament, it is appropriate that we debate this issue, because when sport becomes simply corporate business it alienates those on whom it relies for support. Indeed, this debate goes to the very heart of the alienation which people are feeling about our society. We are told that we are being emotional, that our human interaction, relationships and historical links do not matter. These ignorant corporate executives do not understand that sport is about loyalty. It is about passion and emotion. Local institutions such as South Sydney form the fabric which binds people together and makes a cohesive society. A society is not made up of individual pay TV subscribers.There is overwhelming public support for the people's movement, the members of which are standing together so that South Sydney can stand alone. There is overwhelming contempt for entry criteria which do not include junior development. What sort of sustainable vision is that? We have seen criteria biased against those clubs who have stayed loyal to the Australian Rugby League and have since disappeared or been forced to amalgamate. Rugby league has lost some of its parts, but it cannot survive if it loses its soul.Whilst money cannot buy respect, News Ltd and the NRL have the opportunity to earn respect by doing the right thing and listening to what the members of the public, the consumers, are saying. The product of rugby league can gain financial value if it can be demonstrated that it remains the people's game. The criterion is retrospective in the short term and does not take into account the cyclical nature of sporting competition.South Sydney is the world's most successful rugby league team, winning 20 premierships. We have produced 61 internationals and five test captains. The 1925 Rabbitohs remain the only team to go through a season unbeaten. These facts might not matter in foreign corporate boardrooms, but they matter to the kids of Alexandria Street and Eveleigh Street. They matter to the mums and dads who hold cake stalls and raffles so that their kids can buy jumpers and socks and play on the weekend.Like the working-class people who support them, South Sydney have always paid their way, unlike teams such as Melbourne and Cronulla, which would be insolvent were it not for News Ltd. People from this proud tradition know how to fight in parliament, the streets and in the court. We will fight as the representatives of those who had their hearts broken on 15 October. It is the courageous men and women who shed tears that night at South Sydney Rugby League Club who own the game, not the faceless men who have red and green blood on their hands.There are a lot of ordinary Australians who long ago tired of those who speak of rationalisation and product. They have been waiting for something to fight for. South Sydney has given them that, and George Piggins has given them that leadership.15:41:0012278Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My colleague the member for Grayndler deserves congratulations for introducing this motion today. It is my pleasure to second it. In doing so, I commend it to the House. I grew up in, live in and represent a district that has always regarded rugby league as the people's game. Our team, South Sydney, the mighty Rabbitohs, has been our people's stake in its game. It has been our property in rugby league, our code of choice.For 91 years, love of league, a passionate commitment to supporting South Sydney, has been the mainstay of our district. It has been a way of life for local people and beyond. Generation has followed generation. They have all invested enormously in our team. They have invested their time, their energy, their money, their leisure, their children's and their children's sporting opportunities. No other emotional commitment could come close to the one put into Souths by legions of supporters for almost a century. We have trained our juniors and attended countless thousands of their games. We have paid our subscriptions and followed our club. We have always paid our way. We have never had much money, that is for sure, but we have never received millions in subsidies from News Ltd to stay afloat, like some of our competitors, who have made the 14-team cut-off.Souths has been a religion with no shortage of religious zeal. The decision by the NRL to limit future competitions to 14 teams and exclude only Souths from participation in the premier competition next year amounts to the greatest tragedy that could ever befall a league. In excluding Souths, the NRL and its financier, News Ltd, are robbing the supporters of South Sydney of their property and their investment in a sporting code that is nothing short of a way of life.I am on the public record saying that this decision is all about money. It is about power. It is about greed. It is about commercial interest and business advantage. It is about more money, more power and more greed—indeed, endless greed.Complaints by News Ltd to my parliamentary leader will not change my view or silence my criticism. The NRL criterion that has been used so ruthlessly to exclude us takes no account of our club's record, which was pointed at to by my colleague the member for Grayndler. No points were given to us for having won 20 premierships—more than any other club. The next best is a mere 13. No points were given for producing 61 international players, which is more than any other club. No points were given for producing five test captains, again more than any other club. No points were given for our having always paid our way while tens of millions of dollars were showered on our competitors, some of whom owe many millions of dollars this day to the same News Ltd.The NRL criterion amounts to the greatest stacked deck of all time. No points whatsoever were given us for having the best nursery in the code as a result of the magnificent work of South Sydney Junior Rugby League. Souths have always opposed the NRL in this arbitrary decision to cut the competition to 14 teams but, having made that decision, it was incumbent on the NRL to ensure voluntary measures to achieve their objective. Of course, this was not the case. They have now acted to destroy South Sydney, a viable club determined to stand on our own feet just as we have in good times and in bad for the last 91 years. No fair person should condone commercial avarice destroying our place in the code we founded all those years ago.Should those determined to ruin Souths succeed, like many thousands of rugby league supporters I will finish my association with the code. It is not appropriate to canvass matters currently before the law courts. I do not intend to do so, but I trust that in the months ahead we see justice done and the rights of ordinary people respected. I commend the motion to the House.15:46:0012279Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—In the year before News Ltd started a policy which has almost resulted in the destruction of large segments of the code in Australia, the five top programs watched in Australia were the second State of Origin, the third State of Origin, the second rugby league test against Great Britain, the first State of Origin and the rugby league grand final—all five top programs in Australia were rugby league games. It was reported in the media this year that not one single rugby league game was in the top 30 watched programs this year. Why has that support collapsed? To answer that, you have to understand the game of rugby league.Clearly the people who were responsible for this destruction have never played rugby league or shown an interest in it and they have no love for it. They thought that this was some sort of commercial operation. They do not understand that rugby league is not about money. There are numerous players who have stayed playing for their clubs and passed up enormous amounts of money. They have stayed at home and played for their areas and towns that they have taken pride in over the years.Kerry Boustead, the greatest ever rugby league winger, resigned from the Cowboys in North Queensland before all these upheavals occurred. I rang him and said, `Kerry, you have a wife and two kids. Do you think this is a smart thing to do?' He said, `Without Arthurson and Quayle, there would have been no Cowboys. It would not exist. They knew the love that North Queensland has for rugby league and the following that the code had in North Queensland. They believed it was the right and proper thing to do to give North Queensland their place in the sun.' Just as Arthurson and Quayle decided that we had a right to our place in the sun, new people have decided that South Sydney and some of the great rugby league traditions that built the code in this nation should be removed and do not deserve and have no right to a place in the sun. That is the reason why these very clever people—who obviously spoke to people who knew nothing about the code when they took these initiatives, which have cost them hundreds of millions of dollars—do not understand.They could not understand my son, whose grandfather played for Balmain when Balmain was going down in the grand final, simply switching off the television because he could not bear to watch Balmain being hammered. When they buried the great Bob Santamaria, they said that if you thought the man was a cold intellect without passion you should have seen him watching his team on the weekend—I do not know what team he followed. We love those teams and we follow them with great enthusiasm. To take that away from the people of Australia is taking something away from the heart and soul of the nation.If you think that that is an overstatement: in my old state electorate, of a weekend two teams would travel 1,000 kilometres to play football. For many years of my life I travelled on dirt roads for 1,000 kilometres to play rugby league. We love the game. My uncle was killed playing rugby league. My other uncle spent almost all his life as one of the most active league officials in North Queens land. When people are buried in Cloncurry, they get buried with their team jersey on the coffin. My uncle was buried with a Cloncurry Tigers jersey on his coffin.When my mother died, it was the coach of the rugby league team who had the invidious task of breaking the news to me. These are things that these people do not understand about Australia and their own country. It is a very sad day for rugby league—a game which I have loved and worked hard for all of my life—to see some of the great institutions of rugby league being destroyed. The member for Kingsford-Smith was dead right when he said that we will not follow rugby league. There are hundreds of thousands of people throughout this country who have made that decision. They will not come back. The game has lost followers throughout Australia's entire length and breadth. These stupid people do not even remotely understand what makes the game tick. If they do not, they are going to lose a lot of money and there will be no-one happier than I if they do. (Time expired)15:51:0012280Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—They say that politics and sport should not mix. The textbook definition of politics is very simple: who gets what, where and how. For the people who support South Sydney—I cannot count myself as a passionate supporter of that team in particular—the motion today represents what really is at stake, which is the heart of the greatest game of all, the national game, fast becoming an international event of rugby league.As you would know, the rugby league legend started in the areas in which we are talking about today—it has working class origins. Amongst the teams they championed in the Sydney competition were the South Sydney Rabbitohs, named after those who earned a living catching rabbits to try to put a rabbit in the pot and to put some other food on the table. These were the real working class people who wanted to fight against the snobs, the toffs, who preferred to play rugby union, the so-called game of gentlemen played by barbarians—or is it around the other way? Either way, it is a dreadful irony to think that the working class elements that have backed rugby league into what it is today—this multi-squillion dollar enterprise that is run by ratings and newspaper headlines, personality, sponsorship and the concept of what is available on pay television or not—are now going to lose one of their icons.I do not like talking about class, but at the end of day the we are talking about battlers who need icons, people who need a sense of involvement and importance in getting along to their football match—unfortunately in recent years all too often watching Souths lose. But the spirit has never been lost. We have seen over the years—in recent years in particular—other tough areas, like Balmain, having to go through the indignity of a merger with another club. Balmain will become the Western Tigers next year. I hope they do very well. We are now seeing the gutting of the Rabbitohs by those who have a vested interest in turning a dollar.My father, when he was younger, played with St George in the under-19s. So I was very much a product of a rugby league household. Having moved to Brisbane some 30 years ago, I watched the Brisbane competition change, and saw the emphasis on the Sunday night football change from watching Souths play Brothers, Valleys, Redcliffe and Wynnum Manly. I cannot help but wonder when I look at this motion before us today—a very good motion the member for Grayndler has put before us—about where the code would be, for instance, if Wynnum Manly had not given Wally Lewis a jersey some years ago, where the code would be if Mal Meninga had not played the way he played for Souths at Davies Park not so many years ago, and where the code would be if the relatively fledgling Ipswich Jets had not given Allan Langer and the Walters brothers the chance, the start, that they got. These guys went on to become the heroes for so many young people in clubs all around my electorate, people who want to be the next Allan Langer or the next Kevvy Walters or whatever.It is worth noting that even the Broncos in Brisbane, a very powerful club, a fantastic football team in so many ways but so heavily motivated by the dollars, have watched crowds tuning out over recent years as average league fans are turning their back on the bucks. They are offended by so much of what is motivating those who organise rugby league these days, namely the dollars. The punters deserve far more than they are getting.The punters are copping it in the neck in the crucible of where rugby league was created. We are seeing it now being opened up in countries like Russia. That rugby league is played in Fiji, the UK and France has been long established, but that a nation like Russia is starting to develop its own rugby league teams is amazing. As the member for Grayndler, the member for Kingsford-Smith and the member for Kennedy said, all of this is built on the back of the tradition of the junior clubs involving young kids, giving them the opportunity to play for respect, for decency, for competition—nothing about dollars being the motivating source. It is a great day of shame when we see News Ltd, that powerful organisation with too many fingers in too many pies, destroying an Australian icon before our very eyes.15:56:0012281Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise to speak in support of the motion. On Saturday night, like the member for Kingsford-Smith and the member for Grayndler, I was privileged to attend a dinner, with 1,750 others, to support South Sydney rugby league football team. Another 400 people, who were less fortunate, were still on a waiting list. They would have liked to have attended the dinner but were not able to. In the audience and on stage were very many high profile supporters of the team, such as Alan Jones, Andrew Denton, Ray Martin, Mikey Robbins and Russell Crowe, amongst others. There were many football heroes at the dinner as well. But most of the guests were ordinary people, many of whom would not be used to paying $100 for a dinner, who were turning out to support their club. They were like the 50,000 people who turned out on 10 October to march in support of Souths. They came from all over the state. They were not just Souths supporters but league fans from everywhere.Five thousand people turned out to the South Sydney Leagues Club in Redfern, immediately after the announcement that Souths had been cut from the competition, to share their grief and disbelief at that announcement. The outpouring of emotion and the numbers who marched and who donated to the club's fighting fund show how important this club is to the people of south Sydney. This is a club that meets any sensible criteria for remaining in the NRL competition. It is a club with an unrivalled junior development program. This club, with 160 teams in its juniors competition, provides vital positive role models for inner city kids.It is not easy being a kid in the inner city. There is not much open space, there is high unemployment, high levels of crime and high levels of drug abuse. Souths players take their responsibility to local kids seriously. They visit schools, hospitals, boys detention centres and jails. They are positive role models, not just of the beneficial effects of physical fitness, which in itself is a valuable message, but of self-respect, teamwork, setting goals and the ability to succeed.David Leser related a story in his recent Good Weekend article about an ABC producer going to Alexandria Park recently to watch Souths train. The producer was planning a story on Julian O'Neill, but changed her mind when she saw a swarm of kids disrupting the practice to talk to their heroes and get autographs. Instead of ordering the kids off the field, the team set up a duplicate training session for their young fans. This is a club that takes its responsibilities to the community seriously.It is a club that is financially sound. It does not have a lot of money to throw around but it does not have any debt, either. It has sponsorship for the next five years. Contrast this with Melbourne Storm, which is 70 per cent News Ltd owned and has debts of $14 million and, incidentally, has no junior development program; or Cronulla, which recently needed an $8 million or $9 million injection from News Ltd. Souths is a team that pay their own way, whose shareholders are their fans. It is also a club with a history of contributing to the game.Others have spoken of the club's history, with 20 premierships—more than any other club—and more international players than any other club. They have spoken of great moments in the team's history, such as when Clive Churchill played a whole game in 1955 with a broken left wrist and when John Sattler played 70 minutes of a grand final with a broken jaw. These men and many others, too many to name today, are part of the history of our area. They are part of the glue that holds the local community together. This history is irreplaceable.People have lost their banks, some have lost their post offices, some have lost their jobs and are falling behind because they do not have skills which are considered marketable in the brave new world economy that we are being told we have to compete in. Losing their football club is the final sign to these people that they do not matter—big business can walk over communities, and will, if there is a buck in it.This is what Caroline Jones was referring to in her letter to Lachlan Murdoch published in the Herald. She wrote:It might help if I explain a few things about Australians, so you can understand why people are saying they hope you rot in hell.Strong words but, you see, you've trampled on a thing that matters to people. We can hardly find words for it but it's something to do with meaning and a sense of belonging. It's deep and it's real, something we know in our guts . . . . . . I'm sorry to go against what your father taught you, Lachlan, but there are some things here that money can't buy, though it surprises me to say it. When you do a thing that makes Australian men cry, you know you're on the wrong track.And the way I see it, what's the point of being the richest kid in the world if people like George Piggins say you're a mongrel. It's a terrible thing to be called. I hope this will make things a bit clearer for you . . . Souths did not agree to the rationalisation process. They did not agree with the arcane criteria being used to judge which teams stay in the competition—and we all know how easy it is to draw up a set of criteria which will deliver any desired outcome. (Time expired)16:01:0012282Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I congratulate the member for Grayndler for introducing this motion, the member for Kingsford-Smith who spoke so passionately about South Sydney, the member for Sydney who shares that passion and the members on our side, the member for Moreton and the member for Kennedy. It should be apparent to everybody that this issue transcends party politics. South Sydney supporters are a very special lot of people.The member for Grayndler introduced this motion. He and I would have very little in common politically but as rugby league followers we share a passion for South Sydney and the deep traditions and club spirit shared by all South Sydney supporters and players, past and present. The spirit of South Sydney is hard to describe. They are the battlers in our generation and the heroes of the next generation. As the member for Kingsford-Smith said, they have won 20 premierships. Sometimes it was a long time between drinks. It was a long time between wins for South Sydney.I commenced my high school years with the Patrician Brothers, Blacktown, as a 12-year-old in 1958. I started playing rugby league at about the same time in the Parramatta junior league for the Richmond club, at the same time playing for Patrician Brothers at Blacktown. At that time, the school at Blacktown had only been open for a couple of years. Our headmaster was Brother Benedict who had played five-eighth for South Sydney before entering the seminary. As kids, we used to travel to Blacktown by train for an hour or so on Saturday mornings to be part of a working bee to sow grass on the school ovals, knee-high in mud. At 2 o'clock, Brother Benedict would hose us down, wash the mud off us, throw us in the back of the old FJ Holden ute and head for Redfern Oval.The first time I saw Souths play was at Cumberland Oval in 1958, and I had the privilege to watch two of the all-time greats, Clive Churchill and Ian Moir. After that game, which I think Parramatta won, I was a South Sydney supporter for ever. The sight of Churchill cutting down an opponent at grass level even though he was in his twilight years—that was his last year with South Sydney—is permanently etched in my mind. For me and many of my childhood friends, the weekly two-hour train ride from Rich mond to Central and the 30-minute walk to Redfern Oval or the Sydney Cricket Ground or North Sydney Oval or maybe Belmore Oval, depending where Souths were playing, was routine. We celebrated even though Souths might have lost, but that was South Sydney. If the seconds or the thirds won and the others lost, you celebrated just as much as if the firsts got up, because of the spirit.That was an era when Souths were doing it tough and languishing behind the rich clubs—St George, Western Suburbs, Manly and others. Year after year, Souths faithful would be beaten more often than not, but we all knew that no matter what the score was Souths were great and exciting finishers. They had spirit, they had pride, they were playing for a tradition and one thing we all knew about South Sydney was they would never give in, no matter what stage the game was at. At the same time, Clem Kennedy had a nursery for juniors in the South Sydney district. The ambition of these juniors was not to wear the green and gold of Australia but to wear the green and red of South Sydney.Rugby league is now dollar driven. Super League spoilt it for rugby league followers for a long time. Now that the Rugby League says, `We don't want you,' I join with other members of this House in saying, `If Souths go, we don't want the NRL.' I commend the motion to the House.16:05:0012283Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The Hansard record would show I have made a number of speeches here about rugby league, all of them supporting the Broncos in my electorate and of which I am proud to say I am a member. But I stand here passionately supporting South's involvement in the National Rugby League and endorsing all of those comments that have been made by earlier speakers.Those involved in administering rugby league would do well to take some notice of the comments that have been made and do well to take some notice of the breadth of view that has been expressed from people from both sides of the chamber. From different geographical areas, metropolitan and provincial, from different states of Australia there is a message being given in the parlia ment today to the administrators of rugby league that they should take heed of. That message, which has been a common thread through the speeches today, is that there is a view in the community today that rugby league stands for more than just watching a spectacle as you might see a good movie show on TV. There is an emotional, historical tie that the people of Australia feel to that game and want to see retained. As much as the big dollars may seek to divert that away, they will not succeed. If they persist, then we will see a recurrence of the problem that occurred when the dispute between the ARL and the Super League occurred originally.I remember seeing the crowds in Brisbane. In those days the Brisbane Broncos could easily turn out 50,000 or 60,000 to a game. But 50,000 or 60,000 became 20,000, then it became 18,000 and then it became 15,000. We now have the spectacle where Australian rules football will have more people turning out at the Gabba than the Broncos get at ANZ Stadium. They certainly have more paying customers at the Australian rules football than they have at the rugby league in a number of matches. That is the people, the spectators, the public voting with their feet and with their wallets.What is being told to those administrators today by the parliament is that we share that view and we share those concerns. We want to see that history and heritage that is so much a part of rugby league maintained. Souths epitomise that. The fighting spirit of Souths on the field throughout the decades has been replicated in the campaign that they have waged to stay in the competition. They should be allowed to stay in the competition. This is not a matter for a few shareholders and a couple of large multinational companies to determine. The people and the sporting public have a right to have their voices heard. It is being voiced in parliament today and the administrators should take note.10000Bevis, Arch, MPMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member for Brisbane will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.Grievance Debate12284Question proposed:That grievances be noted.1228416:09:0012284Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I rise on a particularly important point of government policy today—that is, the government's approach to coalescence in the aged care sector. I would like to read for the benefit of members in the chamber today some of the quotes which have come from the Productivity Commission inquiry into the government's coalescence initiative. The Productivity Commission's report says on page 81:The Commission does not support the current coalescence proposal. It sees this as being deficient in several important respects.On page 82 of the Productivity Commission report, it says the government's policy of coalescence `would lead to inappropriate and inequitable outcomes'. On page 84, the Productivity Commission says:A deficiency in the current coalescence proposal is that the national subsidy rates which would emerge are not linked transparently to the cost of providing a benchmark standard of care. In effect the quality of care could become a residual balancing item. . . The report requested by this government into aged care coalescence—that is, the idea of having one national rate of subsidy for nursing homes and high care beds in aged care hostels—has been reported on in those terms by the Productivity Commission. It is a very unambiguous, very straightforward and very clear response from the Productivity Commission.It should be pointed out that this is a body which has not in the past been noted for its great consideration for the plight of people who are disadvantaged. Yet here it is, in black and white, an unambiguous statement from this mostly economic body that the impact of the government's suggested coalescence policy would be absolutely disastrous and that the impact would `lead to inappropriate and inequitable outcomes'. I would have thought it was very clear and very simple—even for the present Minister for Aged Care. It is very straightforward and very easy to understand.I have spoken to several of the aged care providers in my constituency in relation to this issue. Their response to the government's coalescence proposal is similarly straightforward, easy to understand and unambiguous. I have received a letter from the West Gippsland Healthcare Group, dated 15 November, which states:The impact of this proposed change will significantly reduce funding to high care (nursing homes) and low care (hostels).Further on they go into a quantitative analysis of exactly what this proposal would mean for their particular institutions. In their letter they say that the impact for West Gippsland Healthcare Group would be reduced revenue for the Cooinda Lodge nursing home of around $141,000 per annum and reduced revenue for Andrews House, which is a hostel in Trafalgar, of around $3,000 per annum. Obviously that is for the high care beds in that aged care hostel facility.They go on to do a more substantial analysis of exactly what those simple figures mean to ordinary people—to the families who put their loved ones into those facilities. They work out that the Cooinda Lodge reductions would equate to a loss of around 9,598 hours of care and in Andrews House a loss of about 224 hours of care. The summation at the end of their letter, quoting the Productivity Commission, is that the `current coalescence proposal should not proceed'. This is very clear from the West Gippsland Healthcare Group, an august group that are professionally administered by their very hard-working staff.In my constituency, Baptist Community Care, which runs the St Hilary's Community Nursing Home in Morwell, states in its letter to me dated 5 November on the same matter:If coalescence continues, this facility stands to lose $68,021. This does not take into account the CPI dollars that would also be lost.Baptist Community Care enjoys high repute across all of Victoria. It notes in the letter that it has eight facilities in Victoria which all receive funding for high care. If coalescence continues, Baptist Community Care stands to lose around $520,000 in funding for all of these facilities. Anyone with any commonsense can see that it is completely unfair when this organisation is attempting to achieve best practice in aged care and is focusing, as are many other aged care organisations, on achieving accreditation in its facilities.Baptist Community Care also point out that they plan on investing around $66 million to upgrade four major facilities. Here is an organisation, a not-for-profit organisation, which is attempting to do the right thing by its residents and by the families who are taking the step of putting their loved ones into the facilities and investing in them to make them as safe and as comfortable as they can possibly be. They state unambiguously that coalescence would be an absolute disaster for their facilities.Yallambee, in my home town of Traralgon, are another august organisation, a very soundly managed organisation, which enjoys widespread community support. They state unambiguously in their letter to me what the impact will be:The effect on "Yallambee" services will be an income reduction of almost $100,000. The added reduction due to the inadequate indexation formula currently in use results in a further reduction in income of at least another $20,000 making the total loss of revenue around $120,000 per annum. Alternative calculations show an upper range of almost $200,000 for "Yallambee" services.That is $200,000 being lost to that organisation. They go on to state in their letter:At "Yallambee" a reduction of real income of this magnitude will certainly mean a substantial reduction in professional nursing staff by replacement at a significantly lower professional knowledge and skill to the detriment of resident nursing care.They pose the question, which the minister would do well to listen to and heed:Would anyone want to see someone close to them receiving less than the optimum care and comfort in their last years?I think that the question that they pose is particularly poignant and particularly appropriate for the minister to consider.Last but not least is the plight of the Neerim District Soldiers Memorial Hospital. The gutsy people of Neerim district have striven hard for many years to maintain this important facility, one of the few remaining bush nursing hospitals and aged care facilities left in Victoria. They state in their letter to me of 29 October:We have been concerned about the effect that this—that is coalescence—will have on the financial viability of the Neerim District Nursing Home ever since, and have raised our concerns before through several channels.Obviously, they have not been listened to. They state in their letter:We now seek your support to have this ridiculous policy abolished.And if there was any doubt at all about what their thoughts are in relation to this, they state in their letter:. . . if the policy of coalescence continues, within four or five years the Federal funding available to our organisation will have dropped by some $96,000 per year.They state in bold, in italics and underlined:This drop in funding could not be absorbed and would result in the closure of this facility.So, whilst this government like to talk the talk about what they do for rural Australia, the result for the good people of Neerim district is that they will close the only bush nursing hospital and aged care facility in that entire district. The result for those people, who have proved enormously resilient for the last five or six years in coming up with innovative fundraising and excellent ways of maintaining that important community facility, is to pull the rug out from underneath them and penalise them for all that guts and hard work which they have shown by introducing this ridiculous, stupid, outdated policy of coalescence, which will mean that the nursing home component of the Neerim District Soldiers Memorial Hospital will have to close. That organisation deserves to be recognised for the hard work which the community has done in rallying behind it and keeping it. The government, instead of pulling the rug from under them, should be supporting them. This government should get behind the Neerim district instead of punishing it. (Time expired)1228616:19:0012286Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—This Tuesday morning in the Parramatta Town Hall, it will be a very great honour for me to welcome the Senior Australian of the Year, Slim Dusty, who will be the guest of honour at an occasion honouring 20 of Parramatta's outstanding seniors. This is part of the government's initiative in relation to the International Year of Older Persons, and I want to congratulate the Minister for Aged Care, who has been doing such an excellent job of highlighting the contribution which the elders of our Australian tribe are making in communities around this country.I have previously mentioned in the House the contributions of three heroines of Parramatta: Betty Schofield, the former matron of Parramatta Hospital; Ensign Esselina van Leusden, who is a permanent fixture on several of the train stations on which I campaign in my electorate, collecting for the Salvation Army—she is a much loved and revered figure, particularly around Toongabbie, Wentworthville and Pendle Hill; and, finally, Betty Holland, who is the President of the Wentworthville Pensioners Association. They are three among the 20 who will be honoured on Tuesday morning, but I want to briefly touch on the contribution of the other 17.Jack Argent—`Colonel Jack' as he is widely known—is the number one pass holder at Parramatta Leagues Club. The reason for that is that he built the club. In fact, he mortgaged his own home to finance the construction of the club in 1947. He is still the patron of the rugby league Referees Association of New South Wales. He is the President of the Carlingford sub-branch of the Parramatta RSL. His illustrious career involved running in the 440 metres at Wembley Stadium. He played first grade cricket for Cumberland Cricket Club. He was the manager of the rugby league Kangaroo tours between 1959 and 1966. Jack was a candidate for the UAP. He is an unstoppable Parramatta identity, who continues to be a seasoning around the place, bringing a sense of history. He is a bloke who constantly gave more than was expected of him to our community.Sister Constance Bacha has been one of the leading teaching sisters of Our Lady of Lebanon College in Harris Park for 24 years, since her arrival from Lebanon. She, likewise, is a fragrant personality who uplifts everything she touches, and she is much loved by the staff and particularly by a generation of students at Our Lady of Lebanon.Elizabeth Boesel is one of those slightly obsessive volunteers whom each of us has in our electorate who just grabs hold of a particular cause and lives and breathes that cause. Everyone who knows Elizabeth Boesel would think of the Galaringi Botanic Reserve in Carlingford. Elizabeth has dedicated her retirement to enhancing that environment for the local residents to have a place of recreation. I want to congratulate her for that contribution.Joyce Burton is 70 years old but spends four or five days a week as a volunteer with Telopea Neighbour Aid. She also runs what is called the Daisy Club for a group of isolated Dundas residents, providing weekly events and monthly bus trips all over New South Wales. She is doing tremendous work there. It is a great thing to give four or five days a week helping others as a volunteer.Margaret Dunn was the founder of the Macquarie branch of the National Seniors Association. When she began it in 1995 it was just a humble collection of friends. It now contains over 2,100 members. Margaret is a great advocate of the Paralympics and has sold several hundred tickets already to neighbours and friends and anyone who happens to cross her path. I note that the Minister for Sport and Tourism is at the table. She will be pleased to know that there are these great advocates of our Paralympic athletes spread throughout the community. She is also an active member of the Save the Children Fund and the St Andrews Singers, who go around nursing homes in my electorate providing some encouragement to and fellowship for those residents.Alan Grey works 35 hours a week at the Parramatta Missions Kitchen, which provides 40,000 meals a year to the homeless. He will be working, for example, providing a meal for 500 people on Christmas Day, as he has done for the last 3½ years, at the Leigh Memorial Church. He works at that kitchen six days a week, and what a great example he has set.I have previously mentioned in the House the contribution of Betty Holland. Her husband Ted will also be honoured on Tuesday night. He has been the Treasurer of the Wentworthville Pensioners Association for the last 11 years. Ted is not in great health at the moment, but he is a great bloke. Anyone who has lived with Betty for the 50-odd years they have been married probably deserves a medal, but she is likewise a great person. Both of them have spent their retirement blessing the lives of others.Norm Hossack is a bloke whom I first met campaigning at the Ermington shopping centre where I run a street stall about once every six weeks or so. I found him in the St Vincent de Paul op shop, and he gave me the rounds of the kitchen and raised a lot of local community issues with me. So it should not have surprised me when I later arranged a meeting with the George Kendall River Park Committee—the George Kendall reserve is a big parkland area which is underutilised, undercapitalised and underfunded in my electorate on the Parramatta River—to find that Norm was the chairman of that committee, and he has subsequently lobbied fairly intensely and effectively for that cause. He is again another person whom you find is amongst the relatively small number of people who constantly put up their hands to get the job done.Gwen Klyen has spent the last 15 years of her life working as a volunteer for the Smith Family Parramatta. The rest of the team there tell me that her assistance in filling gaps, running errands and doing clerical work is like a breath of fresh air. They simply could not deliver the services they do without volunteers like Gwen.Rita Mitchell was the lady mayoress of Ryde City Council, but she has spent much of her life as a volunteer helping others. She is quite deeply involved in the Henley bowling club, she is an office worker at the Anglican Church in Gladesville and she is the area commandant of St Johns Ambulance—all of that while she is 90 years old. She is the sort of Australian whom the minister, the government and the opposition want to see honoured in this International Year of Older Persons.Violet Nutt is another person with a multiplicity of volunteering commitments. She has been a member of the North Rocks Soccer Club for 22 years. You will find her at registration days, committee meetings, gala days, grading days, training nights and canteen duty. She is also a member of the 527 and 355 parks management committees. She is an active participant in the Orange Blossom Festival and she is a volunteer drug councillor with Wesley Mission.Neville Rigg is another volunteer at the Parramatta Mission Kitchen, which is reaching out to the homeless and to those who do fall between the cracks. He is doing a great job. For the last seven years he has been working as a volunteer there three days a week. In spite of some considerable challenges in his own personal circumstances, Neville is still focused on helping others.I have mentioned Betty Schofield previously in the House, and Hansard records her contribution as a former matron of Parramatta Hospital and much, much more.Trevor Simpson has spent the last 44 years as an outstanding identity of the Wentworthville community, including being one of the instigators behind the construction of the original Wentworthville community hospital. For the last 33 years he has taught Ju Jitsu to local young people. He has been president of the Ju Jitsu committee of the Wentworthville Leagues Club for the last 17 years. He has been on the Ringrose Park Trust Committee for the last 18 years. He does weekly canteen duty for the Wentworthville Junior Football Club and assists with the reading program at the Wentworthville Public School.Dave Shakespeare has spent 40 years as a teacher and principal of Parramatta High School. He came down to Canberra as the individual representative of the community of Parramatta as a consequence of his outstanding contribution.I was with Wendy Tunks just last week at the Toongabbie Third Settlement Festival's annual gala night. She had just come out of hospital. She was still suffering the after-effects of pneumonia, I think, but she was there selling tickets for the hot dogs. She raises $6,000 a year to support drug education in local schools, and she was also responsible for raising in excess of $10,000 to get the community bus for the Wentworthville Area Command.Joan Wood is a longstanding volunteer, dedicating 27 years of service at the New Children's Hospital at Westmead and she does a lot of their volunteer library administration.Finally, the CWA Toongabbie is the one organisation being honoured for its contribution. I salute all of them.1228816:29:0012288Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Today I grieve for the private lives of those who have been, or will perhaps some time in the future be, victims of some of the more sensational and ethically dubious elements of the Australian media. The media are to a certain extent our eyes and ears to the world. The fact that they are housed in this very building, along with the parliament and government, indicates the importance of their role in our democratic society. On the whole, the relationship parliamentarians share with the press gallery is a positive and mutually beneficial one. It is a relationship that is designed to inform the Australian public. Yet at the same time this relationship is a precarious one, as the interests of government, the media and opposition are often divergent. In spite of this, there are certain standards of propriety identified in the journalists' code of conduct which are hopefully protections for dealing with parliamentarians, as with the public. I admit that I have been drawn to making these comments today as a result of a series of events affecting my private life and a difficult Family Court dispute, a situation I suggest known to hundreds of thousands of Australians. I would like to stress that there is cause to raise this case as a cautionary tale that may serve as a warning to policy makers and the public alike.In particular, there are two facets in the practice of some media reportage of the private lives of public figures that I would like to draw to the attention of this House. It is not unheard of for a public figure such as a politician to be plunged into the media spotlight in less than ideal circumstances. Of course, there are valid reasons for subjecting someone's character to public scrutiny if it is believed that it may impact on his or her ability to carry out their job. But surely the scrutiny must be backed by substantiated evidence and a demonstrable public interest. American presidential candidate Bill Bradley recently stated:The public has a right to know if I'm a crook. But that's where it should stop. Unless the media has substantiated evidence of flaws in my character that may negatively impact on my ability to fulfil my duties as a politician then they should butt out.Senator Bradley was emphasising that parliamentarians are people too. Just like other members of the public, they have some right to privacy. A line must be drawn that will quarantine the media from reporting on the private lives of the public, including public figures, and this line should be honoured.This brings me to my second point, and that is to emphasise the distinction between on the one hand the insidious practice of `never letting the facts get in the way of a good story' and on the other hand reporting thoroughly researched issues of public interest. There is a widespread public sentiment that underlines why there are such high ratings for, and why we find so funny, programs such as Frontline. Unfortunately, the attraction of sensationalised stories seems in a few cases to override the obligations of the media to the public in reporting of the facts. Worse still, a few in the electronic media hype unproven stories or events with an image or a comment, as was the case in my recently widely publicised run-in with the Seven Network. For some people, this seems to be accepted practice.In my case, the journalist concerned latched onto and reported the existence of an interim order that had been taken out against me only after there had been consent orders which I had applied for in the Family Court. For the record, the term `interim' means that the information supplied by the complainant is yet to be disputed or rebutted by the person mentioned in that order—that person being me. Incredibly, these facts were completely ignored by the journalist and the story went to air on national television, even though it was based on information based on those unsubstantiated orders. For the record, I would like to stress that the interim order was later struck out by a magistrate. The channel was informed of all the facts before both broadcasts. On the second occasion they even dropped the earlier qualifications.Needless to say, this journalist's actions have had the most profound effect on the lives of my family and me, and particularly on my children, in the middle of this difficult Family Court problem. Never have I understood so well Arthur Miller's famous play The Crucible, which portrays the Salem witch trials—trial by allegation. I know and understand so well the ugliness of being accused of being guilty without trial. It is well known in this House that I sued the Seven Network and the individual responsible for this story and I won. Network 7 have apologised unconditionally in open court and have been ordered to pay very large legal costs.At present there is too little to stop this sort of damage from being inflicted on anyone. If it can happen to me, a resourceful parliamentarian, it can happen to anyone. Indeed, in most cases it would be much harder for ordinary members of the public to fight an injustice of this magnitude. On the other hand, other elements of the media, such as a number of recent programs on A Current Affair, have highlighted the exponential granting of interim orders. A Current Affair argues that easily granted interim orders are used by some people as a form of harassment.We rely on the media to report in good faith and to convey as accurate a picture as possible of current affairs. Most do a good job. We, as individuals paid from the public purse, must be accountable. But the use of private problems of public figures for salacious purposes harms public debate. If Mr Stokes, Mr Murdoch and Mr Packer wonder where the bipartisan support for privacy legislation in this House comes from, they need look no further than events like this case, where hundreds, if not thousands, of people are aware of the outcome, and indeed the injustice perpetrated by the Seven Network.This was not an easy matter to try and address in a dispassionate manner. Obviously I may be subject to further attacks from the journalist concerned because I took the difficult decision to take on him and his powerful network in court. My colleagues, my constituents and my family know that I will never resile from putting the public good. Yes, this matter does affect me. In my view, though, it had to be said. The public policy issues remain. The apology and these remarks close this chapter as far as I am concerned.1228916:36:0012289Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Last Thursday I had the opportunity to help launch the project Kids and Domestic Violence, the aim of which is to improve community and professional awareness of how to repair the damage done to children by domestic violence. This project is being funded under the auspices of Partnerships Against Domestic Violence, which has been coordinated by Senator Jocelyn Newman in her capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. I was very fortunate to represent the minister at the Convention Centre in Brisbane at that particular launch. I must commend the Queensland government on the funding that we provided to them in launching these very good manuals on domestic violence.At that particular conference there were a number of organisations represented, including the Rural and Remote Domestic Violence Initiative, the Council of Children, Young Working Women's Project, Indigenous Family Relationships pilot project, Relationship Support Services for Men, and Domestic Violence and Pregnancy. There were a number of Torres Strait Islander domestic violence community education groups, as well as a number from Cape York, and many representatives from all over Australia. Some 200 people were at the conference and it was great to see many of these issues being addressed, particularly in relation to young people, men's programs and indigenous communities.Domestic violence is a crime that does horrific emotional and psychological damage to victims, and it is deeply tragic that the effects can be passed on to the next generation. As such, it is critically important that greater effort be given to preventing domestic violence. There is a growing body of evidence of the harm to children who witness domestic violence. Some of these symptoms are fear, isolation, self-blame and anxiety. Children may respond by withdrawing, exhibiting behavioural problems, developing physical and mental illnesses and having great difficulty in resolving conflict and forming healthy, stable relationships.Women's Safety Australia found that 46 per cent of women who had experienced violence by a previous partner and 38 per cent of women experiencing violence by a current partner said that they had children who witnessed the violence. Studies in Australia and the USA indicate that this is likely to be an underestimate and that children are often far more aware of violence in their home than parents realise. In my own electorate of Petrie some 500 cases of domestic violence are reported every year. At the conference I heard the minister, Anna Bligh, report some 12,000 cases in Queensland alone. It does not take much to realise that some 30,000 children in Queensland each year experience domestic violence. The cornerstone of the government's commitment to preventing domestic violence is a $50 million contribution to establishing the Partnerships Against Domestic Violence project. Senator Newman's office recently announced details of initiatives to be undertaken, with an additional $25 million committed by the Commonwealth to the partnerships program in the 1999-2000 budget. One of the key priority areas is children at risk, and the partnerships program is planning a major national forum on children in April next year. This will help focus on what has been learned thus far and what the next steps should be in carrying forward the work for children at risk. The seminars of Partnerships Against Domestic Violence highlight the effort that the government is making in seeking to combat this evil. The strong leadership taken by the Commonwealth government is reflected in the fostering of a broad alliance of partnerships throughout the community. This includes across all levels of government, with business, non-government organisations, community groups, individuals, families, churches and welfare groups also involved. The fruit of these collaborative efforts is reflected in seminars like the Kids and Domestic Violence project in Queensland. This project exemplifies what the partnerships program is all about. It is an innovative approach to developing better and earlier intervention and prevention. The project took a national focus and has a national application. The outcome of this project will address a major gap in our current knowledge on what is effective practice when dealing with children affected by domestic violence. The exciting thing is that the resources from the Kids and Domestic Violence project could potentially influence the development of new approaches across the country. I am very pleased to see that Queensland is leading the way in this particular area. The initiative of the government is to be commended. With hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year dealing with the effects of domestic violence, it is timely that the goals of early intervention and prevention have received the attention they deserve. I wish to give particular credit to Senator Newman for her enthusiasm and commitment to the partnerships program. Indigenous participants are also very important. Recently, Senator Herron conducted a roundtable on indigenous family violence, which was held in Brisbane in July this year. The conference looked at many ways of addressing this extremely serious issue and how it could be addressed more effectively. The effects on children of the levels of family violence in indigenous communities were high on their list of concerns. There needs to be assistance with the strengthening of community efforts to address family violence. Senator Newman has also announced a community grants program as a way of assisting communities which are searching for or finding effective ways of tackling family violence, including the damage done to children.Work with perpetrators will build on the outcomes of the national forum on perpetrators, convened earlier this year by the Commonwealth minister for justice, Senator Vanstone. The Commonwealth is looking at ways to assist the service provision role of the states and territories through funding initiatives in areas such as standards and evaluation. Work in these four areas will continue the close collaborative work between the Commonwealth and the states and territories that has characterised the partnerships program to date. This will include bringing together working groups of relevant state and territory officials and stakeholders from the community to develop and implement new initiatives. The minister has also invited states and territories to nominate relevant experts for a working group on perpetrators, and this group will be requesting experts from state and territory governments and communities to form working groups around other key areas of new work. The particular events of last week, at which I had the pleasure of representing the minister, increase this awareness, particularly for front-line workers but also for policy makers and planners. A number of innovative partnership projects are being implemented at the moment at the national, state, territory and Commonwealth levels. Showcasing recognises the need to promote a much broader understanding of key issues and new information in the domestic violence field for everyone concerned with responding to those affected by domestic violence. These collaborative efforts are very good. One of the most important things that this workshop highlighted was the need to work with small groups of children, particularly to define violence and the responsibility for violence, to express feelings, including anger, to improve communication and other skills, to increase self-awareness, to develop safety plans and a social support network, to learn and to have a positive experience. It is particularly important that these particular group activities are focused on in the workshops and in the standards and manuals developed.When dealing with children, it is important to work on a particular theme. Worksheets, drawing, craft, cooking, sharing stories, physical activities, role-play, relaxation and informal social time, review and closure were very important. Children are unable to speak about these experiences, and they are unable to speak about power and control in relationships or to learn conflict resolution strategies, so it was important that they address them through drawings—and that was a particularly useful part of this program.It is important that we do look further, and there is so much work yet to be done in this particular area. I know that this government has always had a strong commitment to working with children and providing a much stronger future for the next generation, and nowhere is this more important than in helping innocent children who have suffered such enormous damage to overcome the trials associated with domestic violence. It is important that they get a chance to have a balanced and fulfilling life.While it is naive to assume that, just because of this initiative, domestic violence will suddenly disappear, I am sure that this project will reduce the incidence of domestic violence as strategies for early intervention and prevention are developed. The Partnerships Against Domestic Violence program will mean that we can look forward to the new century with hope. (Time expired)1229116:46:0012291Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—In this grievance debate today, I wish to speak about two issues which are dear to my heart: the Australian Broadcasting Corporation—the ABC—and diesel fuel. In relation to the ABC I wish to express my grave concerns about recent events in the Australian media—in particular the revelations before the Australian Broadcasting Authority inquiry into cash for comments and the appointment of a new managing director at the ABC.As I mentioned in the House on 9 August, I am a supporter of the ABC. Its role and culture are vital. Its services in news and current affairs, drama, documentary, comedy, information, entertainment, children's programming, music and orchestral performance are of a high quality. Under the Howard government there has been a determined effort to marginalise the ABC through funding constraints and through the government's action in making the ABC sell up property to fund conversion to digital broadcasting rather than use the money to retire debt and make more programs.If there is any incident in recent months which has demonstrated the continuing need for a non-commercial ABC, it is the cash for comments inquiry currently being conducted by the ABA. The ABC's Media Watch program exposed the details of a contract between the Australian Bankers Association and interests associated with 2UE announcer John Laws, and it can now be seen that there has been no effective regulation of the commercial broadcast industry under the ABA. Media Watch demonstrated yet again the need for an independent ABC, uninfluenced by vested interests. What did the ABA ever do within its existing powers to bring 2UE to account—particularly after Media Watch first raised the cash for comments issue in 1994? Without this independent ABC program, the potential for corruption of standards and breaches of so-called codes of conduct by the broadcasters would not have been confronted.Now I have noticed, as I am sure all honourable members have, the ABC board's appointment of Mr Jonathan Shier as the next Managing Director of the ABC. Mr Shier has an impressive record as a commercial free-to-air and pay television broadcast manager and senior executive in Europe and the United Kingdom. In the news conference held at the time of his appointment, he encouragingly reaffirmed the view that the ABC should not run advertising on its radio and television networks. But what alarmed me was his apparent acceptance of the notion that the ABC board might want to look at running advertisements on ABC online Internet services. We have already had one board member, Michael Kroger, suggest that the ABC should sell up to half of its Internet services, valued at $500 million. Fortunately, the current board has rejected this idea.I want to put on record my opposition to the ABC selling advertising on its Internet services. I do not care what the ABC does or what any other so-called public broadcaster elsewhere may or may not do. The moment the ABC is forced to seek commercial revenues to sustain its services, the very nature and focus of the ABC will change. The consequences of an ABC in active pursuit of advertising dollars are clear. Instead of applying its independence through its news, current affairs and other programming to bring us innovative, quality work, the ABC will change to making programs to enhance revenues. It will be placed in competition for commercial revenues from other online services.I am asking the Howard government, and particularly the minister for communications, whether this issue can be put to rest immediately or whether those of us who support a non-commercial ABC have to take up the cudgels in defence. The ABC is about to embark on triennial funding negotiations with the federal government. Its future in the digital era is by no means secure. It is waiting to see government decisions on multichannelling of its television services to enhance regional services. It is waiting to see if the government will advance the necessary funding to enable this enhancement. The ABC is waiting to see if it will be able to enhance services through datacasting—text, audio and vision—which will build on the ABC's established strengths. The ABC is always waiting, it seems to me.This government has demonstrated its malevolence towards this great national institution; it prefers to suck up to the media barons—Kerry and James Packer in particular. The government must guarantee the ABC's future into the digital era and fund it adequately to help it meet its plans for enhanced services.It is time the government got the funding hooks out of the ABC. If the new managing director pursues commercial revenues as an alternative to government funding, it will be a clear signal to me and to other observers that the government expects and wants this direction for the national broadcaster. I call on the government, particularly as the current ABC expressly prohibits advertising on ABC radio and television, to declare that it does not want advertising on ABC online services. A failure to do so will only signal the government's agenda to commercialise, and therefore destroy, public broadcasting in Australia.I turn now to diesel fuel. There is a growing tendency in this term of government to not respond to parliamentary representations and hence the will of the public interest. In particular, I refer to my question on notice No. 913—which appeared in this House's Notice Paper on 20 September 1999—which was on an issue of critical importance to my constituency: diesel fuel and its associated environmental and health risks. This question was put to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the honourable John Anderson.The decision of the federal government—and of the Australian Democrats—to reduce the excise on diesel fuel has ignored a mass of evidence that demonstrates diesel emissions are exposing the Australian population to serious environmental and health risks. This evidence is chiefly found in three authoritative documents: (1) the World Health Organisation Environmental Health Criteria series; (2) the Scientific Review Panel of California Air Resources Board; and, most importantly, (3) the European Charter on Transport, Environment and Health of the European Ministers of Environment and Health.A response from the minister was received at the Table Office on 10 November 1999—some six weeks after the question was tabled. To me, the response says, `I'm not prepared to authorise the time and resources required to prepare responses to this question.' It took the minister six weeks to say that he was not prepared to authorise the time and resources to prepare a response to one question. In doing so, the minister has wasted my constituent's time, he has wasted my time and he is wasting the time of this House. In the minister's written response we see his laconic contempt for this issue and the parliamentary process. It does not take six weeks to reach such a conclusion. This response lacks intellectual content. It is a flight of fancy. He could have formed this opinion within a mere moment. No, he chose to wait and delay the issue and then publicly admit that he is not prepared to respond to the question at all.Like every member of this House, I represent my constituents. In every electorate there is a unique cross-section of people from all walks of life. In the electorate of Lowe, we are blessed to have a number of meritorious persons who demonstrate particular aptitude and knowledge in the topic of diesel fuel environmental impacts. In this instance, my constituency comprises persons with a particular interest in this field. Hence my question reflects a higher knowledge on the issues surrounding diesel fuel. The minister's refusal to respond sends an arrogant message of lack of interest to me and hence to the constituents. Further, it is a serious breach of the honour system we rely upon for the good working of representative democracy.This is parliament; it is not a cafe chat. Standing order 144 places responsibilities on all members to ask meaningful and relevant questions. Once those questions are properly put, there is an expectation that all reasonable attempts will be made to respond to those questions. Standing order 150 requires every member of this House to respond within 60 days. To simply refuse to respond to a question on notice, properly put, is highly capricious at its worst, especially on an issue as critical as environmental harm and health effects.The minister refers to two other documents in his response: (1) `Measures for a Better Environment' of 28 May 1999 and (2) the minister's second reading speech for the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999. I have read these documents. They take the reader nowhere in addressing the question put to him. So here we have a response from the minister—the Deputy Prime Minister—that, first, refuses to respond at all and, second, cites irrelevant material.We are all under pressure in this House. The minister, by virtue of his high office, receives additional staff and resources in order to perform his tasks as a minister. There can be no function more immediate to the role of a minister than his performance in this House, including the prompt and efficient answering of questions on notice. Where is there a more relevant and proper mechanism for the presentation of questions to a minister than through the official channels of questions on notice through this House? If there is one channel through which a minister should answer questions, then surely it is in this chamber. Not so, it seems. The minister is above parliamentary process. He considers the parliamentary process to be too great a strain on his resources, and chooses not to respond to his parliamentary tasks in this House.I promise that this matter will not stop here. What the minister fails to appreciate is that refusal to answer carries with it its own consequences. His response is a matter of public record. He is not writing me a `dear John' letter. I have supplied his response to leading academics and the media. The world at large can see his response and form their own opinion. Let this be a warning to the minister—who, I add, is Deputy Prime Minister—that responsible government means just that: responding to proper representations from the constituency. This means giving all a fair go and responding to the best of his ability on every representation properly put before this House.1229416:56:0012294Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Today I rise to speak on two matters that concern constituents in my electorate of Gilmore, which includes the New South Wales South Coast, Kiama and the Southern Highlands. The first is illegal immigrants and the second is the National Cadet Scheme.Many people have expressed concern to me about the growing number of boat people arriving in Australia. Of course, the size of Australia and its sparse coastal population, except on the eastern side, make it easy to get in and difficult to detect new arrivals. Having said that, it is not meant as an excuse, as I totally agree that something needs to be done. However, the issue is not easily addressed, given our nation's commitment to a fair go for all. As Australians we fight hard to uphold the right of appeal in all administrative and legal processes. How then do we deny those rights to some people? How do we close that door without breaking with the spirit of this country?It is not simply a case of `turn them around and send them back', as many in the community are urging. Under the 1951 Geneva convention and the 1967 protocol, Australia has obligations to assess any claim for protection that may be made by an illegal immigrant. In my opinion, there is a correct way to come to Australia, and the processes are in place to determine those people most in need of refuge. Yet we must have that ability to hold back the people who want to queue jump regardless of others' needs. Remember: someone is getting very wealthy through trading in human lives and hopes. Someone is making a lot of money out of people's grief, and that to me is barbaric and needs to be dealt the severest of penalties. As a government we are working with overseas agencies to catch these traders in human flesh and to charge them with these serious crimes against humanity.Illegal immigrants are simply pushing in—queue jumping ahead of people whom we have determined are in far greater need. This simply is not fair. In my opinion, they should be sent to the back of the line. Therefore, because of this surge, I am asking everyone to watch our coastline, to recruit more volunteer coast watchers and to be more alert to suspicious circumstances. We need every available pair of eyes watching for signs of movement or habitation that seems incongruous. It is the obligation of all Australians to assist with the search for illegal immigrants. No government can do it all. The coastline and the country inside its boundaries are too big and too sparsely populated for any government to see everything.It has not been our way to have authorities set up surveillance systems to watch Australians in their daily lives. Similarly, I do not want to take away the heritage of our volunteer agencies. They have provided a magnificent coastal patrol service to the more populated areas. Yet just look at how close a recent boatload of illegal immigrants got to the beaches in my electorate. That boat had been tracked for several weeks, and the Australian Federal Police on the Colin Woods boat were used to challenge the ship and turn it away from our shores. If they had ignored that challenge and run aground on one of our beaches, I am not sure that too many people would have noticed. So I am asking for people to rally in a sense of community spirit to give public support to keeping illegal immigrants out of our country so that those deemed most needy can come to our safe havens. I am also asking people in my electorate of Gilmore to suggest solutions, as many heads are better than one. Today in my office there will be a survey to see what people actually think and to enable them to give their opinions.I believe that the Australian people realise that the government cannot do this on its own. Australia works closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to admit 12,000 of the neediest refugees a year—more per capita than any other developed country in the world. Why should these others, who could afford to pay more money to the flesh dealers than a plane ticket would cost, be allowed to push in? Every onshore queue jumper takes away one of the places available for a UNHCR-assessed refugee languishing in refugee camps offshore. I implore everyone on the coast, especially in the electorate of Gilmore, to be on the lookout. Do not allow our country to be entered by people who provide no skills or resources to our nation when we have many others waiting their turn to become Australian citizens.I now turn to my second topic—cadets and a national cadet program. I recently went to Perth to attend a conference looking at the Western Australian cadet program and how it might be translated into a national cadet program. At that conference, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp, announced funding to set up a group to establish the kind of framework such a program would need and to run some pilot schemes. This program has been something that I have been waiting to see for many years. Therefore, in my role as chair of the Coalition Defence and Veterans' Affairs Committee, I was involved over the last few months in obtaining cabinet's backing for this program. I am interested in running one of those pilot schemes in Gilmore.To this end, I ran the first of several forums in my electorate to test local reaction to the scheme. This forum coincided with a visit to the area by Senator Eric Abetz who, in his role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, has responsibility for cadets. Coordinators of existing military cadet units, teachers, parents, young people and youth workers attended the forum. All were supportive of a national cadet program.One of the strengths of the cadet program is its great flexibility. It can be run in school hours or out of school hours, on school grounds or off them. It can be attached to any other organisation and it is designed to run in conjunction with the cadet units already in existence. The point of the program is to provide choice. Some young people may want to join something exciting, fun and organised but are not interested in things of a military nature. However, they could be interested in joining bushranger cadets run by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Land and Water Conservation or emergency services cadets run by the Rural Fire Service, SES, and the Volunteer Rescue Association.With the flexibility we would build into the eventual program, it should be entirely possible to offer the cadet program as one of the choices under the mutual obligation system. To explain, when young people request financial assistance from Centrelink, they can no longer expect to receive the money and do absolutely nothing. Currently, they must study, be in training, work for a community based organisation or actively seek work. In the future, they could also be offered a certain number of hours per week in a cadet unit of their choice. Whilst schools are the obvious place to start for recruitment, there is nothing to prevent school-age people who are not attending school for whatever reasons from also joining cadets.A national cadet program would offer discipline, nationally accredited and portable training, leadership and team building skills, avenues for breaking current stereotypes for young people in the community, and the ability to gain rites of passage into our society in the event there is no work. In fact, it may be that all the participants in the Work for the Dole program could instruct cadets if they had those special skills. Similarly, our older Australians, many of whom are seeking avenues for sharing their knowledge, skills and experience, could also provide instruction and guidance on the program.Governments must also be responsible and provide trained and accredited instructors who have had their backgrounds thoroughly checked to ensure the safety of our young people. It is also incumbent on us as a government, if we are really serious about it, to resource the program properly. The Western Australian experience is that in many of the small towns and villages where a cadet unit has been established the youth crime rate has dropped by up to 35 per cent. This alone is justification for trialling this program.When you consider that it costs conservatively between $70,000 and $80,000 to detain a young person under the juvenile justice system, the three tiers of government should be working hard together to make sure that this program is successful. In Western Australia, the cadet program provides a one-off establishment grant of $5,000 to the group supporting the cadet unit and $450 per cadet annually to cover uniforms and other costs. Even if we doubled that amount, it would still be a huge saving to all governments if just a few hundred young people were not in trouble with the law as a result, thereby offering the peace of mind to older Australians that they can safely walk the streets at night.We have nearly 7,000 families in the Shoalhaven. Over one quarter of those families have only one parent. Single parents try extremely hard and they could do with some support, often in particular with someone of the other sex to provide a role model. We also have nearly 500 young people aged between 15 and 20 who are actively seeking work. I believe that a pilot cadet program in Gilmore would provide those models and assistance with discipline, motivation, working together skills and self-esteem. A community can only gain from the cadet experience, as will our volunteer organisations which may find that many of these young people choose to join their senior ranks after they leave cadets. If nothing else, they will have life and survival skills that they previously would never have accessed.We have already received in-principle support in Gilmore. Our other cadet units are not threatened by a national program because they understand that it would be an extension of what they already know to be a very good thing. Many of these units actually have waiting lists, so the demand is certainly there. I believe we can run a pilot project with the current interest shown and because we have such a diversity of strongly supported volunteer agencies. I believe that most Australians would like a program such as the cadets in order to provide our young people with further choice.1229617:06:0012296Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The republic referendum result indicates a crisis of public confidence in the institution of the federal parliament. Even though 70 per cent of Australians support a republic, only 45 per cent were willing to support the election of a President by this parliament. Parliamentary democracy needs to be modernised to suit the new politics of the information age. In an era in which power and information are being dispersed and people are demanding a more direct say in decision making, this parliament increasingly looks like a horse-and-buggy institution. It concentrates too much power in the executive and not enough in participatory democracy.We rely on three heads of constitutional power, the executive, the parliament and the judiciary, when a fourth power is now necessary for those issues best determined by the direct participation of the people. The new politics is demanding the dispersal of power. The electorate, geared up with educational qualifications and mass information, wants to cut out the middleman. It wants to have a direct say in decision making, tipping the balance from representative democracy towards participatory democracy.The faultline in this new politics is between insiders, who support the concentration of power, and outsiders, who are disadvantaged by the entrenched hierarchy of power. On 6 November, the Australian people decisively rejected an insiders republic, one which concentrated republican power in the hands of this parliament. The defining feature of this vote was its geography; the bigger the distance from the CBD of the capital cities in each state, the bigger the no vote. In my electorate of Werriwa on the outside of Sydney, people at each and every polling booth voted no. My electors are suspicious of the concentration of financial and political power in the centre of Sydney. They were not willing to give more power to the ARM model. They are only willing to trust a republic model which places power in their own hands. They want to directly elect their own President.As in every electorate throughout Australia, people trust themselves more than they trust the parliament. Why should they not trust themselves more than they trust the parliament? Why, under the ARM model, should I have been the only person in my electorate capable of casting a vote for the President?If Australia's head of state is to be one of us, representing all of us and accountable to all of Australia, surely she needs to be elected by all of us, by each and every Australian citizen. This is not a radical republic; it is a democratic republic. The success of a future republican referendum does not rely on bipartisanship in this place. It relies on two powerful passions: Australian nationalism and democratic sentiment running in favour of the yes case.In the recent vote, republicans campaigned on just one of these emotions: the feeling that Australia should be independent of Britain. The no case appropriated the second emotion: the burning desire of the Australian people to strengthen their democratic voice. The ARM campaign, with its celebrity events and ce lebrity endorsements, simply reinforced this feeling. It added to the public perception of an insiders republic. It showed how big money campaigns can actually lose votes. I say to the Australian Republican Movement that if it is worried about possible campaign spending for a directly elected president it should look no further than its own experience. It is not the money that matters; it is the message.As we saw on 6 November, the public feeling on direct democracy is so strong that it does not really matter what the politicians or the media say. The people trust themselves and nobody else. Only when the people are given a direct say can the republic succeed. The more the Peter Costellos, the Bob Carrs and the media campaign against a directly elected President, the more successful it is likely to be. The public is dismissive of insiders who try to concentrate more power in their own hands. They have seen the Costello doctrine—that members of the public cannot be trusted to elect their own President—and they do not like it. They want more democracy, not more arrogance.This is the breathtaking hypocrisy of politicians opposed to a direct election. They want the public to directly elect and re-elect them in their own constituencies but they are not willing to give the public the same power for the direct election of an Australian President. It is the sort of arrogance which has brought so much distrust and cynicism upon this parliament.A direct election model is not a complex proposition. The method of nomination for candidates would be open and democratic, with a threshold or sifting mechanism designed to produce a manageable ballot paper. The term of office would be either one or two terms of this House of Representatives. The system for removal from office would be similar to the one applying to Australian judges.The powers of the presidential office can also be simply defined. As with the current position of Governor-General, it should be a ceremonial position with the contingent use of the reserve powers. It does not require an amendment to the relationship between the House of Representatives and the Senate. To suggest so is a piece of mischief which ignores the true nature of the crisis in 1975. Gough Whitlam has written in his 1997 classic Abiding Interests:In the two decades since Sir John Kerr dismissed my government, nothing has emerged to invalidate my basic contentions: that the crisis of November 1975 was not a constitutional crisis but a political one, fully capable of being resolved by political means, and that, but for Kerr's action, it would have been resolved in my government's favour. The Senate would have passed the budget, possibly on 13 November but certainly before supply ran out at the end of the month.Irrespective of the method of election or appointment for our head of state, the current Australian Constitution suffers from a notable omission. It does not define the relationship between two important parts of the executive government: that between the head of government and the head of state. This is what caused the crisis in 1975.It remains very much a problem today, as was seen in the statement issued by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, during the referendum campaign. I quote from his document:The circumstances of history have given Australia a very stable and workable system of government.Executive political authority is vested in the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet who must always come from the majority party in the House of Representatives.I repeat Mr Howard's words:. . . the Cabinet who must always come from the majority party in the House of Representatives.That is the opposite of what happened on 11 November 1975, when the majority party in this place was dismissed from office by Sir John Kerr and the minority party in this place was put in government. The Prime Minister, by his own words and analysis, is damned. These words highlight the problem, whether we have a republic or we remain under the current constitutional arrangements.The powers of a directly elected President can be easily codified as follows. These help to clear up the existing and future problem in our Constitution:The President shall follow the advice of her Ministers, other than where such advice is unconstitutional, unlawful or contrary to a resolution of the House of Representatives. In such circumstances, the President may exercise her Reserve Powers.What are these reserve powers? As Mr Howard put it in his 27 October statement:They relate to appointing and dismissing the Prime Minister, refusing to dissolve the Parliament and forcing a dissolution of the Parliament.The issue of competing mandates between the head of state and the head of government needs to be addressed. The problem exists, however, under the current Constitution, irrespective of the republic. It is a myth to suggest that the Queen's representative in this country has always acted in a non-political way. Because the Governor-General is not elected by the people, it is an unaccountable and undemocratic office. Unrestrained power of this kind often gives rise to the misuse of power.From time to time, governors-general have taken it upon themselves to act in a political way, to invent for themselves a mandate. I cite four instances in my own lifetime. First, in the 1960s Dick Casey colluded with McEwen to undermine McMahon's political prospects. Second, in 1975 Governor Hannah in Queensland expressed strongly political views against the Whitlam government, thereby forcing that government to revoke his capacity to serve as acting Governor-General. Third, in November 1975 John Kerr took for himself the mandate of history to act against the advice of his government, to collude with its political opponents and then dismiss from office the majority party in this House. Fourth and finally, the current Governor-General, Bill Deane, intervened in a very political way in the Hanson debate in late 1996. While I support his views, I cannot support his methods. Mr Deane is accused of similar behaviour by the former cabinet minister Peter Walsh in the November edition of the Adelaide Review.I believe that in all circumstances those who exercise power in our system of government must be answerable to the people. That is why a directly elected President and republic is the best way to proceed.1229917:16:0012299St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I take the opportunity in the House today to voice my concern that we in this great nation are faced with a missing link in the fundamental education of the Australian people. I believe there is a great need in this country today for people to be far more informed and educated about our political system, particularly when it comes to the roles and responsibilities of the nation's political representatives and institutions at all the various levels. We in this House are well versed in the ins and outs of federal politics—the House of Representatives, the Senate and the various departments and organisations and their operations. We know about the advantages and democratic security of the party political system and recognise the strength of this system, as do most of our constituents. That may be why there is only one Independent member maintaining a marginal seat in this House.We are privileged. Because of the nature of our jobs and the paths that we have followed in our political lives, most of us also have a good understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the other two levels of government—state and local—in Australia. Yet to the average person in the street, at work in the factory or driving the truck or tractor, federal, state and local governments are all grouped into one. To the average person, we are a homogenous group known simply as `the government'.For example, most people without the benefit of a strong, sound education in the area of politics do not understand the responsibilities of and arrangements between federal, state and local governments when it comes to many of the grassroots, vital issues facing the average Australian. An average constituent from my electorate of New England might say to me, `Your government funds health and roads,' which is true in that the federal government distributes funds for these vital services to the relevant areas—mostly state governments and their organisations, as well as local government.The problems arise when it becomes set in the average person's mind that it is directly the fault of the federal government when the local road or back lane is full of potholes or falling to pieces, or when the local health service is not delivering essential services. In most cases this assumption is far from the truth of the matter but, because of the lack of education in this area, it remains a common perception among normal, average Australians.I am a firm believer that this country needs some form of compulsory education in schools aimed directly at lifting the levels of understanding and awareness of our various systems of government. There has been a huge amount of interest in the system generated by the November 6 republic referendum. I believe that now is the appropriate time to investigate and implement options for providing sound, universal political education for all Australians into the future.I strongly support and applaud the initiative of this government in efforts to introduce to Australian schools a subject called `Discovering democracy, a new program of civics and citizenship education', which is beginning in Australian schools this year. The new civics program is designed to teach young Australians about what it means to be an Australian citizen; how our system of government works; how our democracy evolved; and, perhaps most importantly, how we can all take part in the public and community affairs of Australia.Even the other side, to their credit, agree that there should be civics and citizenship education in schools. We can now see this type of education being implemented by the Howard-Anderson government in collaboration with the governments of the other states and territories of this country. This new civics and citizenship education curriculum is being developed so that children from all over Australia will be covering the same ground when it comes to learning about this important subject.By looking at different levels of detail and at the common themes of who rules, law and rights, the Australian nation and citizens in public life, in middle primary, upper primary, lower secondary and middle secondary school levels, Australia's young people will gain a better appreciation of the way in which our system of government works, responsibility for different areas within the Australian system, how to correctly use the system and how to become involved. All of the aforementioned are, I am sure you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, valuable lessons for Australian children and, for that matter, Australian people of all ages.I believe the new curriculum will provide an invaluable insight into aspects of Australian government that many of our children would never have had without this initiative. I truly believe that an education in the area of government, with particular reference to the Australian Constitution and system, is an essential part of an Australian child's education.I know most honourable members of this House would agree with me when I say that some of the most enjoyable and memorable times for a federal member are the visits we all receive from groups of schoolchildren, their teachers and the many parents from schools in our electorates. They come along here to Parliament House to have a look at how the country is run and to take part in the wonderful educational programs provided through the Parliamentary Education Office, another invaluable resource for Australian schools and teachers. I quote from a letter I received recently from a young member of the Oxley Vale Public School year 6 group that visited Parliament House just a few weeks ago:Dear Mr St Clair,Recently our year 6 class visited Parliament House.We had an excellent tour and we learned many things. We especially appreciated you talking to us and the photo. Overall, the best part of Parliament House was rolling down the hill! I enjoyed our trip to Canberra. I hope you visit us when you are in Tamworth.I wonder how many of us receive letters like that.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—Or have rolled down the hill.84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR—Absolutely. The letter is signed by Samantha Cassidy on behalf the Oxley Vale Public School year 6 class. What wonderful sentiments, expressed so simply. I will continue to treasure the letter. A subsidy is available for school groups to visit Parlia ment House provided the school is situated more than 1,000 kilometres from Canberra. Half of my electorate of New England falls within this 1,000 kilometre distance and half outside it. Hence, some schools are eligible for this subsidy and some are not. Those not eligible include schools in the major cities of Tamworth, Armidale and Inverell and all schools in the southern part of my electorate.It is my firm belief that we should be encouraging more country schools to bring students to the Australian Capital Territory for educational visits to this wonderful place so that they can see how the place runs. If it is to be taken that these visits are central to the education and development of our young people in New England and all over the country, I would like to see the extension of the subsidy to all schools situated outside the ACT. I know that there is already a sliding scale based on distance from Canberra to determine the level of subsidy available for each student outside of that 1,000-kilometre limit. It would be a simple step to extend the lower end of this scale to cover all those outside of the ACT.I acknowledge the initiative announced by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Dr David Kemp, last Thursday that a new national inquiry is to be held, aimed at improving students' knowledge of Australia's history. This announcement coincides with the mail-out of the `Discovering Democracy' resource package containing historical, contemporary, fictional and factual texts dealing with civics, citizenship and the development of democratic processes in Australia's history. I reiterate the fact that this government is taking steps to fill the gaps in the Australian education system. Once again, I support and applaud the introduction of the Discovering Democracy program and the national inquiry to improve students' knowledge of Australia's history. Both are strong and worthwhile initiatives. Both will contribute to the strong and vital future of this country.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills12301Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 ACIS Administration Bill 1999 ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999 Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Border Interception) Bill 1999 Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999 International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 1999 States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1999 Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Amendment Bill 1999 Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 Public Service Bill 1999 Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999 Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 Bills12301The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999Bills12301r92512301Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Mr Ruddock: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:"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".17:27:0012301Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I am pleased to be speaking on the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . The last few days have made this legislation very timely indeed. The Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill is obviously intended to deal with the current serious situation of the arrival on our shores of many people claiming refugee status.The discussion of this matter ought to be divided into two parts. The first part concerns how we can ensure the detection of all those people who are arriving so that they can be properly processed. They should not be able to enter Australia without detection. They should be detected and subjected to our processes of refugee determination. The second part concerns how we should treat these people and how we should respond to the current situation. With respect to the response the government has put up—the introduction of a three-year temporary entry visa for people arriving on our shores as refugees—I believe this approach to be both unfair and totally mistaken. It does not solve the problem at all. It does not deal with the essential causes of the problem. All it will do is create many problems in the future for us in relation to refugee determination.If we are serious about dealing with the refugee situation, we must consider the causes of this situation rather than apply what is essentially the bandaid approach of trying at the very last minute, after the crisis has begun or after it has escalated, to deal with it by introducing regulations—especially the regulation concerning the three-year rule—which will not do anything to assist in the real issue but which will be very unfair to the people concerned.Let me explain, because I think the Australian community does not understand what the minister has been proposing. He is saying that, if a person arrives on a boat, is subjected to the full refugee determination process and is determined by that process to be a genuine refugee, then, rather than being given the full entitlements which we have traditionally given to genuine refugees, that person will be given only a three-year visa. This is a dramatic change to our whole perspective on refugees, to our whole policy development on refugees and to the whole thrust of refugee determination as stated by the United Nations. This dramatic change is made for what? It is made because there is an assumption that, if a signal goes back to those source countries which says to those people, `Well, you are only going to get a three-year refugee determination in Australia in the first instance,' they are not going to come to Australia.Is this really a serious sociological examination of the causes of this crisis? Are we to suppose that the desperate people, coming mostly from Iran where they had originally escaped from Iraq and Afghanistan and who are being pushed out of Iran by the recent determinations of the government of Iran, are going to be thwarted in their decision merely on the basis of the fact that if they go to Australia they will only gain a three-year determination in the first instance? Is this really what we are saying?If we are serious about resolving this problem, why do we not call an international conference to deal with this crisis? Why do we not do something in the area of diplomacy to deal with this crisis at its source? The fact of the matter is that these people are in an enormously desperate situation. That is why they are risking their lives in this situation. And, of course, they are being exploited by unscrupulous people. That is criminal and that ought to be punished. But the fact of the matter is that you need to deal with this crisis at its source rather than having a situation where we say, `Oh, well, we are going to impose this three-year rule on all people who arrive here without papers.'Have we thought about what the consequences of this three-year rule are going to be as we go on? Let us consider these two possibilities. If a person is given genuine refugee status and is given the three years, are we therefore going to let them into the Australian community? Let us say that they are in detention six or 12 months and then they are granted a genuine refugee status but only given three years. Are we then to suppose that, at the end of the three years, after being incorporated into the Australian community, we are going to say, `Excuse me. You have been here for three years. You have been incorporated into the Australian community. You have been determined to be a genuine refugee, but now we are going to kick you out'? Is that what we are saying?This is a nonsensical proposal from a humanitarian point of view and it does not make sense practically. Nor is it going to deter those people, because those people, as I mentioned earlier, are extremely desperate. They are in a very serious situation. As I said, there ought to be an international humanitarian effort to resolve this problem rather than simply saying to those people who manage to get here—poor devils; many of them are dying in the seas—`Oh, well, you are not going to get the same rights as we have traditionally given to refugees, even if the tribunal accepts your case.' I repeat: `even if the tribunal accepts your case'.The other day the minister was lamenting the fact that the tribunal has accepted an overwhelming proportion of the refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that really surprising? Were not we the ones who waged a war against Iraq? Were not we the ones who supported this action against Iraq? Did we not say that the Saddam regime is a regime that persecutes its own people? Of course we did. Even the Prime Minister has said it. And then we see these people arriving from Iraq and we say, `Aha! These illegal smugglers have manipulated your desperate situation. Therefore we are going to treat you in this particular way.' Are we not confusing something here? Are we not confusing the humanitarian obligation to the refugees with the criminal elements that are smuggling these people?The minister says he is imposing new, tough measures against these importers of people. I have no quarrel with that. I support that. We also support the legislation before the House to protect the borders. We support that. But this is a different issue from trying to get the whole Australian community to think that these people are not genuine refugees and, worse still, to completely prejudge the determinations before the tribunal. What sort of a thing is this, for us to prejudge? We have a tribunal that is supposed to determine whether or not these people are genuine refugees. And we get all these statements of hysteria in the media that these people have to be predetermined and prejudged—that they are not really refugees. What an extraordinary situation we have put ourselves into. Australia has had an international reputation for its humanitarian treatment of refugees. We are in danger of losing that reputation with this exercise.These regulations that have been put forward by the minister do not discriminate. They are not just directed towards the Iraqi boat people; they are directed to virtually whomever arrives as a refugee without papers. This is the very interesting thing about how we are treating refugee policy at the moment. What is the definition of a refugee? It is a person who is persecuted or who is in fear of persecution. If people arrive with a visitors visa in Australia and claim refugee status, the majority of those people with a visitors visa are granted permission to stay in the community. If people arrive without papers—without a passport or a visa—they are subjected to mandatory detention. They have no choice. It does not matter how serious their claim is. It does not matter whether they have relatives in Australia. It does not matter whether there are organisations prepared to look after them. It does not matter whether they have been tortured. They are subjected to a mandatory regime.Let us think logically for a minute. If people are genuine refugees escaping persecution, are they likely to have been able to go to an Australian embassy to get a visa? Certainly not. So the very same people who are most likely to have been in the most serious circumstances are the ones that we are punishing the most. This was happening even before this current problem. Amnesty International has condemned this practice of mandatory detention. We should have other solutions.The minister said today, `There is no other way of dealing with these problems. I have to introduce this three-year rule. That is the only thing I can do.' That is wrong. There are other things that we can do. For example, for those refugees arriving without papers, we could have a preliminary assessment process so that people who have been tortured, people who are in difficult circumstances and people who are likely to receive refugee status could be released into the community instead of being in detention centres, for years in some cases. Why haven't we got such a preliminary assessment procedure? Why don't we have that procedure, especially when people have relatives here or when there are communities that are prepared to back them and to give assurances and guarantees? There is one suggestion to start with.When I was chairman of the immigration committee, we conducted an inquiry into this whole situation with refugees. We recommended a speeding up of the processing of procedures. That was done for a while, but the processing of procedures has now been slowed down again. People are waiting months and months for even an initial determination of their situation. Then there are all of these other processes in place which are taking so many years before there can be a determination. The minister himself has hundreds and hundreds of cases before him on his desk. Why doesn't he process those cases? When you know about an individual case that has gone to the minister, you are told it is going to take many months before it is processed by the minister. Why doesn't the minister put into place a mechanism in his own office to help process those cases much more quickly?There are things we can do. I have already mentioned a number of those things. Internationally there are a number of things we can do that will fix up processing here. We can also have a more balanced and compassionate approach to refugee determination. The fact that somebody arrives on our border does not mean automatically that they are some kind of criminal. If our borders were not separated by seas, what would we do? Let us say we were a country in Europe where people crossed borders and claimed refugee status. Would we say to all of those people coming across without papers that there is something wrong with them? I am not saying that we should end our overseas offshore refugee determination program; I am saying that the program in respect of people who arrive here ought to be more sensible and more compassionate.It does not mean that we agree with those who are engaged in people smuggling. Of course we do not. They are taking advantage of people in desperate circumstances. We should have a process whereby we identify these people rather than allow them to be subjected to the high seas and all of that. We should look at possible processing of them in our offshore refugee determination program. Why don't we have a look at the way our offshore program is operating in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan to see whether we can do something about that?I regret to say that, in recent times, the whole philosophy and approach which we have developed in many immigration issues has been one of control, toughness and lack of compassion. This is not going to get us anywhere in terms of our future as a nation. We need to look at refugees and at the rest of the immigration program in terms of a more generous and compassionate approach than we have been taking in recent times. If we do not, we will be in a very serious situation in the future. I cannot understand why the minister has embarked on this three-year visa as a way out.He knows very well what happened when we introduced the four-year visa in the case of the Chinese students. At the end of that four-year process, these people had integrated into the community and obviously we had a moral obligation to accept them into Australia. The same thing will happen with the three-year visa. We will find ourselves under pressure, and whoever is in government at that time will then have to face all of the questions which we are refusing to face today.But I also want to make an appeal for all those individuals from here and there who are coming in different ways. Maybe they are tortured, maybe they managed to get on a boat, maybe they managed to get on a plane without papers, maybe they managed to get here with a visitors visa—whatever they have managed to do. What about those people who get here without papers from different countries, countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan? They are not involved in the massive people smuggling trade. Why should they also be subjected to the three-year rule? This three-year rule will not discriminate. It will be a rule which will apply to everyone, irrespective of the circumstances of their refugee situation. In that case, it will be a very unfair rule.I believe that we can deal with this issue in a different way: firstly, by going to the source of the problem; secondly, by trying to discourage smugglers by increasing punishment in relation to this matter—I agree with that part; and, thirdly, by processing the people when they arrive here quickly, making a determination on whether they are likely to pass through the tribunal and then getting them to the tribunal quickly. Let us speed up the process of determination. Rather than spending an extra $100 million on border controls, why don't we put more money into the refugee determination process to speed it up? Let us get more people to the refugee determination tribunal. Let us get more officers in the department to determine the result. We must do something about this critical issue. (Time expired)17:47:0012305Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise tonight to speak on the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . In the past two to three weeks, six boats carrying 717 illegal immigrants to Australia have been detected. It is an unprecedented assault on our border, and there is every indication that several thousand other potential illegal immigrants are poised to set sail. Make no mistake about it: the situation has reached a serious crisis point, and it behoves every member of parliament to respond urgently and positively if we are to protect our legitimate national interests.Certainly, the government has acted with determination and resolve. By comparison, the opposition and the Democrats have dithered, delayed and tried at virtually every turn to frustrate a constructive and coordinated response to this crisis. The fact that this legislation is now being debated today as a matter of first priority underlines the government's resolve. When considering how to respond to the package of measures being proposed by the government, the opposition and the Democrats should consider the statement by the former Labor Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Mr Gerry Hand, who was reported today as saying that the government's intention to introduce a temporary visa for illegal immigrants sent, in his words, the `right message' to people-smuggling gangs. Mr Hand, a member of the government's expert External Reference Group, said:I would urge everyone in Parliament to support this, because if they don't, they will be giving succour to international people smugglers.The former Labor minister was absolutely correct when he said:There is a right way to come here and a wrong way, and unless we do something, the situation will just run wild. The Labor Party, if it refuses to support the government's tough measures, will stand condemned by the community for allowing criminal gangs to portray this nation as a soft target, as an easy touch. Rejection of any part of this package of measures will give these criminal racketeers an enormous boost. These latest proposals are a logical development of the program that the government has pursued in the past few months.On 27 June, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs held a joint press conference in Sydney to announce a $124 million boost for the fight against illegal immigration. In my area of Dawson, it was most welcome—a very significant announcement, especially for people living outside the comfort zone of the southern states. We are in the front line, and people in the north are most concerned about the growing influx of illegal immigrants. It is a matter which has concerned me for some time. On 31 May, almost a month before this announcement, I wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on the subject, noting that there was `growing community anger, especially in North Queensland' at the organised activities of the so-called people smugglers. In my letter, I congratulated the minister and the government on the foreshadowed initiatives to counter this cruel and inhuman trade, and I urged an even tougher approach. My letter stated:It is obvious that this activity can only be facilitated with the active involvement of Australian residents. I believe that, when considering the matter of increased penalties, you should recommend to the Government that non-citizens who are living in Australia and who are convicted on any charges relating to any involvement should be deported. Further I believe that any non-citizens so convicted and deported should never be given any opportunity whatsoever of making any application to be readmitted to Australia as a permanent resident, student, tourist or refugee. I also believe that any assets these people have in Australia should be automatically confiscated upon the conviction and prior to deportation.I hold this view very strongly. As I said in my letter, non-citizen residents of Australia who engage in this degrading trade are abusing our hospitality for financial gain and should be dealt with in such a way that a clear and unequivocal message is sent to those both overseas and in Australia who might consider similar activity. It has been suggested by some that we should adopt an open-door policy to these illegal immigrants and reward them and those who grow rich on their trade with an automatic right of entry. But the fact is that most illegal immigrants are not desperate and poverty stricken refugees fleeing from callous and oppressive regimes but are generally comparatively well-heeled people able to pay, according to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, an average cost of $26,000 for their passage. In fact, they are plainly seeking to use the generosity of Australians and are not concerned about the laws of this country.The consequence of allowing automatic entry to anybody who simply turned up would be nothing short of catastrophic for this nation. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs estimates the international people-smuggling racket—a sophisticated and well organised criminal conspiracy—is worth in excess of a staggering $US7 billion annually. The government has responded positively to the widespread concerns. The penalty for people trafficking has been increased from two to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $110,000 for trafficking up to five people, and 20 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $220,000 for trafficking of five or more people. There is no time limit for beginning a prosecution for these offences.The package announced by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs back in June included two additional aircraft and a helicopter to extend aerial surveillance capacities, 11 additional departmental officers in key overseas posts to detect and deter illegal immigrants and increased agreements with neighbouring countries to stop trafficking throughout the region. This legislation also forms part of the government's package to crack down on this appalling trade in humanity. It will give officers of front-line border agencies, such as the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Customs, the power to enforce Australia's border strategies in international waters beyond the current 12- mile limit. Presently, these officers cannot investigate any vessel beyond that limit.Other powers proposed include detention, forfeiture, seizure and disposal of ships and aircraft used in people smuggling operations. Vessels found to be unseaworthy, a risk to safety or navigation or a threat to the environment will be moved or destroyed under the provisions of this bill. Customs officers will also be allowed to carry and use approved firearms and other approved items of personal defence equipment in certain circumstances.It is also a very great matter of concern to me that another key part of the government's comprehensive and integrated strategy to combat people smuggling has been deliberately frustrated by the opposition parties in the Senate. For months, legislation which would limit the judicial review rights of illegal immigrants who have been caught—the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 [1999] —has languished in the Senate. It has been a deliberate and disgraceful delay by the opposition parties, and the immigration minister had something to say about that at his press conference with the Prime Minister in June. These shameful delays by the opposition are revealed as even more disgraceful when it is recalled that the Labor Party itself when in government tried to limit the scope for judicial review. The opposition says it is delaying this legislation because it claims it is unconstitutional. At best, that is seriously debatable. In any case, it is incumbent upon the Labor Party to explain why it simply does not let the legislation pass and have the courts settle its constitutionality. The minister spoke of those who resisted this eminently sensible move by saying:There is a lobby and the lobby has a degree of self interest. It's a very profitable area. We've seen the marketing of class actions now by some members of the legal profession which have led to 5,000 people, most of them of course in the community as overstayers, but 5,000 people able to remain in Australia in many cases accessing Medicare and, until we limited access to work rights fairly recently, able to access work rights lawfully.It is simply astounding that the opposition parties in the Senate have resisted this move to streamline appeal procedures to ensure that those who are here illegally and unlawfully are sent home and do not remain a drain on the public purse. Illegal immigrants are currently spending some $7.5 million of taxpayers' money fighting deportation orders, and about 65 per cent of the Federal Court's entire administrative caseload is taken up by cases brought by illegal immigrants. It seems too bizarre to be true, but two illegal immigrants actually sued successfully for compensation for being detained in 1996. Other countries do not take this soft attitude that the opposition does. In Sweden there is a tribunal, and that is it.UU5HORNEMr Horne—You were in government in 1996.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—The Labor Party did not fix it for 13 years, and now they do not want the government to fix it. The unscrupulous behaviour of certain Australian law firms in touting for business in the ethnic Australian media is also a matter of serious concern. The immigration minister has already had cause to complain to the Law Society about the activities of one firm which specialises in class actions for illegal arrivals. One such law firm has reportedly launched class actions on behalf of 2,900 illegal arrivals at a cost per client believed to be about $500. That represents an income for the firm of about $1.5 million and has nothing to do with compassion and everything to do with money.In recent years the number of applications to the Federal Court for the review of migration decisions has steadily increased. In 1997-98 the total was 1,044 and in 1998-99 it was 1,134 to the Federal Court and 237 to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Clearly the upward trend is alarming. Currently there are 434 cases before the Federal Court, 60 before the full Federal Court, 74 before the High Court, eight before other courts and 176 before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—a total of 752. The fact is that about half of these applications are literally withdrawn on the steps of the court on the day the action is due. They are nothing more than utterly disgraceful delaying tactics by unethical lawyers aided and abetted by the lethargy of the opposition in the Senate. When our sense of decency, fairness and generosity is rorted in this way there is a clear and urgent need to introduce some commonsense into the system. I find it an affront, and so do my constituents in Dawson, and an injustice that millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers' money are being used by illegal immigrants to try to jump the queue at a time when so many of our own people desperately need assistance for far more legitimate reasons.According to the most recent figures, 4,596 illegal boat people have arrived in Australia since July 1989. The annual totals have fluctuated between a low of 78 in 1991-92 to a high of 1,071 in 1994-95, with 926 arriving in 1998-99. Of those, a total of 2,915 were subsequently deported. There has also been an upswing in recent years in the numbers of people attempting illegal entry by aircraft. In 1998-99, 2,106 people were refused entry at our airports—a sharp rise of 36 per cent on the 1,550 stopped in 1997-98. However, as entry by aircraft is significantly more difficult, the method of entry favoured by the crime syndicates will always be by boat.The minister for immigration issued a statement on 13 October announcing tough new measures aimed at further curbing the influx of illegal arrivals. The key initiatives included excluding unauthorised arrivals from accessing permanent residence by giving genuine refugees a three-year temporary protection visa or a short-term safe haven visa, stopping people who have effective protection overseas from gaining onshore protection in Australia and using fingerprinting and other biometric tests such as DNA testing, face, palm or retinal recognition and voice testing to help ascertain the true identity of asylum seekers, to ensure where possible that they do not already have protection elsewhere or have not in fact been refused refugee status overseas.The member for Calwell wanted an international conference. Let me say that people in my electorate do not want another gabfest. They are tired of seeing, night after night, pictures of newsagents detecting illegal immigrants who go and ask if they can catch a taxi. They get tired of seeing boats drawn up on our beaches. They do not want an international conference. What they want is what the government is doing: they want tough, fair-minded deterrents. And they would like an opposition that adopted a responsible attitude to something that is greatly concerning people right across Northern Australia and in other areas. There is a moral obligation all right, which the member for Calwell mentioned, and that is to our people first, to ensure that our nation is secure and safe.I want to continue now by noting the statement the minister made about the number of illegal arrivals by air, which have continued to grow by more than 30 per cent each year. Illegal boat arrivals have also grown from 200 people in 1998 to about 1,500 this year. Since that statement, the government has launched a new overseas information campaign to alert intending illegal immigrants and the people smugglers that they face deportation, jail and heavy fines if they attempt to violate Australia's borders. That campaign will be significantly weakened if the Labor Party and the Democrats do not give the full package of legislation needed to address this crisis their full and unqualified support.The minister noted in his 13 October statement that there were what he described as reliable reports that up to 2,000 people, mostly from Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan, in Indonesia waiting for vessels to bring them to Australia. Events since have provided an appalling confirmation of that intelligence. The minister's statement came a day after 116 illegal arrivals from the Middle East arrived at Ashmore Reef off the north-west of Western Australia. According to media reports, there were two doctors aboard to care for ill people, which underlined the allegations that wealthy elderly people were endeavouring to gain illegal entry to take advantage of our excellent health system. On 22 October two boats arrived at Ashmore Reef carrying a total of 143 illegal immigrants, and two days later, on 24 October, a further 25 unauthorised arrivals were detected on the north-west Kimberley coast. In the first four months of this financial year, from July to October inclusive, a total of 926 people have arrived on 28 boats. In the same period last year, there were only 20 such arrivals.The minister for immigration estimated on 27 October that, if this current rate of illegal arrivals continued, some 2,800 people could arrive in Australia this financial year. The immigration minister has said that it costs about $20,500 for each illegal immigrant to be located in and moved from Australia. Last year a staggering $22 million of taxpayers' money was spent on detention centres for illegal arrivals, and the minister has estimated that by next year it will cost about $20 million a year to fight refugee claims from illegal immigrants. AE4NEHLMr Nehl—Disgraceful.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—My colleague has just said that it is disgraceful. He is absolutely right. And it is aided and abetted by the lethargy and complacency of the opposition in the Senate. There is no doubt that this racket is becoming increasingly sophisticated and well organised. We now have major crime gangs involved, and it has to be admitted that the boat people themselves are victims in many ways. They have allowed themselves to be deluded—perhaps willingly—into believing that they will be allowed to stay in a land of milk and honey when they arrive.The immigration minister acknowledged in his 13 October statement that most illegal immigrants from Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan had been out of their countries for decades. He said, `It is clear that most of these people are being trafficked to Australia by criminal elements.' The government has made it clear that this country is not to be regarded by illegal immigrants and the criminal gangs that traffic them as a soft touch. I hope that the opposition parties adopt a sensible and realistic approach to this problem. They can start by allowing passage of the judicial review bill in the Senate and by giving this bill their unqualified support.Australia has a fair and responsible migration program which accepts 12,000 refugee humanitarian entrants annually. It is simply not fair to people who have been assessed as refugees by the United Nations high commissioner and who have waited patiently in the queue while others blatantly jump that queue and expect the Australian taxpayer to fund their care and their expensive and lengthy legal appeals process. I support this bill absolutely. In this context, I also note with satisfaction that the government will be introducing tough new laws under the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 to protect our fishing industry and resource from illegal foreign fishing vessels. I support the minister's actions and his statements. I have absolute confidence in the action he is taking, and I call on the opposition parties to support what is sensible and fair legislation.18:06:0012309Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise to support the amendment by the member for Denison on the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . I have just been listening to the member for Dawson and she made no mention of the funds that were cut by the Howard government, after it came to office in 1996, to reduce the level of surveillance around our coastline. It stands condemned for that, but I will mention that and the implications for the ACS as I go into my speech.I and my parliamentary colleagues in the opposition generally support the bill. However, the bill is moved at a time of unprecedented border violations, highlighting a knee-jerk response to a carefully orchestrated approach to illegal operations. It is clear that this government's regional policy is in total disarray. It is clear that the current situation must reach crisis point before the Howard government is compelled to take any action. We saw this in the regional debacle of the East Timor crisis, where all the intelligence reports in the world could not persuade the government to take any pre-emptive action whatsoever until a crisis was reached.It is the same knee-jerk reaction to the current influx of boat people that has caused this rush of blood to the head and this frantic, panicky legislation. We saw this with East Timor. We see it now with border protection generally and the related issue of prohibited imports, including the drugs war. For example, the government's response to the drugs issue has been to establish the tough on drugs task force to deal with this class of prohibited import. It too demonstrates a totally uncoordi nated approach to border control, one which looks at all the border control issues as being integrated—for example, (1) the prohibited importation of prescribed scheduled drugs; (2) quarantine; (3) prohibited entry of people outside ports of entry; (4) illegal fishing and pearling; (5) organised crime; (6) environmental contamination, for example, pollution and oil spills; (7) search and rescue operations; (8) sea safety; (9) wildlife protection; (10) duty collection and industry protection; and (11) our international obligations as signatories to the many relevant international instruments.The fact that the government has chosen to introduce this legislation within the existing border control framework illustrates its inability to adopt a different approach to the issues, such as establishing an Australian coastguard. This legislation comes at a time of increasing federal government cutbacks in the staffing and funding levels of our border control agencies, chiefly, (1) the Australian Customs Service; (2) the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service; and (3) the Australian Federal Police.The Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill represents the government's response to the Prime Minister's task force report into coastal surveillance which recommended the strengthening of legislative provisions relating to illegal movements of people through designated ports. The bill introduces amendments to the Migration Act 1958, the Customs Act 1901 and the Fisheries Management Act 1991. The amendments to each act are practically identical and only slight differences occur to reflect the different operation of each act. The increased powers introduced through the package are the expected government response to the illegal entrants issue. They are, in the main, a necessary extension of the powers available to Customs officers, who also act as migration, fisheries, wildlife, quarantine, health, taxation and police officers, to deal with breaches of Australian laws. It is interesting to note that a single Customs officer represents several government agencies simultaneously. He or she is everything, administering several acts of parliament simultaneously. This ridiculous situation is made even more ridiculous by these increased powers, while this government simply ignores the ACS heads of service who legitimately cry for more staff and more resources to ease these crushing burdens.The government thinks it can solve these problems with the stroke of a pen. This is absurd. The legislative changes must be accompanied by boots on the ground, just like any other conventional war. We are at war. This is the front line of the drugs war, the war against criminals and the war against breaches of our very sovereignty. This is in every sense a war and the Howard government refuses to allocate the manpower needed to fight the war and to resolve the very problems I mentioned earlier. You cannot win this war with words. You need more personnel, an increased number of aircraft and ships, sophisticated surveillance equipment and more X-ray machines and sniffer dogs—in fact, more of everything. There are a vast tract of land and lengthy borders to manage and 11 million square kilometres of water. Yet, over consecutive years, the ACS and the quarantine service have been rendered impotent.I stress again that all these amendments are in the context of the decimation of ACS staffing levels to a point where, notwithstanding these increased powers, Australia faces a situation of a customs service that is hopelessly inadequate to implement its powers with any degree of efficiency. The package will put in place much of the legislation which would provide the framework required for the establishment of a coastguard yet seeing the decimation of the ACS and AQIS. The main changes introduced through the bill are the arming of Customs officers; increased powers of boarding, pursuit, detention, forfeiture and the search and destruction of boats, ships and aircraft; and 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.The bill authorises Customs officers to be issued with approved firearms, which will be set out in regulations, and other items of approved personal defence equipment. This is to enhance powers for the pursuit and appre hension of ships and to give greater protection and security to Customs officers. I endorse this action. For too long the ACS has had to deal with having its Sierra unit in very dangerous situations of apprehending, searching, arresting, detaining and seizing prohibited imports, often against organised criminal syndicates. This work is about as dangerous as it gets. You would not expect a police officer to do such work unarmed, yet this is exactly the level of risk we have been subjecting our ACS staff to. They are a great unit and they must not continue to go unprotected in these ever more desperate and violent times. The bill makes commensurate amendments to the Fisheries Management Act to include Customs officers as fisheries officers for the purposes of the Fisheries Management Act and it also provides for Customs officers to carry arms while carrying out duties under the Fisheries Management Act.I turn now to address the issue of fisheries management. The legislative package amends the Migration Act, the Fisheries Management Act and the Customs Act so as to extend existing powers of investigation and enforcement of these acts at sea. The amendments extend the power to request permission to board and clarify the right of pursuit, based on Australia's rights and obligations in various maritime zones as set out by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Again, I applaud these amendments, as they address limitations in the existing legislation which, depending on where a suspected crime scene is operating, currently limit the powers of a Customs officer in the effective remedy against such activity.I now wish to address the issue of the power to board a vessel. A request for boarding a vessel may be made on the basis of a contravention or suspected contravention of the Customs Act or an act proscribed by regulations consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea. When the ship is a foreign one, a request may be made in the following circumstances: it is in Australian territorial waters, either in the contiguous zone or within 500 metres of an Australian resource or sea installation; it is on the high seas and is reasonably suspected of being a mother ship involved in an offence committed by another ship within Australia; it is in the exclusive economic zone of Australia; it is on the high seas and is reasonably suspected of being used in support of an offence in the exclusive economic zone or it is outside the contiguous zone and outside the territorial sea of a foreign country, and it is suspected of being entitled to fly the flag of a country which Australia has an agreement with which gives Australia jurisdiction over that ship. A request may also be made when the ship is an Australian ship outside the territorial sea of any foreign country. The master of a ship must comply with the request unless there is a reasonable excuse.An Australian aircraft anywhere except over a foreign country, and other aircraft over Australia, may be requested to be intercepted so that a request can be made for disclosure of the identity of the aircraft and persons on board and the flight path and flight plan of the aircraft. If this request is not complied with, or if it is suspected that the aircraft is involved in the contravention of the Customs Act, the aircraft may be requested to land for boarding. Any reasonable means may be used to make this request.The bill inserts a new section which outlines the powers associated with boarding ships which are outside the contiguous zone and outside the territorial sea of any country, that is, on the high seas. A Customs officer—which in this section includes the commander of the Commonwealth ship which requested boarding or participated in the case—may board the ship and ask questions and request documents referring to the identity and voyage of the ship. If the ship is Australian, Customs officers can exercise all other powers of search and seizure under the act. If the ship is not Australian and there is not an agreement between Australia and the country whose flag the ship is flying which grants Australia jurisdiction over the ship, the Customs officer must leave the ship. If the ship is without nationality, the Customs officer may search the ship and seize, without warrant, any narcotics on board.The bill gives the commander of a Commonwealth ship or aircraft the power to chase a foreign or Australian ship to any place outside the territorial sea of a country in order to board the ship if a request to board was or could have been made. Multiple ships or aircraft can be used in the pursuit, and the pursuit may continue even if the foreign ship is lost sight of. A chase of a foreign ship may not continue if the pursuit vessel stops at any point outside the contiguous zone. The commander of the Commonwealth ship or aircraft may use necessary and reasonable force to enable boarding of a ship. If a gun has been fired as a signal, the chased ship may be fired at or into in order to disable it or compel it to be brought to a stop for boarding.The power to arrest any person believed on reasonable grounds to have committed an offence against the Customs Act—or where it is believed they will commit an offence—has been extended to cover persons suspected of committing an offence against an act prescribed by regulations consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea and to cover offences committed in the exclusive economic zone.The bill allows for the use of dogs to search ships and aircraft and gives Customs officers the power to do whatever is reasonably necessary to permit the examination of goods aboard a ship or aircraft. This is an extension of power in the territorial sense, which I support, effectively extending the existing powers of the ACS to include the exclusive economic zone.The bill amends the act so that if a ship or aircraft is in Australia it may be detained and taken to a port or airport if it is reasonably suspected that the ship or aircraft is, or has been, involved in a contravention, inside or outside Australia, of the Customs Act or a prescribed act. If the ship is an Australian ship outside Australia, it may also be detained and moved if it is reasonably suspected that it will be involved in a contravention. If it is a foreign ship outside Australia, the contravention must have occurred, or been planned to occur, in Australia or the exclusive economic zone.If a ship is reasonably suspected of being involved in a contravention of the Customs Act or other prescribed acts and it is within Australia, if it is an Australian ship outside Australia which has been detained, or if it is a foreign ship which has been detained and the contravention occurred in Australia or the exclusive economic zone, the CEO of Customs may direct that the ship be moved and/or destroyed on the basis that it is unseaworthy or poses a serious risk to navigation, quarantine, safety, public health, the environment or damage to property, or if the cost of custody or maintenance of the ship is greater than the value of the ship. The master or the owner of the ship does not have to be notified before destruction or movement of the ship but does have to be notified within seven days of the act occurring. The owner or persons last in possession of the ship will be eligible for payment of compensation. The bill provides for a right to compensation in the situation where the destruction amounts to an acquisition of property as per the Constitution.If a ship or aircraft is detained, a Customs officer may also use reasonable and necessary force to detain any person on the ship or aircraft and bring them to the migration zone. For the purposes of detaining, arresting and searching vessels and people, the bill extends the definition of `Customs officer' to include the commander of any Commonwealth ship or aircraft involved in chasing the vessel, and police and Defence Force personnel.Under the Customs Act as it presently stands, only ships or boats not exceeding 80 metres may be forfeited to the Crown under the various enumerated circumstances. The bill removes this 80-metre restriction. The bill also increases the power of Fisheries officers to detain people on the grounds of a belief that the person is not an Australian citizen or resident and was found on a foreign fishing boat while it was committing an offence. The bill grants search powers without a warrant for the purpose of determining if the person is carrying a weapon, and it also places restrictions on the way in which the search is to be carried out for further detail.The amendments to the Migration Act which relate to boarding, giving chase and detaining, moving and searching ships and aircraft, and those which relate to detaining people, are essentially the same as the above amendments to the Customs Act. However, the amendments to the Migration Act do not cover Australia's exclusive economic zone and do not provide for other acts to be prescribed in regulations, whereas the Customs Act amendments do. The definition of `officer' under the Migration Act is extended to include any person in command of a ship or aircraft which requests boarding permission or gives chase, and members of the Defence Force.The Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 introduces a new visa—the enforcement visa—which is to be granted to a non-citizen on a foreign boat outside the migration zone which is believed to have been used or is intended to be used in the commission of a fisheries detention offence. If the non-citizen is in the migration zone or on a foreign boat without an enforcement visa, that person is granted an enforcement visa upon detention by a Fisheries officer. Further, a non-citizen is removed from Australia and is refused entry by the receiving country. Upon re-entry to the migration zone that person is granted an enforcement visa. This visa provides the authority to bring the suspected person into the migration zone and ensures that the person when detained and brought into Australia is not exposed to offences under the Migration Act.The enforcement visa is not a substantive visa and does not carry any of the benefits or rights of a substantive visa. The holder of an enforcement visa may not apply for a visa other than a protection visa while in Australia. The bill also closes an anomaly caused by the fact that Norfolk Island is not within the migration zone, as it has its own Migration Act. The bill allows for a non-citizen to be transported from Norfolk Island to Australia without requiring a visa. Upon entering the migration zone the person becomes an unlawful non-citizen and must be detained. Under the bill, a vessel used to bring to Australia unlawful non-citizens for the purpose of their entry into Australia and any vehicle or equipment on the vessel are automatically forfeited to the Commonwealth. Once a thing is forfeited, it may be seized by a Migration officer.I will finish by addressing the amendments to this bill which were negotiated with my parliamentary colleagues. The justification for imposing a 14-day period in the seizure notice is the cost to the government of housing a vessel for any length of time. It is in the Commonwealth's fiscal interest to dispose of the vessel as soon as possible. Even so, 14 days is a short time span, particularly if the person in possession of the vessel at the time of seizure is not the owner—for example, if the vessel was stolen—or if the person in possession of the vessel is a non-citizen who has been taken into custody. I therefore support the amendment to increase this period to 28 days.Under the bill, once a claim has been made the owner may be given one month to institute proceedings against the Commonwealth; otherwise the thing will be forfeited. If the thing was sold, the court may order that the Commonwealth pay the owner the proceeds of the sale minus costs incurred by the Commonwealth. If the thing has been disposed of, the court may order that the Commonwealth pay the owner the market value of the thing minus costs incurred by the Commonwealth. The court may also declare that the thing is not forfeited. If none of these orders is made, the thing is forfeited at the end of the proceedings.The changes to the forfeiture scheme made by the bill are consistent with the policy direction recommend in the Australian Law Reform Commission report Confiscation that counts. However, the government's bill does not provide adequate safeguards against the misapplication of the seizure and forfeiture powers which, although necessary, are essentially draconian in nature. Therefore, those on this side of the House negotiated an amendment with the government. For example, the bill does not adopt the recommendations of the ALRC report on pages 256 and 257 that the business sector should be provided with information which would allow it to develop effective risk management strategies for chattels which could be rendered forfeited and that a forfeiture regime should not cover public conveyances which have been involved in a contravention of which the owner did not have, and would have no reasonable basis for having, knowledge or suspicion was being carried out. In summary, the bill is supported but leaves the opposition frustrated at the mixed messages being given to ACS, AQIS and other government agencies.Under the Howard government Australia has become an easy target for illegal immigrants. The allocation of additional funds and two extra planes for surveillance was an admission by John Howard that he and his government had failed the people of Australia by not keeping us free of these illegal entries. We hear about the boat people, but the truth is that more illegal immigrants are entering Australia by plane, often with visas, and then they disappear or overstay.In conclusion, the message is simple: we have to increase the staffing levels and resources of the ACS and Quarantine and give them the capacity to fulfil their duties under these brave new provisions that empower them. Finally, I call on the government to consider an Australian coastguard in the interest of protecting our coastline. (Time expired)18:26:0012313Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I was not due to speak on the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , but after listening to the member for Dawson I felt that the history of Australia and its coastal surveillance had been rewritten. I felt that she was ignoring the fact that the amendment moved by the Hon. Duncan Kerr says quite clearly:"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 it does. It is a statement that this government ignored coastal surveillance for so long and made Australia a target for illegal entrants and now it is trying to close the door. That is the fact. That is the fact that the member for Dawson will not be advising her constituents back home about. That fact will not be uttered by the minister or the Prime Minister. They will not be telling the people of Australia that in the order of 30,000 illegal immigrants are in Australia right now—and they have not arrived by boat. They are people who have come here and overstayed. One of the reasons they are here is the cutbacks this government made in 1996. Those cutbacks, which took staff away from Customs and reduced surveillance, allowed those people to stay. It is interesting that the staff nod. They know exactly why these people are here and why we do not have the Customs officers to police the problem. But that fact will not come out.When a boat arrives on Ashmore Reef with 60 or 70 people it is a highly visible thing—and suddenly the influx is so great. But every year more people arrive on international flights, overstay and become illegal immigrants. But this government is not telling the people of Australia about that. The government has proposed this piecemeal, ad hoc response today, but I want to know when this government is going to address the real problem. The people of Australia have a right to know when this government is going to have a policy that can police illegal immigrants and which will allow them to be forcibly sent back to where they came from. At this stage, the government is certainly not showing the inclination to do that.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0012314Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise this evening to support the second reading amendment which goes to the Labor Party's response to the government's Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . In doing so, I note a statement made by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs just on six weeks ago. He said: `Australia's current approach to immigration is the right one.' It is fair to say that, since that statement was made by the minister, Australia has confronted a major challenge of an unprecedented nature. It is in that context that I condemn the contribution made in the House earlier this evening by the member for Dawson in what is a complex and sensitive debate. Those who have followed the debate on the immigration front over many years have understood that, across both sides of the House more often than not, there has been a genuine endeavour to try and approach this highly sensitive issue in a constructive and objective way.If we look back at Labor's record over 13 years prior to 1996, there was a large degree of cooperation between the then Labor government and the then opposition which, for example, involved constructive contributions on a number of occasions from the then shadow minister for immigration and multicultural affairs—the current minister, Mr Ruddock. The member for Dawson suggested this evening that the difficulties which currently confront Australia are the result of 13 years of neglect by Labor in government on the immigration front. Frankly, she stands condemned. All one can say about her contribution this evening is that it is based on the principle which we regard many of her contributions to this House as going to—that ignorance is bliss.In that context, we should also cast our minds back to the fact that, prior to the last election, most people in this House were consumed with turning back the One Nation tide which was undermining the large degree of support that historically has existed in Australia for what has been a very good immigration program. If anyone in this House was close to the One Nation views and the personalities involved in One Nation, that person was best represented by the current member for Dawson. It is for that reason that I want to refer this evening to not only the cooperation that existed prior to 1996 when Labor lost government but also the fact that since then there has been a genuine endeavour by us in opposition to cooperate with the government and to try and make sure that there has been a fair degree of cooperation with respect to the difficult decisions that have to be made to maintain the integrity of the immigration system in Australia—including border protection.The Labor Party has provided bipartisan support for all the measures introduced in this parliamentary term by the government—measures which are designed to combat the flow of illegal immigrants and to deal genuinely with the problem of queue jumping and non-genuine refugees seeking asylum. This has included the following: firstly, information exchange and data matching between agencies to improve the tracking of overstayers and illegal workers; secondly, the taking away of the right of illegal immigrants to have lawyers present unless they specifically ask for them; thirdly, changes to refugee regulations to address unfounded claims for refugee status, designed to hit those seeking to abuse the system whilst protecting, correctly, genuine claimants; fourthly, heavy increases in fines for people-smuggling operations and those associated with those operations; and, fifthly—although this is not an exhaustive list of the issues on which we have cooperated with the government—the toughening of border control, forfeiture and seizure measures designed to exact a heavy cost on boat owners operating a people-smuggling racket and to support the arming of customs officers.It is appropriate that we seek to have a constructive debate. Whilst we have moved a second reading amendment, there has been a genuine endeavour on this side of the House to reach agreement with the government on all the details going to the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill currently before the House. For the member for Dawson to suggest otherwise this evening represents a condemnation of the endeavour by the current minister over many years—including cooperation with the Labor Party in government—to actually get it right. The truth of the matter is that the record she condemned this evening has got the fingerprints of the current minister all over it. He was the shadow minister for the current government for many years and contributed in a constructive way to the Australian community trying to get the integrity of our immigration system right. Because of her ignorance, the member for Dawson stands condemned for her contribution in the House this evening.I turn now to the problem that confronts Australia at the moment. There is an unprecedented increase in unauthorised arrivals, who are clearly being trafficked to this country by organised smuggling rings. If you have any doubts about that, I refer you to a document prepared by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs entitled, Effective protection in Australia: the facts. On page 1 of that document, under the heading `Why has Australia made the changes to the category of residence for some refugees and why make them now?', the following facts appear:In the calendar year to date, 2,255 people have arrived in Australia illegally by boat, along with 157 crew. This figure includes 510 passengers and 14 crew that have arrived in the past week.This document was supplied by the department to my office on Thursday of last week. It goes on to say:It compares with 200 boat arrivals in the whole of 1998.More importantly, the department's document says:More boat people have arrived already this calendar year than for the entire six-year period of Vietnamese boat arrivals from 1975 to 1981.They are very telling facts. I suggest to the House this evening that the Australian community has to make a clear choice on the immigration front. Immigration has served Australia well. The choice we have to make at this time is who is determining Australia's immigration policy. Is it the community through our democratically elected representatives or, alternatively, are we as a community going to vacate the field and allow crooks, gangsters and those responsible for people smuggling to determine Australia's immigration policy?As far as I am concerned, irrespective of who is in government, there is no choice. There is no place in the Australian immigration system for crooks, gangsters and people smugglers. I say that because the immigration system that we operate in Australia is highly regarded internationally. More importantly, it is one that has served Australia well. I say that because I believe that we as a community have generally operated in a compassionate way with respect to genuine refugees seeking haven in Australia. But that has also been part of a process by which we have been increasingly required to use sophisticated methods to ensure that we maintain the integrity of this system and enforce the laws of this land.It has also meant in more recent times, because of the actions of these unsavoury elements both within and beyond Australia, that it is now representing a serious cost to the Australian budget. It is resulting in over crowded detention facilities, which carry health and safety risks. There are also difficulties for particular communities, such as the community of Christmas Island. Unfortunately, dare I suggest, in some sections of the Australian community, it is providing an opportunity for some unsavoury elements in the legal community to try to exploit these people for the purposes of lining their own pockets. That is how it is best described. Not all migration agents in Australia actually operate in a constructive way based on integrity and a desire to maintain the integrity of the immigration system in this country. The unsavoury elements, and all those associated with them, stand condemned.For those reasons, it is fair to say that both sides of politics recognise that genuine refugees are sometimes caught up in these operations. We are aware of our international obligations in this respect. One thing that is clear from all this is that our current approach is not right. We have a system that does not protect those who go through legitimate channels. The integrity of our system at the moment is being very seriously undermined and tested.If we wish to develop a culture that supports immigration, I argue this evening that we must ensure we go out of our way to maintain the integrity of that system. On that basis, I believe that those who play by the rules should not lose by the game. The game must be fair and above board. We must go out of our way to ensure that those who are not prepared to play by the rules are prosecuted, fined, and imprisoned if need be. The integrity of this system is too important. Immigration remains a vital part of the future growth of Australia, both economically and socially, as we move into the 21st century. To do otherwise would be to allow positions to go to those who have the money to pay while the poor apply through official channels and are superseded by queuejumpers.Unfortunately, the recent influx of illegal immigrants simply highlights the lack of foresight and planning, dare I suggest, in some areas of government activity. We cannot fully prepare for all possible contingencies, but we have to at least have the mechanisms in place to deal with them when they arise. Instead, unfortunately at times at the moment, we are jumping from here to there, struggling to cope with the upheaval. We need far more contingency planning. Even though there is a large degree of support for most measures currently being pursued by the government, I also believe that there is further room for discussion between the government and the opposition about what other proposals can be pursued to further strengthen and maintain the integrity of the system. Labor contends that there is a need for a concrete plan on immigration because we believe it is part of a plan for Australia's future. We cannot again be caught off guard.The new provisions before the House this evening allow Australian law enforcement officers to board, chase, search, move and destroy ships and aircraft involved in people-smuggling operations. To the extent that they address the problem, they are welcome, but they are no substitute for a long-term solution on this matter. Labor is prepared to work with the government to develop a feasible solution that is fair and protects the integrity of the immigration system.The spirit of bipartisanship has not always been the minister's strength in recent weeks. I wonder whether at times there was an endeavour to play party politics rather than an endeavour to get this right once and for all. Let us put aside politics, because there is clearly further room for discussion and improvement on the measures before the House this evening and other potential measures that can strengthen the government's hand on what is a very difficult front at the moment.Put simply, I also believe that, in addition to these measures, we as a nation have to face up to the fact that we need a long-term approach to population policy. A Labor government will set itself the broad goal of achieving moderate population growth. Within this broad agenda, we have indicated support for a moderate increase in immigration. Ignorance is bliss with respect to the member for Dawson, when you consider her contribution to the debate this evening. There is a large degree of agreement between the government and the opposition about the composition of Australia's immigration program at the moment.The nature of employment, the world of work, in Australia has changed. If the Snowy Mountains scheme were built today rather than 50 years ago, it would not require as many workers, especially from overseas, as were employed 50 years ago. It would be more capital intensive and would have a higher level of skill requirements on the job. The world has moved on and the nature of employment in Australia has moved on. In that context, so has the immigration program in that for those who are encouraged to come to Australia we should ensure that we can give them the best possible opportunity in life. That is not a social security cheque; it is a job, an opportunity for training and career development.The government wants to undermine public support for immigration and continue to play politics as it has been doing over the last week or fortnight. By doing that it will undermine the integrity of the system and set Australia back. I think the minister has the capacity to rise above the petty, poll-driven politics of Liberal Party headquarters—and that has been the case for many years—and to make sure we get back, where we can, to a bipartisan approach to what is a very complex, sensitive and important issue for the future of Australia.For that very reason, I have sought this evening in a constructive way to make my position very clear, not only as a member of the opposition but, perhaps more importantly, as the shadow minister for population and as a former shadow minister for immigration and multicultural affairs. I understand the complexities of the problem that the government currently confronts. We need decisive action. We are not sure that some of the measures currently being pursued by the government will necessarily succeed. But we are at a point, with the unprecedented problems and the influx of illegals that are currently confronting Australia, where we have to take desperate steps. As I said at the outset, it comes back to a choice for Australia. Who is going to run Australia's immigration program? Is it the gangsters, the crooks and the people smugglers, or are we as a sovereign nation going to clearly determine that the people's parliament, this House of Representatives, will set and determine Australia's immigration program?For that reason, the Labor Party, by having moved a second reading amendment and from the contributions that we have made in this debate, has clearly sought to raise some of our concerns. That should not detract from the fact that we understand the importance of the measures being pursued by the government. We need alternative solutions to those that have previously been acceptable to our immigration system to deal with the problem.If we are to solve the problem on a medium- to long-term basis—in the same way that the Australian government, through a series of Labor and non-Labor immigration ministers, has in China, through proper diplomatic channels, established appropriate purposes for dealing with illegals from China—it is now a priority that the current government should seek to right the diplomatic damage for which it is responsible with respect to Indonesia.Measures before the House this week and in the Australian community for debate at the moment are important, but in the end, when we consider the arrivals from Indonesia, there is only one solution; that is, the Australian government going to Jakarta on a regular basis—including the Prime Minister if need be, rather than running away from his responsibilities and playing petty politics—sitting down with the new regime in Indonesia and reaching understandings about the need to respect one another's sovereignty and the laws of one another's land.The Indonesian government should be encouraged and we should be assisting where possible to make sure that the people smugglers, for example, do not flourish in Indonesia to the detriment of Australia. In addition to the issue currently being pursued by the government, I believe more has to be done on the diplomatic front with Indonesia to repair the damage and to sort out how Indonesia can work with us in a cooperative way and in a similar manner to how the Chinese government is now working with us, as a result of persistent activity by a series of governments, to make sure that people smugglers, gangsters and crooks do not flourish and destroy the Australian immigration system.20:20:0012318Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank members for their contributions to this debate—the members for Denison, Hindmarsh, Maribyrnong, Sturt, Northern Territory, Deakin, Cook, Bowman, Dawson, Calwell, Lowe and Batman. During the debate, many of them have recapitulated comments made by others. I will offer some general remarks and then deal with specific questions that have been raised by individual members.It is important to see the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 as evidence of the will of the government to combat the dangerous trade of people-smuggling. Organised smuggling of people constitutes a real and present threat to the integrity of our borders and Australia's right to determine who enters and remains here. I was pleased to hear the comments of the shadow minister and member for Batman who spoke immediately before me because, in the debate that we have heard over the last week or so, one could have had some doubts as to whether or not there was such a degree of commitment to deal with those matters. The government has announced a comprehensive range of measures and comment on them suggested that some members doubted whether all of the announced measures were appropriate for support.I welcome today's statement by the opposition shadow ministry on the important measure that the government implemented several weeks ago to deny permanent residency to unlawful entrants who successfully claim refugee status. It is appreciated. It will be very important in sending an appropriate signal to people who are intent on travelling to Australia unlawfully and bypassing places where they can make asylum claims, or leaving situations where they are otherwise safe—breaching our law, engaging with organised crime. They need to know that they will not be rewarded by being given what is in effect a refugee place that would otherwise be available to people who languish in some of the most appalling situations and who are judged by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to be in urgent need of resettlement.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Genuine.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—People use the term `genuine refugees'. There are refugees who languish in situations where an urgent approach is required and there are others for whom durable solutions may take time and it is not necessary to make alternative resettlement arrangements in third countries. When you know there are something like 14 million people in the world who would be able to sustain a refugee claim, it makes it abundantly clear that you cannot run an immigration and refugee program with some credibility if you allow it to be overtaken by those people who simply challenge your border integrity and seek to come here and command, through that process, places that would otherwise be available for those that remain in such vulnerable situations.Unauthorised arrivals are smuggled here by boat. They come without authorisation; they come without invitation. They are not content to await formal processing and selection. They are, in words that have often been used by others, queuejumpers who undermine the integrity and public confidence in our refugee and humanitarian program and our immigration program generally. Some are forum shoppers who have tried to migrate to Australia and other countries before and had their applications refused. Some have even been granted refugee status and residence at times in other countries. But behind these people stand the figures of the people smugglers themselves. These are the people who trade in humanity, who seek to profit by arranging illegal entry for these people into a country of choice rather than being determined to immediately access a situation of safety.This bill will increase the powers of our border enforcement agencies to combat these intrusions into our country, into our territorial waters, and even into international waters where we might first encounter them. At present, people smugglers in international waters are immune to our laws and practise their trade with a degree of impunity. This bill will redress that situation by allowing our officers to undertake enforcement action beyond our territorial waters and to arrest and prosecute those involved in attempts to breach our sovereignty in this way.The amendments coordinate the search and intervention powers of a number of agencies that play interacting roles in protecting our borders from criminal incursions, be they from people smugglers, drug traffickers or other criminal elements. The bill ensures that the powers of these officers are complementary so as to give them flexibility to act in various roles in the performance of their duties and to enforce the laws of Australia as they encounter breaches of this law.The passage of the bill, of course, is crucial to ensure that Australia is not the unresisting victim of people smugglers. It implements the decisions announced by the Prime Minister earlier this year. The government has responded promptly and unequivocally to this growing and real criminal activity. I do ask that all non-government parties support us in our endeavours to combat this kind of international crime and facilitate the passage of this bill.Mr Slipper interjecting—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I appreciate that there is an element of goodwill here and I wish to encourage that. But it is important that the bill receives prompt and speedy passage through another place, that it not be delayed by reference to committees to try to delve into minutiae. Had this bill been through the parliament we might well have been able to go after and detain people who, over the last week, smuggled a group of Middle Easterners to the Ashmore Reef. They were left on one boat while the smugglers left on another. It is important that we are able to go after those people and detain them so that we can punish them appropriately.In the course of this debate I want to take up, briefly, a number of other comments that have been made. Let me make it very clear to the member for Batman that there has been a great deal of effort and planning on the government's part to respond to this situation. I note that the opposition has described it as a `national emergency'. That is not language that I have used. However, the dimension of the problem has grown over time. Obviously, I would welcome further and fuller discussion as to other avenues that can be pursued. I will foreshadow over the next few days measures that the government will be pursuing and which we will also want assistance from the opposition in passing. This is not endgame match at this stage: there is still quite a deal to be done, particularly in relation to identification of people of concern. In looking at every contribution that the opposition has made in this debate and before, and at all the public comments that have been made, I comb everything that they say to find one new idea that I can positively and constructively pursue.RH4KERRMr Kerr—What about all the amendments we are moving?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Your amendments are about minutiae and detail. If I find new ideas that are constructive in coming up with ways of dealing with this problem, I seek to take them up. As the shadow minister is here, let me say that the one idea that he has come up with is that Australia should have a coastguard service. The member for Lowe tried to pick up this a little by saying, `Well, resources have been stripped away previously and bodies weren't able to respond appropriately.' Those bodies were in fact responding as appropriately as they had over the years that the previous government was in office. The Prime Minister's task force on coastal surveillance has recommended appropriation of significant additional resources to ensure that those bodies are able to implement the measures outlined in this bill.The important point I want to make is that it does not matter what name you give to the service that identifies and enables you to interdict vessels. Australia has been particularly unique in its ability to identify and interdict vessels before they arrive here. Over a space of many years and hundreds of arrivals, we have only had about five vessels which have landed people clandestinely. When you deal with that fact—and all of the people who have landed, except I think for one individual, have been located and detained—we do not have a serious problem. I know that from time to time there are people who go out there and say that there are people swimming over the beaches at Bondi Beach. One of your former colleagues, the former member for Kalgoorlie, Graeme Campbell, used to say there were 400,000 Vietnamese in Cabramatta and they had got there clandestinely.There are people who believe these things, but the fact is that during a year we locate something like 14,000 people who are in Australia unlawfully. We believe there are about 50,000 people unlawfully in Australia at any point in time. When we locate those people—and we are talking about more than 20 per cent—we debrief them to find out how they came here, whether it was by plane or whether they were stowaways, and what travel documents they used. The only groups of people that we find in that process are stowaways—very small in number, I might say—overstayers or people who have breached visa conditions. Of those people who have arrived clandestinely by boat we have never yet been unable to identify when and from where they came.If we had a coastal surveillance system that was ineffective and was not working—if we had had a thousand people, for instance, come over the beaches in the middle of the night somewhere in Australia—that would mean that one out of every 50 people that we located would be illegal. If that was occurring, during a year we would have found something in the order of 200 people who had arrived in Australia in that way. It just has not happened. So this idea that a coastguard service would in some way improve matters or solve the problem of unlawful arrivals is very much misconceived.RH4KERRMr Kerr—But why are you putting extra money into a process that you say is working well?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I am saying that refinement of the process itself is important and the bill does that, but it ought not to be seen as a panacea in itself.Let me go on and deal with other matters that have been raised tonight. It is obvious that the Labor Party is having some difficulties internally in relation to this matter. That was exemplified by the comments of the member for Calwell. I will not have time to take up all of the matters that he has raised, but he spoke of the need for an international response with diplomacy and he argued for an international conference. At question time today I outlined the measures that the government has been taking to deal with these matters through the international community, through bilateral negotiations and through multilateral forums, and in that sense we are active in relation to those matters. We are not standing idle. I went to China during this recent recess of several weeks in order to ensure that we could continue to progress, on a bilateral basis, issues relating to the effective removal of people.I was surprised that the honourable member for Calwell seems to have picked up the mantra of some about the need to remove mandatory detention. I was surprised because the member for Calwell has served on many parliamentary committees with me over time and he was a member of the government that introduced mandatory detention. He participated in a number of reviews. He concluded that it should be maintained. To abolish mandatory detention and to replace it with some early release of people into the community without proper assessment of claims and without holding people available for removal if they have come to Australia unlawfully would send exactly the wrong signal in relation to unlawful entry.Can I deal with the arguments that have been raised by the member for Calwell as to whether or not the government's measure in relation to a temporary protection visa will in fact have an impact? It is important to distinguish what this government has done from the step that was taken by the former government back in 1990 when dealing, essentially, with the large number of Chinese students who were in Australia at the time of the Tiananmen Square events. At that time, the former government made a decision to grant four-year temporary entry permits to the Chinese students. It was in response to the former Prime Minister's comments on a television program. The implementation was by way of a four-year temporary entry permit. That was not going to require the removal of the students; it just left them in the community and extended their presence for the time being. Having implemented that decision, the government then decided to be consistent. So, for all other people who were here making asylum claims, provision was made for a four-year temporary entry permit.It was not some significant issue of principle as to whether or not temporary entry permits were right or wrong that led to its abolition; it was that the former government came to the view that it had to solve the problem of the Chinese students. When it moved to provide permanent residence for the Chinese students, it had to make arrangements for permanent residence for all of the other holders of a temporary permit. It was not some question of principle. It was not because it had not worked. It was because it was part of a belated political response in relation to the Chinese students and there was a need for some consistency. I am surprised the member for Calwell would raise that matter when he would well know that others would have some recollection of the events of that time.Why do I argue that the temporary entry arrangements are likely, over time, to have some impact? It is because most of the people who are arriving in Australia unlawfully by boat, undertaking what I acknowledge can be a hazardous journey, are essentially unaccompanied males. They are leaving behind spouses and children in the expectation that within our Refugee and Humanitarian Program, if they obtained a permanent residence outcome—RH4KERRMr Kerr—There must be some pregnant males in the camp.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—There are very few females. That is the case—very few.RH4KERRMr Kerr—But there are some.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Of course. I am not saying there are not some; I am saying in the main, and I use the words advisedly. The fact is that they have an expectation that their partners will be sponsored under the Refugee and Humanitarian program. They will take places from those who are vulnerable and those in situations outside of Australia who have an urgent need for resettlement and who are very likely to miss out because others who come by choice and do not necessarily come from the same circumstances are taking the places.This measure is important. It is part of a comprehensive package of measures. It meets the requirement of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of ensuring that people are able to be protected if they are able to establish a refugee claim, but does not go further to give a wider range of benefits. I thought it was important to put these matters into perspective. I will be moving some amendments, and I will do that shortly. There will be amendments moved in another place. If I get a chance to speak generally to those, I will elaborate at that time.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.12321Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.20:42:0012321Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I move:After clause 2, page 3 (after line 2) insert:2A Minister to ensure that new provisions are publicised (1) As soon as practicable after this Act receives the Royal Assent, the Minister administering the Migration Act 1958 must take reasonable steps to ensure that persons involved in commercial boat or ship charter are aware of the changes made by this Act to the Customs Act 1991, the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Migration Act 1958. (2) Despite subsection (1), a person's ignorance of an amendment made by this Act does not affect the operation, in relation to that person, of a provision of the Customs Act 1991, the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Migration Act 1958 enacted or amended by this Act.2B Reports to Parliament on actions under section 2A(1) The Minister referred to in section 2A must report to the Parliament on the steps the Minister has taken under that section. (2) The report must be laid before each House of the Parliament within the period of 12 months after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.The debate has concluded on the second reading and it would be profitless at this stage to try to re-enter a debate which has concluded. But I will take the liberty during this course to make a couple of comments in relation to the remarks of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The minister did say that the opposition had barely put forward any constructive ideas in relation to these matters. I find that slightly awkward for me to comprehend given that the dialogue between myself and the minister led to the series of amendments which the minister is to move shortly and which were agreed as a result of those discussions. Absent of those amendments, this legislation would have been significantly less well constructed and would have given rise to significant difficulties in administration. I will return to those matters when we get to the amendments to be moved by the minister.The minister has indicated that the government has been putting forward only a range of contributions which have gone to the edges of these debates. Far from it. It has been over a year since the opposition first raised the prospect of significant difficulties in our capacity to deal with border protection and since we first raised the issue of the adequacy of our coastal surveillance. If the minister is content with five or more instances where boats have landed and where the first point of apprehension has been through the surveillance of civilians—screen keepers or roo shooters and the like—I take the minister at his words but say that he is very easily satisfied.The specific amendment that we are moving at this point incorporates an obligation on the minister to work to ensure that there is widespread dissemination of the information about these legislative changes and to report to each house of parliament on the steps which have been taken to do so. This reflects recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission report Confiscation that counts: a review of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987, which recommended that the business sector should be provided with information which would allow it to develop effective risk management strategies for chattels which could be rendered forfeit.The government has not seen fit to take up this recommendation, but we believe it is a fundamental point that those who are most at risk of being affected by the intended changes should be made aware of the changes. These are very far-reaching provisions and they do have the support of the opposition, but we should not diminish what is involved here. I think this is the furthest reach ever put forward by a government of any country of a capacity to apprehend and detain vessels on the high seas and allow for their forfeiture. The range of vessels that can be forfeited and the circumstances in which they can be forfeited, as provided for in this bill, include circumstances where there is no actual fault of the owner—where, for example, the boat has been borrowed or leased or other arrangements of that kind have been entered into and the boat has been used in a manner which is not known to those who have possession or management of the boat.There are not only domestic interests but also international investors that will be concerned about this. The insurance industry will also naturally be very concerned about it, because it will for the first time mean that there are new risk factors that have to be taken into account. I would have thought that it was a minimal requirement to ask of this government that, in promulgating changes of this nature which are so different from anything that has been applied in this country hitherto and different from anything that applies in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world, they be communicated to the publics that may be affected. (Extension of time granted)I understand that, when the minister responds, he will indicate that the government does intend to give widespread publicity to these changes. Of course, I do not wish to make any suggestion contrary to the minister's undertaking that he will not do so. But there is a public responsibility on this parliament that I believe should be discharged by saying that we accept our responsibility as the law makers to see the evidence of that through a report to this parliament. The dissemination of the information will serve two purposes. It will ensure that all people, particularly those who are involved with commercial boat or ship charter and those in the shipping industry, are given the opportunity to review their business practices so as to ensure their vessels are not subject to forfeiture because of the actions of their clients or business associates. Further, it will increase the deterrence element of the new scheme, because if this scheme is not widely known then obviously it has limited impact in its deterrence.The government has stated that one of the intended outcomes of introducing this new scheme is to deter people-smuggling. It only stands to reason that the more people that know about the legislation the greater its deterrence effects will be. So the amendments that the opposition proposes give effect to the view that I have put forward that there should be an explicit obligation on ministers who have the carriage of this legislation to ensure that the information is widely disseminated. In discussions with the minister, we went through the sorts of bodies to which that information should be disseminated. It is not a particularly onerous responsibility, and I do not understand why there is a reluctance to incorporate this in the legislation. Might I say, for information and to give a colourful example, that every time those people engaged in bareboat charters around the Whitsundays charter a boat to somebody they now risk the forfeiture of that vessel, should it be utilised for a scheme that is caught by this act, irrespective of whatever—FK6KELLYMrs De-Anne Kelly—I come from the Whitsundays. It is a lot of baloney.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—There is an idiot who has just joined the front bench and who is making an absolutely puerile and indefensible comment because she plainly does not understand the nature of this legislation. I am certain that the minister when he stands up will make clear that it does apply in those circumstances. It is precisely because it applies in those circumstances, and in circumstances where most people in the ordinary course of events would not have thought it would have applied, that we need to get that information out, because those engaged in those commercial practices will now need to take out special insurance because they are—Mrs De-Anne Kelly interjecting—RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—They are. Minister, there is a dopey person behind you making dopey comments. It would assist if you would dissuade her from doing so. These are issues that we have discussed together and, as I have indicated, the minister has not indicated any disinclination to undertake that course of public education but has indicated that it would be a new precedent that he is not prepared to enter into in an undertaking of this nature. I understand that that in turn was not a view that he particularly held, but it was a view that was reached for a whole of government reason. I think that is unfortunate because there are very good public reasons why there ought to be no excuses allowed for the failure of that public education campaign.These are changes of a sweeping nature. They are changes which have exactly the impact that I have described. They are changes which the opposition supports because of the underlying rationale for them, but they do change the nature of the commercial arrangements. It is not just those who are engaged in shipping and other transportation in this country that will be affected but those in other countries. If these provisions come to be applied to those who assert they were unknowing of them, and in fact were unknowing of them, there is obvious potential for considerable conflict and difficulties with our external relations. I commend these proposals to the House. We will be pressing those amendments at a later stage, but we understand that the legislation will not be held up because of disagreement over this particular point, given the minister's undertakings. (Time expired)20:52:0012323Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The shadow minister for justice and customs has been very full in his comments and has foreshadowed much of what I was going to say, so I will not elaborate in any detail. The government does not accept the proposed amendment requiring notification to airlines and the shipping industry and that I make a report to the House on these measures. However, I will ensure that the amendments are notified as widely as possible. I have no intention of exposing people to risk, and if there are people I should write to that the shadow minister would care to put before me I would be more than happy to add their names to my own list to ensure that it is as full and complete as possible. It is certainly my intention that it should be widely known. Members would know that, of course, ignorance of the law is no excuse, generally speaking, but from a policy point of view, when we are dealing with these important questions of people smuggling and the fact that the penalties are significant, it is important that the amendments to law that outline the wider range of circumstances in which interdiction is possible are widely disseminated.Amendment negatived.20:53:0012324Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 15:(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 24 (after line 18), at the end of section 261A, add:(2) Despite subsection (1), a vessel that: (a) was used or involved in a contravention of this Act of a kind referred to in that subsection; and (b) at the time of the contravention, was being used in the course of a regular public transport operation;is not forfeited to the Commonwealth if both the master and the owner of the vessel: (c) did not know; and (d) could not reasonably be expected to have known;that it was used or involved in the contravention.(3) In this section: regular public transport operation , in relation to a vessel, means an operation of the vessel for the purpose of a service that: (a) is provided for a fee payable by persons using the service; and (b) is conducted in accordance with fixed schedules to or from fixed terminals over specific routes; and (c) is available to the general public on a regular basis.(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 24 (lines 20 to 24), omit section 261B, substitute:261B Seizure of things used in certain offences(1) An authorised officer may seize a thing in Australia, or may order an officer to seize a thing in Australia, if: (a) the thing is forfeited under section 261A; or (b) the authorised officer reasonably suspects that the thing is forfeited under section 261A.(2) If an officer is ordered by an authorised officer to seize a thing under subsection (1), the officer may seize the thing.(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 25 (lines 15 to 19), omit paragraph (d), substitute: (d) state that the thing will be condemned as forfeited unless: (i) the owner of the thing, or the person who had possession, custody or control of the thing immediately before it was seized, gives the Secretary, within 21 days, a claim for the thing; or (ii) within 21 days, the Minister gives a written order that the thing is not to be condemned as forfeited; and(4) Schedule 1, item 10, page 25 (lines 21 to 23), omit the note, substitute:Note: Section 261F condemns the thing if it is not claimed within 21 days, unless the Minister gives an order that the thing is not to be condemned as forfeited. Section 261H condemns the thing if a claim is made, but the claimant does not get a court order supporting the claim, unless the Minister gives an order that the thing is not to be condemned as forfeited.(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 25 (after line 23), at the end of section 261D, add:(4) A claim under subparagraph (3)(d)(i) must: (a) be in writing; and (b) be in English; and (c) state an address for service on the person making the claim.(6) Schedule 1, item 10, page 26 (line 3), omit "14", substitute "21".(7) Schedule 1, item 10, page 26 (lines 5 to 11), omit paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), substitute: (a) the following conditions are satisfied: (i) within the 21 days, the owner of the thing or the person who had possession, custody or control of it immediately before it was seized gives the Secretary a written claim for the thing; (ii) the claim is in English; (iii) the claim sets out an address for service on the person making the claim; or (b) within the 21 days, the Minister gives a written order that the thing is not to be condemned as forfeited.(8) Schedule 1, item 10, page 26 (lines 21 to 26), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) the Minister may give a written order that the thing is not condemned as forfeited; and (c) unless an order has already been made under paragraph (b), the Secretary may give the claimant a written notice stating that the thing will be condemned as forfeited unless: (i) the claimant institutes proceedings against the Commonwealth within one month to recover the thing, or for a declaration that the thing is not forfeited; or (ii) within one month, the Minister gives a written order that the thing is not condemned as forfeited.(9) Schedule 1, item 10, page 27 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection (2), substitute:(2) If, within the period of one month after the notice is given: (a) the claimant does not institute such proceedings; and (b) the Minister does not give a written order that the thing is not to be condemned as forfeited;the thing is condemned as forfeited to the Commonwealth immediately after the end of that period.(10) Schedule 1, item 10, page 27 (lines 16 to 24), omit subsection (3), substitute:(3) If the claimant institutes such proceedings within the period of one month after the notice is given, the thing is condemned as forfeited to the Commonwealth unless: (a) before the end of the proceedings, the Minister gives a written order that the thing is not to be condemned as forfeited; or (b) at the end of the proceedings, there is: (i) an order for the claimant to recover the thing; or (ii) if the thing has been sold or disposed of—an order for the Commonwealth to pay the claimant an amount in respect of the thing; or (iii) a declaration that the thing is not forfeited.(11) Schedule 1, item 10, page 28 (after line 20), at the end of Division 13A, add:Subdivision E—Minister's order that a thing not be condemned as forfeited261K Minister's order that a thing not be condemned(1) A power of the Minister under this Division to give a written order that a thing is not to be condemned as forfeited must be exercised by the Minister personally.(2) The Minister does not have a duty to consider whether to exercise such a power in respect of any thing, whether the Minister is requested to do so by any person, or in any other circumstances.(3) If the Minister makes an order under this Division that a thing is not to be condemned as forfeited, he or she must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a statement that sets out: (a) the order; and (b) the Minister's reasons for making the order.(4) A statement under subsection (3) is to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after: (a) if the order is made between 1 January and 30 June (inclusive) in a year—1 July in that year; or (b) if the order is made between 1 July and 31 December (inclusive) in a year—1 January in the following year.(12) Schedule 1, page 28 (before line 21), before item 11, insert:10A At the end of section 475Add:(3) A decision of the Minister under Division 13A of Part 2 to order that a thing is not to be condemned as forfeited is not a judicially-reviewable decision.10B Subsection 485(1) Omit "475(2)", substitute "475(2) or (3)".(13) Schedule 1, page 41 (after line 27), after item 56, insert:56A Subsection 271(4) (paragraph (a) of the definition of migration proceedings )After "court", insert "(including criminal proceedings)". 56B Subsection 271(4) (subparagraph (a)(i) of the definition of migration proceedings )Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (i) under this Act or in relation to an offence against this Act; or56C At the end of subsection 271(4)Add:Note: For offence against this Act , see subsection 5(1).(14) Schedule 2, item 29, page 63 (lines 22 to 24), omit paragraph (d).(15) Schedule 2, item 29, page 63 (after line 24), insert:(3A) The CEO may direct an officer to destroy, or move and destroy, the ship, or cause such thing to be done, if the CEO has reasonable grounds to believe that the ship is in such poor condition that its custody or maintenance by the Commonwealth would involve an expense that would be likely to be greater than its value.In addition, the government will be seeking to move further amendments to the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 in the Senate. The amendments that the government proposes to introduce deal with a number of matters. They will include statutory bars on protection visa applications and in some cases any visa applications by people who have dual or multiple nationalities and who have a right to enter and reside in a third country, and an accompanying discretionary provision for ministerial intervention to lift the bars in the public interest. This will ensure that Australia meets its protection obligations in circumstances where it appears that any person may not in fact have access to protection elsewhere. There will be an interpretive provision which will also make it clear that Australia does not owe a protection obligation to a non-citizen who, without a well-founded fear of persecution, does not take all possible steps to avail himself or herself of a right to enter and reside in another country, and a legislative definition of nationality such that nationality is to be determined solely with reference to the domestic law of a country in question.I am in some discussions with my colleagues in the opposition with a view to ensuring that a number of matters are issued and addressed. One of the matters is to make it abundantly clear that one of the issues—that is, the interpretive provision to ensure that people avail themselves of any other citizenship entitlement or right of residence—should not apply retrospectively. I want to make it very clear that, in relation to the matter in which there was some litigation involving East Timorese, from which I withdrew, there is no intention of any backdoor addressing of those issues by making a legislative issue to deal with the longer term retrospective to those who were involved in the litigation or those where I have lifted a bar to ensure that they can lodge refugee claims or those who have other applications that are presently within the system.I am anxious that this bill receive prompt passage in another place. Because the amendments that are being considered and that are urgently needed are to be considered by the government and the opposition party rooms, it is more convenient that the amendments be moved in the Senate.The other amendments that we have do incorporate suggestions made by the opposition and by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions since the introduction of the bill. In other words, after the government had some original ideas in relation to the way in which these issues were being addressed, the opposition was able to refine them. I understand that. What I was talking about earlier was the importance of coming up with some ideas about how the problem ought to be addressed—giving it some original thought rather than picking up some other people's views—and being able to find some technical defects and suggest ways in which they might be improved. Nevertheless, I take this opportunity to thank the shadow minister for justice and customs, in case I earn his enmity, for his valuable contribution to these amendments and thank him for his support on the issues.Amendments 1 to 12 are designed to address concerns raised by the opposition that innocent third parties be protected from the consequences of the automatic forfeiture scheme as proposed in the bill. The appropriate safeguards for innocent bystanders could have been established administratively; how ever, I do appreciate the opposition's concern and agree to move these amendments. The proposed amendments will provide protection to a master and the owner of a vessel used to carry unauthorised arrivals where the master and the owner did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the vessel was being used or involved in contravention of the act. I have in mind here a regular passenger ship or airline unwittingly caught up in a people smuggling operation, but only where they are regular, scheduled services and normally carrying fare paying passengers. (Extension of time granted)Further, the proposed amendments will restrict the exercise of power to seize forfeited things to authorised officers rather than officers and to officers on orders from authorised officers. The proposed amendments will also extend the time in which a claim of a forfeited thing can be made by the owner of or the person in possession of the thing from 14 to 21 days.Finally, the proposed amendments will introduce a non-compellable, non-reviewable power for the minister to order a thing not to be condemned as forfeited, combined with an obligation for the minister to report to parliament on any such orders made and the reasons for making any such orders. The government is concerned about the proposed amendment to exclude a vessel involved in a regular transport operation from the consequences of the automatic forfeiture scheme. I see this as a potential loophole, and I would not be surprised if attempts were made to use this provision to circumvent the intention of this legislation. However, I have been assured by concerned members of the opposition that I would have their support in revisiting this legislation should this amendment cause any unintended outcomes, and on that basis I have moved the amendment.Amendment 13 arose from suggestions made by officers of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and is designed to put beyond doubt the evidentiary provision contained in section 271 of the Migration Act 1958 to apply in the context of criminal proceedings under that act and certain provisions of the Crimes Act 1914.The purpose of amendments 14 and 15 is, of course, to clarify the circumstances under which the CEO of Customs can order the destruction of a vessel which is in such poor condition that the cost of its custody or maintenance would be more than the vessel is worth. This reflects the fact that in those cases where vessels have recently reached Australian shores they were almost invariably worth little more than their scrap value. I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum and commend the amendments to the House.21:01:0012327Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—In politics, originality is always in the eye of the beholder, and might I simply point out that the Australian Law Reform Commission report Confiscation that counts was actually commissioned by the then Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, or it might have been me when I was Acting Attorney. I certainly remember the issue arising. It is not just the current government that is anxious to ensure that those who engage in criminal activities should forfeit property which is used in the commission of that crime. I do commend the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for, having introduced his legislation, improving it by adopting those recommendations and suggestions that we brought before him in relation to this legislation.I think it is worth while making a few comments, though, on this matter, because it is plain that there is limited understanding of the nature and scope of this legislation, most recently evidenced by the comments from the member for Dawson. The truth is that these provisions now provide a codification of a set of arrangements that means that any person whose vessel, plane or other mode of transport is used in a set of circumstances which involves not merely people smuggling but the transmission of drugs and, in other associated legislation, offences against the fisheries acts will have that vessel forfeited. As the bill was first presented, that was the end of the story: there was no opportunity for any exceptions to be brought into that situation. So, if we go to the Whitsundays case that I mentioned earlier, if a person sold a bareboat charter to somebody they believed to be of impeccable character but that person let them down, the vessel would have been forfeited with no opportunity for that matter to be reviewed. It is only the insertion of these provisions which gives the minister a non-compellable capacity to exercise a discretion to not have that follow the normal course of law. We have also included provisions which will be useful in excluding from the automatic forfeiture provisions regular passenger vessel services. It does seem perverse to have an outcome, in the case of a large vessel which is used for regular passenger transport, where some member of the crew or an individual passenger, unbeknown to the owner or the master of that vessel, has misused the trust that was reposed in them, that that vessel is forfeited. The minister has, fortunately, agreed with that conclusion. As the minister has said, I gave the undertaking on behalf of the opposition that, were it to occur that in any instance arising we find that what we have inserted in this legislation can be the subject of any evasion of the provisions of this bill, we will certainly come back and assist him in amending it. But it does, I think, improve the way in which the legislation will operate that we do not get absurd outcomes where, because a passenger or a junior crew member of a vessel, unbeknown to the master or owner of that vessel, was engaged in either putting a stowaway on the vessel or secreting some drugs on the vessel, that passenger vessel, which is on a regular schedule conducted in accordance with fixed schedules and fixed terminals, is forfeited. I do not think that any person would think that that would be a course that the minister really intended. It simply clarifies that.So these particular changes are important and they improve the legislation. But I think it is very important for everybody engaged in the commercial sector to realise that the ground rules have significantly changed. The member for Dawson plainly does not understand that, and I suspect that most members of this House do not understand it. Even though we are passing this legislation today, I just do not believe that the total significance of this package is well understood at all. (Extension of time granted) I have a suspicion that members of this House, like the community in general, think there is still a fault element, that there must be some wrongdoing on behalf of the owner or master of a vessel, or of the pilot or owner of a plane, before it is forfeited to the Commonwealth. That is not the case anymore. This is strict liability. This simply means that the mere engagement and use of that vessel in these circumstances leads to its automatic forfeiture.The minister is given a power under these new provisions, however, which we believe will assist in the good administration of the bill, to say, `In the circumstances I was completely unknowing of this. I can establish my bona fides and it is unfair in those circumstances for my vessel that I chartered to these people to be forfeited.' But, I think it is very important in terms of the commercial realities for people to realise that I do not expect the minister to be exercising that discretion all that frequently. If you were to put in place proper arrangements for the security of your own business, if you are engaged in sea transport or air transport, you would be wise to look to your insurance obligations, particularly if in any circumstance you lease, lend or allow that vessel or that plane to be used by another. Indeed, you will find that you now have to take particular care with probity checks in relation to anybody who is the master of that vessel or the pilot of that plane to ensure that there is no attributed liability that flows through to you by actions or defaults of the master of that vessel or the pilot of that plane. This changes the law very fundamentally, and I do not believe the significance of this is widely recognised or understood. That is why I suggested earlier that there is a real need for a public education campaign, but also why it was important for us to build into this legislation some provisions which do allow, in those circumstances where it is plain that an injustice would otherwise be done, for the minister to have that opportunity to review an outcome which would otherwise be held by the community as a whole to be quite unfair. I am pleased with the cooperation that we did receive in relation to discussing these matters when they arose. I indicate that I am content for the minister to claim an original thought. I merely assert that his original thought flowed in a reasonably predictable way from the reference that we provided to the Law Reform Commission to deal with precisely this matter. I would like to conclude by saying that, between us, the government and the opposition have now passed legislation, or will be passing legislation when it concludes its passage through the Senate, which utterly transforms the circumstances in which property that is used in the commission of a crime will be dealt with. It is immensely important that that message gets out for commercial reasons for anyone engaged in business because, from the date of operation of this legislation, they face a very different commercial environment, particularly if they are the lessors of those vessels or if they allow chartering arrangements or they have arrangements where various masters take charge of those vessels. All those arrangements will have to be looked at, and I think people should be looking to their commercial interests and getting advice about those matters before they find themselves potentially in circumstances where their economic interests will be significantly affected. I am not suggesting that the minister would be cruel and capricious in relation to any discretion that he might be asked to exercise, but I do know that he would not intend that discretion to be exercised routinely. I think the matter of commercial interests should be taken into account.21:11:0012329Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—Just by way of summing up and, briefly, I do not want to join issue in relation to all of the comments made, save to say that the amendments are accepted by the government as an improvement to the legislation. In the overall scheme of things what we are looking for are constructive suggestions for sending very clear messages to people abroad about people smuggling into Australia. That is the main game.RH4KERRMr Kerr—What about drugs?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—There are drugs, and that is an issue, but in this issue of people smuggling it is the main game; it is the clear message. Additional ideas will obviously be welcome. There will be other matters that the government will bring forward, particularly in relation to the identification of people. One of the things that should not surprise people is that the identification issue is going to have to be addressed, when you have seen some of the footage of people on the decks of boats throwing away any form of identification they may have had, any information as to which countries they have been in previously where there may have been evidence that they had made claims or been given residency entitlements. It happens with such rapidity that it is an issue that is going to have to be addressed. Let me finally say that all vessels I am aware of that have been used for smuggling purposes have in fact originated outside Australia. So ideas that premiums might be significantly impacted on for Australians in relation to their vessels, I think, is somewhat remote, unless we move to a new field in which people are taking vessels from here to pick up people.Mr Kerr interjecting—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—It certainly does. The legislation is intended—and I am the minister who is carrying it for the purposes of the government—to deal with a wider range of issues for Customs and for Fisheries, as well as the immigration function. But it is in that context that I think it needs to be understood. As I say, I think the amendments are an improvement. I think the importance of the legislation can be gleaned by the support that we have obtained and certainly I hope that will be reflected in its speedy passage in the other place.21:13:0012329Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I will not prolong this but I say to the minister that, whilst I appreciate that his focus has been on the issue of people smuggling, the vast majority of instances in a domestic jurisdiction where vessels are likely to be forfeited under this legislation relate to the transportation of drugs. I think the message that goes out there is very important. I did give the instance of the Whitsundays, and I think that is a very real instance. You have a situation there where it is a routine exercise that bareboat charters occur, and I imagine it occurs in many other places in the country. Those situations have to be taken into account by the commercial insurers. Whilst I think it would be a rare matter within our domestic environment for there to be an issue overlapping your direct responsibilities as minister for immigration, I think there are very significant domestic consequences in terms of commercial interests and insurance.To conclude, there are also very dramatic conclusions in terms of the international environment on the same issues, and those are matters on which we have already indicated we believe it is important for the government as a whole to engage in a very quick program of advice. Otherwise I think that we will be in a difficult situation diplomatically, as people throw up their hands in horror at the draconian nature of these regulations and assert that there was no basis upon which they would know that we had exercised—Mr Ruddock interjecting—RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—If you would do that, because it might correspond with the list we provided you with in our discussions. I thank the minister, but I do want to make the point that this legislation covers issues more broadly than those he is currently wrestling with. I do not wish to diminish his concerns and his focus on those matters in any way; nonetheless they are much wider in their import, and I think he was a little too comfortable in terms of the likelihood that they would not have significant impact domestically.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.12330Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock)—by leave—read a third time.Bills12330r87912330Message received from the Senate returning the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1999 and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate.Bills12330s20612330Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop:That the bill be now read a second time.21:17:0012330Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I will address a number of matters today in some detail. To set the scene, a quick way of describing this Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 [No.2] would be to say that it is a waste of a chance to do something better, with quite ordinary ideas thrown in as well.Currently there is widespread and growing public concern about food standards, fired by a whole range of food issues. They include the government's mishandling of GM food labelling, proposals for meat pies without meat, applications for caffeine to be added to ordinary soft drinks, and sneakily overturning an Australia-wide 10-year ban on food irradiation and food hygiene standards, which suggests that sausage sizzles could be considered a national health threat.It does seem like a good time for some action to improve our food regulator but, by and large, this bill does not do much to address the growing crisis in public confidence. In fact, many witnesses to the Senate inquiry into this bill felt it would exacerbate and accelerate the crisis of confidence in our food regulatory system.There are some aspects of this bill that do seem worth proceeding with and that Labor therefore intends to support. There is nothing terribly startling, though; indeed, many of them have been hanging around on the Notice Paper for some years. The bill proposes a range of changes—some minor and some more important—to the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991. It also contains a number of provisions that we will seek to amend or oppose in an attempt to improve the bill.Before getting into the detail of the bill, it is worth looking briefly at how we have come to this point. I note for the information of members that this bill is identical to the ANZFA Amendment Bill (No. 1), introduced by the government into the Senate in March 1999. That bill was considered in detail by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. A public hearing was held on 25 June, and the report was tabled in the Senate in early August. For the government's own reasons, they have now chosen to reintroduce the bill into the House. I refer members particularly to the minority report tabled by Labor senators Chris Evans and Michael Forshaw, which covers well the range of evidence given and draws some sensible conclusions from that evidence. These conclusions form the basis for the amendments and improvements Labor will be proposing today.May I say that the minority report is a considered, useful document—quite unlike the government majority report, which sort of mentions the evidence here and there on the way through and then concludes, in 24 words, that the bill should be supported. There is not even an attempt at a rationale for not listening to the evidence presented or to relate the evidence to the bill. Not a single improvement was deemed worthwhile.As the minister acknowledged in the second reading speech, the bill tries to do a number of things. In particular, it implements some recommendations arising from a National Competition Policy review of the ANZFA Act in 1998, and it is a partial response to a few of the recommendations of the Blair review, which was handed to the government over a year ago, in October 1998. The review's correct title is Food: a growth industry—the report of the food regulation review, and I shall continue to refer to it as the Blair review. Broadly, that review recommended a move towards greater self-regulation in the food industry. However, I remind the government that the Blair review made 27 recommendations. This bill contains a full or partial response to only six of them. It does seem that this is a strange way to go about responding to a review the Prime Minister seemed to place such importance on. In some places in this bill, major changes to the power of ANZFA are proposed yet the government to date have failed to provide a holistic or whole of government response to the Blair review—which, as I said before, was tabled over a year ago. I note that we have been told that a proper response may now occur in December, and I look forward to that. I do think, though, that this general debate about the regulatory framework should be had before things start popping up in bills.I will now turn to the Senate legislation committee minority report. One of the terms of reference given to the committee for its inquiry into this bill was to consider the bill's place in the government's overall legislative framework relating to food standards and regulation. The committee found this difficult to do, as the bill is not based on any overall analysis of the best mechanisms for food regulation. It was found that the bill should have taken a more global approach and that the bill is not drawn from such an overall analysis that takes into account the impacts on the economy, agriculture, public health and consumer safety. Nevertheless, despite the fact that aspects of the bill are premature and it is a piecemeal response to the issues our food regulatory system and regulator are facing, this is what we have before us to consider.To give you a brief flavour of the comments made by witnesses at the inquiry, the Australian Consumers Association was scathing in their criticism of ANZFA for proposals to downgrade requirements for informative food labelling from an objective to a matter `the authority must have regard to in developing food regulatory measures'. The Dietitians Association of Australia were blunt in their view that paving the way for replacement of legally enforceable standards with non-binding codes of conduct was a regressive step in terms of public health and safety. The ACTU food unions are so concerned about the operation of ANZFA and these further moves toward deregulation that they have called for it to be scrapped and replaced by an entirely new regulatory authority with a genuine consumer focus. The Food Industry Council of Australia had criticisms of broad cost recovery proposals and the implications of fee for service approaches to the priorities of ANZFA. The Consumer Food Network fears that the bill's call for equivalent standards is code for continuing a trend for Australia to adopt the lowest common denominator around, whether for pesticide residues, herbicides or meat content. The level of public concern shown at the public hearing into this bill pointed to a disturbing lack of faith in the operation of ANZFA and the food regulation system in Australia. I was genuinely surprised, watching most of the proceedings of that committee, at just how much ill-feeling there is amongst consumer and health groups about the operations of ANZFA.Returning to the detail of the bill, as the minister noted, the bill amends the act in a number of different ways. Considering the evidence raised at the Senate inquiry around specific proposals would be a good framework in which to more closely consider these issues. I will turn firstly to standards and codes of practice. The current act provides only for the development of food standards. These standards become enforceable in state jurisdictions by reference to the food standards code once adopted by the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council, comprising Australian state and territory and New Zealand health ministers. The bill proposes a formal mechanism for the development of non-binding codes of practice as a supplementary form of food regulation to enforceable food standards. The bill replaces current references to standards in the act with the words `food regulatory measures', encompassing both standards and codes.A range of concerns were expressed by witnesses about the nature and potential uses of codes of practice. A code of practice would provide a lower level of regulation under which the authority would have little or probably no enforcement power. The requirement on industry to report compliance would be diminished. The Public Health Association of Australia raised the problem of ANZFA having no clear mechanism or requirement for the regular review and development of codes of practice. Questions were also raised about whether the increased use of codes of practice could open Australia to more challenges under the dispute settlement process of the WTO, which could ultimately have health implications.One major fear went straight to the heart of the growing mistrust of ANZFA and the government on food regulation. It was that things which are currently subject to binding food standards could and would be transferred to the less enforceable codes of practice. This would greatly reduce or remove the requirements on industry to abide by the regulations. Given some of the recent proposals by ANZFA—their opposition to the labelling of genetically modified food in the face of overwhelming public demand, proposals to allow meat pies with no meat, sneaking through food irradiation, et cetera—I can understand how the government and ANZFA have inspired this mistrust.Concurrently, the enforcement of such codes of practice as proposed by the amending legislation is likely to be less stringent than the current capacity to enforce food standards. Perhaps most importantly, it was observed that such codes appear to have no legally binding effect on industry and no enforceable jurisdiction. It was suggested that to get redress in legal effect the codes would be useless and consumers would have to rely on state fair trading legislation, the Trade Practices Act or the ACCC, which would prove administratively difficult, costly and time consuming. The problem is also that most of us do not take our lawyer shopping.It is Labor's firm view that a code of practice in the area of food regulation must not be permitted to substitute for a standard containing measures that protect public health or consumer safety. Rather, they should be used to articulate industry best practice in processing to minimise the chance of non-complying food being prepared. Labor has given careful thought to this proposal. We recognise that codes of practice are already developed to help with administration of the act and that by bringing them into a statutory framework, as proposed by the bill, there would be statutory consultation requirements which are not required under current arrangements. On balance, we will lend our support to this proposal, primarily as it makes the development of codes of practice more open and accountable and gives them a higher status morally, if not legally. However, we place the government and ANZFA on notice that we will be watching the use of this procedure in the future very closely to ensure matters are not transferred inappropriately from a legally enforceable standard to a non-binding code of practice. Many consumer and health groups genuinely fear this will now occur given the recent track record of ANZFA and the government on food regulation.The bill proposes new objectives for both the act as a whole and the authority when developing food regulatory measures. In relation to the overall objectives, a couple of concerns stand out. The government wants people to enjoy `equivalent public health protection in relation to food throughout Australia and New Zealand'. Labor listened to and agrees with many witnesses who appeared before the Senate inquiry that this language of equivalence is a worry. In fact, it may facilitate the lowest common denominator approach to harmonisation.We keep getting worrying signals in other areas that the government's current approach to harmonisation is to accept lower international standards for maximum residue levels—or MRLs—for pesticides in meat, additives to food, irradiation standards, GM labelling, et cetera. In such cases, aside from public health concerns, we would also argue that harmonisation moves do not always work in the best interests of our industry. Consumer confidence here and overseas in the clean green quality of our produce and standards has been hard won and should not be given away by lowering our standards now.Consumer fears about the government's approach to harmonisation are not unreasonably held. The World Trade Organisation Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures does not require a lowest common denominator approach to harmonisation; it merely encourages harmonisation and requires standards that exceed the international benchmarks to be based on a scientific justification or an appropriate risk assessment. Labor thinks `public health and safety' and consumer confidence should remain the priority and that consistency can be an objective, but only where it is clear that the price for harmonisation will not be a lowering of our standards.Further, the bill proposes that the objectives for the authority in developing food regulatory measures—codes or standards—should be protection of public health and safety and the prevention of misleading conduct, but that provision of consumer information is just a matter to have regard to. We do not agree that the lowering in importance of consumer information is acceptable and neither did most of the witnesses at the Senate inquiry. Consumer information, primarily through labelling, must be a key objective for a public food regulator in setting standards. Also, we feel that basing standards on the `best scientific practice' is a better protection than the proposed `sound scientific principles'. Our amendments will suggest some sensible improvements to the overall objectives and the objectives in developing regulatory measures to address the problems outlined.A range of proposals for cost recovery is contained in the bill. The proposal to allow refunds of fees to unsuccessful applicants was the subject of very careful consideration by Labor. Real fears have been expressed to us by a wide range of groups and concerned individuals that it could create a disincentive for ANZFA to reject applications which might otherwise be considered unfavourably. Can you see the government applying a charge-refund principle to many other areas of government? What about Immigration—this is very current at the moment—so that once the department feels that you have not met the visa criteria they refund part of your fee? That is not likely!On this occasion, we have moved to amend the provisions to include a non-refundable up-front application fee and to limit any refunds of processing moneys paid to `the sum not expended from the charge as is calculated in accordance with the regulations'. Refunds aside, in general, Labor will support cost recovery only where there is an `exclusive, capturable commercial benefit' to the applicant.Cost recovery that is too broad in the area of food regulation undermines the importance of a public regulator that prioritises public health and safety and consumer information. Such a regulator must not depend unduly for financing on the sector they are regulating when public health is involved. The government may otherwise use cost recovery as a way of continuing their cuts to ANZFA's core funding. I recall that there was a cut of revenue paid to ANZFA from $9.1 million this year to $6.4 million next year, with the staffing budget cut by around 27 per cent. There is no indication in the forward estimates of any likely improvement.While I am touching on the issue of ANZFA's core funding, Labor has maintained both publicly and privately for some time now that ANZFA's funding is inadequate. Labor senators asked a series of questions about staff numbers, staff budgets and the core budget during Senate budget estimates and did not receive clear answers. However, I now feel somewhat vindicated for maintaining our position as the government has acknowledged that ANZFA cannot do its job with its current resources.The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Grant Tambling, who has responsibility for ANZFA, admitted to the Food and Grocery Council in his keynote speech on 16 December that, one, the government was `currently in the process of trying to address the core funding shortfalls' and, two, the government was:. . . not looking to cost recovery as a way to address ANZFA's funding shortfall. It is clear that ANZFA's core funding is inadequate given its current workload.This speech has been helpfully placed on ANZFA's web site for members who have a further interest in these matters to read.It is not just Labor that has noted previously the lack of resources in ANZFA. The Australian Food and Grocery Council said in their submission to the inquiry for this bill that they continue to have:. . . grave concerns with a food regulatory system which is inadequately funded to meet its public good function . . .If you chat with officers from ANZFA or representatives of groups who deal with them often it very quickly becomes clear that ANZFA is underresourced and struggling to keep up with the work.It seems that on the face of it, provided fees and charges are not used for core work and are used only where there is an `exclusive capturable commercial benefit' to the applicant, or the fee will relate to matters already on the three-year work program in the second or third year and will work to have those matters processed sooner, but not so as to displace anything currently on the work plan—that is, extra resources would be paid for by the fee to do the work, thus there is no real detriment to the work program—Labor's major concerns and the concerns of industry and public health bodies would be satisfied. More limited cost recovery would be acceptable.If the embattled health minister needs a bit of support in his efforts to get some more core funding, if he thinks it would help him out, I am happy to write a letter to the Treasurer supporting his case that ANZFA's current resources are inadequate. I can provide him with a copy of the speech of his parliamentary secretary to outline that case. I thought that might help as the Treasurer is probably still a bit mad right now with the health minister as he adds up the sums and realises how much money has been blown through the MRI scandal. Maybe the radiologists will give a bit back and the minister could give that to ANZFA if the Treasurer lets him keep it.There is a proposal to allow the fast-tracking of some minor matters to avoid every minor variation of the code from having to come before the Ministerial Food Standards Council. I understand that the process proposed would be an approval by ANZFA subject to a 28-day opt-out period by health ministers. The current drafting needs to be significantly tightened and improved to ensure that contentious issues and issues the subject of public concern are still decided by the council. The lack of any criteria for determin ing what was a minor matter was the key concern raised by witnesses at the Senate hearing.Under the current wording, it would seem that applications made under an existing standard, such as applications to approve marketing for a particular genetically modified food and approvals for the irradiation of specific foods, could be made by ANZFA under delegation without going before the ministerial council. Similarly, something such as the current application before ANZFA to allow caffeine to be added to non-cola based soft drinks may seem like a minor matter. However, it may in fact have important ramifications for national dietary behaviour.Labor will support some limited fast-tracking proposals. There are certainly circumstances where the avoidance of delay is desirable and appropriate but not so as to allow contentious proposals objected to by consumer or public health bodies to be decided under delegation. The government wants to trim back public notice requirements for a range of proposals. The proposed watering down of notice requirements does not seem justified and will reduce the scope of the authority to do its consultation properly. Labor will move to amend the bill to preserve public notice requirements.The bill also contains a proposal, revived from a 1996 bill that lapsed in 1998, to establish an annual work program for ANZFA. We have listened to the Australian Food and Grocery Council and will be moving an amendment to allow the establishment of a three-year work plan for categories of food on which it is proposed to develop standards. This should give more certainty to stakeholders, ANZFA and the government when funding the authority as to what will be happening when. It will also give ANZFA a much needed ability to improve its resource management capacity to better carry out its functions.There is often confusion as to what is a food and what is a therapeutic good. This has long been a fuzzy area between the Australia New Zealand Food Authority and the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The most recent topical example is the utter confusion which has become apparent over the regulation of guarana, a natural substance that contains caffeine. I recall that the TGA amendment bill, passed with Labor's support earlier this year, went some way to clarify the interface issues. We support the attempts in the bill to bring about the uniformity of regulation and consistency. Whether it solves the TGA-ANZFA problem is another question, but we will be supporting the attempt.The cost-benefit analysis proposal arose out of Blair review recommendation 27. Labor does not support the notion that, in assessing proposed food regulatory measures, benefits to the public and public health should be weighed against costs. That is a very rough cost-benefit analysis. Some sort of fudgy balancing act goes again to the failure of the amending legislation to clearly prioritise public health and safety. That is not to say in any way that we support any unnecessary regulation. But the act must be unequivocal that public health is priority No. 1 and must not be peppered with little escape clauses from this fact.I also note that this proposal was the subject of some criticism at the inquiry. Indeed, the Public Health Association put out a media release after appearing at the inquiry headed `Safe Food Before Profits'. Let me read a couple of sections from that media release:The PHAA has called for the rejection of the proposed amendments to the ANZFA Bill, because they represent a further watering down of the food regulation system.It is difficult to comprehend the proposed amendments, which come at a time of unprecedented concern in Australia and overseas about the ability of the existing regulation to adequately protect public health.. . . the continued insistence on balancing public health and safety interests with business and trade interests, which are clearly not compatible, and the lowering of the priority given to providing sufficient information to inform consumers' food choices are of major concern to the Association.But it is really the title of that release which pretty much sums up the concerns of a range of public health groups about this clause: `Safe Food Before Profits'.Interesting points have also been made about the inherent tensions in our current regulatory model. To expand briefly, our current ANZFA model is charged with both public health and consumer as well as industry, trade and commerce functions. In many countries, these are split between departments to avoid the obvious problems that can arise. Particular conflicts of interest can arise while trying to simultaneously address consumer health and industry issues. We have decided not to adopt proposals which have been made to remove all trade and commerce functions from the authority. A clear case and alternative model were not made out at this time. This is beyond the scope of the current bill. Whilst these are not the issues that are before us today, they provide interesting background and food for thought on the model we currently operate under. The desirability of minimising these internal conflicts has helped our thinking in drafting improvements to the bill.These much awaited amendments are disappointing. They represent a piecemeal, unisectoral approach reacting to competition policy imperatives driven by short-term global food industry changes, which are changing again even as I speak. For population health and safety reasons and to ensure consumer and market confidence in Australia's food supply, food regulation needs to be underpinned by a wider vision than the accepted need for a uniform national regulatory framework to support industry efficiency. Where is that vision? Hopefully, it will be in the response to the Blair report as currently we cannot know what ideas are underpinning the government's direction.I have highlighted today and previously many examples of how public confidence in the regulator is slipping. Yet this bill does nothing to reverse that. I wish I could honestly feel that this government genuinely supports a regulator that places public health and safety and consumer information as the top priorities in food regulation. A well-regulated market gives confidence to exporters and the consumer. Then the playing field is level.Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope you will forgive me for my scepticism on this point. It is just that when you look back at meat pies, ANZFA's opposition to labelling of GM foods, despite overwhelming consumer and primary producer support, and the other examples I have raised previously, you begin to see a pattern of blatantly ignoring or paying lip-service but no more to consumer comment and views. I try to be more positive, but I am not greatly encouraged by the recent record.This history gives anyone good reasons to be wary about letting legislation like this through unamended. The Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 as drafted would simultaneously weaken ANZFA's objectives, give it more delegated power, soften public notice requirements, create greater dependency on industry for the regulator's budget and allow unenforceable codes of practice in place of binding standards.I have also pointed to the government's own acknowledgment that ANZFA's resources are inadequate. I wish the minister every success in finally trying to address that issue. I repeat our concerns that this bill is ill-conceived and premature. Neither the parliament nor the community can know the government's real agenda for food regulation until they respond properly and completely to the Blair review.In conclusion, Labor will be moving amendments that will improve this bill to an acceptable standard at the consideration in detail stage. I am hopeful after discussions with ANZFA and representatives of the government that there will be considerable scope to make a range of those adjustments. I still maintain that the issues that have been raised tonight regarding the types of concerns that have come through in this draft bill must be taken into consideration not only in the context of amendments, which I hope in the consideration in detail stage can be handled together, but also in terms of future attempts to resolve some of these problems in relation to food regulation.Now I close with some simple propositions. It is not good enough just to say that public safety is important; that is just rhetoric. ANZFA must be seen to be acting effectively to ensure consumer confidence. Labor supports international harmonisation where it would not weaken our own food standards, but we reject the lowest common denominator approach implicit in the government's language of equivalence. Labor supports an accountable regulator that puts consumer and public health interests first at all times. Our amendments and actions now and in the future will keep true to that final principle in particular.21:47:0012337Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—Australia is a great food producing nation. Much of our export income—the wherewithal to keep this country going—comes from food and we depend on that export income. The quality of Australian food has a reputation that none can match. Indeed, the Minister for Trade, the Hon. Mark Vaile, has this morning announced the finalists in Australia's export awards. Amongst them are many food producers. The reason why Australia is so popular as a source of food for the world is its clean and green environment and the reputation we have which other nations cannot match. In the regulation of food standards and qualities, it is a difficult thing to match the financial imperatives of producers with the need to sustain high standards and meet the economic demands of the markets in which Australia is seeking to place its goods.The combination of a quality standard that others cannot match, together with a competent, efficient, economically produced product is the goal of the Australian government. The Australian government has set out to meet these standards. Not before in our history has such a diverse attempt been made to bring together, from paddock to plate, the food regulation process that will guarantee a product of which we can be proud, for which there is great demand and for which there will be an ongoing economic benefit to Australians in the growing, production and manufacturing industries.For something of a background to this legislation, in 1996 the Small Business Deregulation Task Force under Charlie Bell of McDonald's included a recommendation for a review of Australia's food regulations. This was partly driven by Mr Bell's own experience with McDonald's where 600 identical restaurants were subjected to a different interpretation of food regulations in different parts of the country. Mr Bell rightly said that this was just too hot, too expensive and too disconcerting for any manager or producer. The Bell recommendations coincided with the decision by the ANZFA council of health ministers in 1996 to review the Model Food Act. The 1980 Model Food Act was meant to be a template for uniform adoption in the states and territories, but in practice, as we know, there are significant differences between the states and territories in food law. Every state, every administration and every government around Australia seem to think that the people within their state or territory deserve special attention, and unique laws have developed around Australia. Despite the good intentions of the 1980 Model Food Act, little gain has been made in the codification, uniformity and harmonisation of food laws around Australia.ANZFA was rewriting the Model Food Act, currently known as the 1999 Exposure Draft Food Bill. ANZFA was writing that at the same time as Charlie Bell was writing about food regulation and the cost of it to industry. Provisions in the 1999 Model Food Act made compliance with the food standards codes an integral part of compliance with the food act. The food standards code contains the new food safety standards, which require food businesses from paddock to plate to implement good food safety programs to be audited and registered with the relevant authority. There is a lot of regulation in this process. Some would say that these areas are regulated now through a multiplicity of processes. Therefore, this uniform approach in the 1999 Model Food Act is something that most people in the food industry are taking some time to get used to.In his March 1997 statement More time for business the Prime Minister announced a review of national food regulations by Dr Bill Blair. The key objectives of the review were to reduce the regulatory burden on the food sector and improve the clarity and certainty of food regulations while protecting public health and safety—laudable objectives and a difficult task. At the same time as the Blair review was going on, ANZFA was progress ing the development of the new food hygiene standards, later renamed the food safety standards. This was in response to a 1995 instruction by the ANZFA council to develop nationally uniform food hygiene standards for Australia. In ANZFA's first paper on the standards in September 1996, farms were excluded, but in a review of that in May 1997 farms were included in the paddock to plate approach. Bill Blair, in his examination of regulations, picked up the paddock to plate approach and strongly endorsed the new standards in his August 1998 report. He did acknowledge, however, that not all members of his committee agreed. I will refer to that later.When one looks at this process one would have to say that there are a lot of problems once you start to get to the detail. It is a complex process with not naturally consistent objectives running in parallel. It takes some working through to get them right. We have decided, as a nation, basically to run down a pathway where both the economic and the production export factors are considered along with the food standards; that is, safety in food and quality standards—the isotype measures. That is a very difficult thing to do and most countries have split this responsibility. We are trying to do it together and I commend the government for aiming for simplicity, for trying to make both exporters and consumers, here and abroad, happy.There appears to be a conflict between the food bill and the standards in the definition. Some of the definitions of `food' in the original sense seem to include live plants and animals. The definition of `handling' seems to include vehicles, silo sheds and saleyards. The words `paddock to plate' suggest that farms are included. There is no definition of `low risk indices'. There a number of problems with the process. There are already dozens of industry schemes, in horticultural and livestock industries, that address food safety. We are trying, in this bill, to draw some of these things together, to make a start. Bill Blair, in his report to the government in May 1998, concluded with these comments:I have been assisted in preparing this draft report by an inter governmental/industry/consumer Review Committee. However, the recommendations in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the members of the Review Committee.There was Blair himself, in charge of this review, saying, `We have a report but not everybody agrees with it.' I do not know what the status is of a report of that type. When you discuss these matters with Dr Blair he is full of enthusiasm, but the detail of what they are trying to achieve often seems to escape the conversation. His committee comprises Commonwealth government officials—there are about eight of them—New Zealand government officials and about 10 or 15 state government officials. There are a total of 37 government officials in this review committee of food regulations. The details of the report were presented to government.In response to that report there was an examination of the cost of regulations because Bill Blair rather left out what was the cost of doing all of the things he proposed. There was no evaluation of what the cost to industry or our exporters would be. So a study entitled `Overcooked: a study of food compliance costs for small business' was undertaken. That study was done in November 1997 by Price Waterhouse and was commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business. The inquiry collected data from seven different areas of manufacturing—smallgoods, dairy, seafood, bakery, integrated food preparation, preserves and fresh fruit and vegetables—and five different areas of retailing—supermarkets, delicatessens, bakeries, butcheries and restaurants—in an endeavour to find out the cost of regulation and whether anything could be done to reduce it, while at the same time lifting our food standards. Charlie Bell said the cost should be reduced. I know that this has been a matter of lasting interest to the Australian Food and Grocery Council. On behalf of the parliamentary secretary, I pay tribute to that council and to Mr Tony Downer for the contribution that this group of very interested people has made to the whole process of examining our food standards.When one peruses the report on assessing the cost of regulation, the food compliance costs for small business, one has to look at some of the food regulation pressures on small businesses. From local government there are zoning approvals, services and environmental health officers' standards on premises; from state government there are the EPA studies, the water authorities, the primary industry studies and the health authorities; from industry authorities there are the state industry specific authorities and the national industry specific authorities—for example, the National Meat Association; and from the Commonwealth government there are policy settings and health, primary industry, trade, ANZFA and regulatory enforcement by AQIS and others. We are starting to build a large source of regulations for small business. From the customer's point of view, there are specifications, audits and supermarket and fast food regulations.I refer to a page in the middle of the report where there is a table which gives the extent of regulatory burden by size of turnover. If one looks at those businesses with a turnover of $1 million or less, one sees that the average food regulation cost to them is about $3,900. It rises to about $40,000 for businesses with $10 million to $15 million turnover. For all firms across the small to medium business area, the cost of food regulation is about $13,712 per business. If you want to put that in other terms and look at the financial burden per employee, it runs out at an average of around about $532 per employee to regulate food in Australia in the way we do it currently. There are licence fees, inspection fees, test fees, capital expenditure and the firm's time all tied up in the process of this food regulation. Far from being a simple process, it is an expensive process.In the course of the study, Price Waterhouse found instances of inspectors in one organisation taking different interpretations of the same guidelines. I will just touch briefly on one case study where the operator of a small delicatessen had experienced:. . . several inconsistent and non-uniform application of the regulations, including:. Inconsistent approach to wearing of latex gloves by staff. This was attributed to the priority of one EHO and was not uniformly required and was not enforced.. Banning and then reinstatement of wooden cutting surfaces. Non-application of the ban to other (non-delicatessen) food retail and preparation outlets.. Separation of different meats and smallgoods products. Rigorously enforced in delicatessens but not in retail butchers.. Lack of flexibility and inappropriate technical advice from EHOs on cleaning and sterilisation of equipment, including meat slicers.. Undue use of regulatory authority and power by EHOs when conducting a suspected food poisoning investigation . . . . need for more time and explanation to adjust to new regulations and rulings . . . The list goes on an on. You feel for these people. You wonder however they can survive when they are treated in such a haphazard way.I decided I would have a look at this, so I went to a training day entitled `Establishment of improved supplier programs by one of our large suppliers'. I had a look at the hazard analysis critical control points in the food preparation and production line. There are seven basic steps in the HACCP program: hazard analysis; identify the critical control points; set the critical limits for each critical point; monitor the critical control points to see whether you are meeting targets and tracking events; establish corrective actions; verify that your hazard control system is working correctly; and set up a record keeping process. The booklet I received and the overheads and the training were very interesting. I can see the purpose of the HACCP program.But I have to say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl—and I am sure you come from a background where this would be easily understood—that the very strict analysis and record keeping that is proposed is something that is new to most Australian producers. I think that a far more effective—and I would think just as successful—process can be established with a little bit more thought and care. I am pleased to see that the government is taking care and time. It has very clear goals and is moving ahead, and I am delighted that that is the case. But not only do the goals of our export market in terms of quality have to continue to rise—and we are doing that successfully—and not only do the needs of the Australian consumer have to be consis tently met but we need to keep our primary producers in business. They must be able to meet those targets—those improved quality goals that we set them—and stay successful in an economic sense.Within the last few weeks I have noted in a fax that has come from the Australian Hotels Association, the Tourism Council of Australia, the Restaurant and Caterers Association, and the Council of Community Clubs of Australia-New Zealand a complaint about the process that the government and this legislation will apply to Australia. It reads:ANZFA's proposed food hygiene standards will cost each small food retail business thousands of dollars.The hospitality industry is committed to good food hygiene practices but we view ANZFA's proposed standards as unworkable and unnecessarily costly.These matters need to be considered. When I look at the press release from Senator Grant Tambling, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, dated 26 October this year, I am delighted to see that Senator Tambling is taking great care with this. I know we are going to get great results because it involves all governments of Australia in the results that we are seeking. Senator Tambling said:ANZFSC also discussed the proposed standard requiring the mandatory preparation of food safety plans and the Commonwealth proposal that this be subject to further studies and evaluation on cost and effectiveness, prior to a decision on its adoption as a national standard. It was agreed to consider this issue further at the next ANZFSC meeting.Ministers noted—that is ministers of all states, the Commonwealth and New Zealand—that the Commonwealth was proposing to provide some funding to support the evaluation of costs and effectiveness of food safety programs. It was proposed that the evaluation and associated work would be undertaken in consultation with the relevant industry and consumer groups.You could not find a more commonsense way of approaching this problem. He concludes that when we reach these standards, strangely enough they:relate to Australia only as New Zealand has its own safety standards. I would have thought one of the goals should be harmonisation between the two nations. It would be beneficial to everybody.Finally, Australia has set out a course which I think is beneficial. The government has a clear vision, unlike the mixed approach that seems to be taken by the opposition. It is not a process of deregulation. For large businesses, they have got a very firm, rigorous process and the standards are set. For small business we need black and white law and I think that that may be something that we need to develop. (Time expired)22:07:0012340Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—The Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 [No.2] is largely the same as the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 introduced into the House earlier this year. Since that time, there has been a Senate committee inquiry into the legislation which reported in June. This amendment bill falls a long way short of making any real changes that will benefit consumers or provide a better framework for the confidence of consumers to be strengthened. The issue of how food is regulated has created much concern and interest within consumer groups and for consumers generally. This should not be a surprise to the government. There is a lot of concern about the safety and quality of the foods that we eat, and particularly about how standards are regulated, monitored and policed.The government should also not be surprised that the same people are concerned about how this legislation will reduce their rights to a regulatory system that provides that safety and protection. We have seen over recent months, in fact over recent years, many reports from all parts of the world about the growing movement of people interested in ensuring that food and food products and their standards are adequately maintained. The reasons for this international concern come from a variety of health crises that have arisen from the poor control of international health standards and, as I said earlier, monitoring and policing in different parts of the world. This has also occurred in Australia.Situations such as those that have arisen with mad cow disease in the UK and the Garibaldi incident in Australia have done nothing to reassure consumers that our food chain is isolated or safe and is able to self-regulate. But the issue is about more than just standards and codes of practice. The debate has raged around issues such as the quality and quantity of meat in meat pies and food irradiation, as well as the problems associated with how to ensure a credible and meaningful system of food labelling in relation to genetically modified foods and how to ensure that public confidence in the food chain is not eroded, particularly in Australia.This bill puts forward a mechanism for the development of non-binding codes of practice as an alternative to enforceable food standards. Currently the act provides only for standards. The term `food regulatory measure' is used in the act to encompass both codes and standards. This proposal is workable and has the potential to improve the current legislation if the development of codes of practice is more open and more accountable. This will be an interesting development to watch in the future to see whether this procedure can ensure that matters are not transferred inappropriately from a legally enforceable standard to a non-binding code of practice.The overriding objective in the amendment that replaces the words `public health and safety' with the words `equivalent public health protection' is to create the potential for food standards to be developed on a lowest common denominator approach. This is typically what consumers are referring to when they say their confidence in the food regulatory system is being eroded with changes to this legislation. While some may believe that a self-regulating approach to food standards is workable and will produce better results for consumers, they are sadly mistaken.There is no evidence in the food, agricultural or associated industries that weakened standards will produce better outcomes. Some argue that these changes will reduce the cost to industry and thus result in cheaper products for consumers, but the great fear that many have is that weaker legislative requirements will lead to poorer practices and poorer quality. We heard the previous speaker talk at length about the cost to industry and how they are paying the price and how, if we can somehow reduce their burden and the complication of regulation, this will be of great benefit to the majority. This may be the case in certain isolated instances, but certainly not from a broader perspective. To put forward legislation that deals only with how this will benefit industry and make it simpler for them does not address the larger concerns that most of the community have about the quality of the foods they eat, the types of foods they eat and how they are dealt with by the industry at large. If ANZFA, the government or the industry are to convince the community and instil confidence with regard to these matters, then they have a lot of work ahead.Australia still enjoys one of the world's best and safest food chains. This is evident from our international reputation of being clean and green, although the consistency of this reputation has been placed in jeopardy a number of times. If we do not strengthen and maintain rigid regulation in this area, then this reputation will be eroded very quickly. Our ability to compete in the world market can be enhanced and strengthened over time only by our vigilant approach to food quality and standards both domestically and through our ability to provide to a world market. The world is moving further away from those unregulated markets and is looking for quality in foods that can be provided for markets such as ours. In the future, this will be where industry really does carve out its niche markets. In the end, this will provide Australia with a larger market for our exporters.To achieve this our legislative framework must have the necessary legal requirements. While there are a variety of standards throughout the world, our system of national standards should not be based on what others do but on what is best for consumers and what meets the expectations of our society. The World Trade Organisation Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures does not require, for example, a lowest common denominator approach to harmonisation. It merely encourages harmonisation and requires standards that exceed the international benchmarks to be based on a scientific justification or an appropriate risk assessment. While I am conscious of the international implications of this approach, I am also a strong believer that the lowest common denominator benchmark standard is just that—the lowest standard. It should not be the approach taken in Australia. It should not be the approach taken for our food regulatory system.Australia should not only meet these standards but exceed them to a point which is acceptable to Australian standards and expectations. It should be based not on what the world sets as the lowest point but on what we set as our own standard, our own benchmark—a standard I believe to be far above that which may be acceptable in other parts of the world. The World Trade Organisation and other similar organisations should be incrementally raising the bar on these current standards and bringing the rest of the world to a standard that more closely reflects the growing concern about quality and food safety.The basis of our approach should be one of best possible standard rather than minimum acceptable standard. Consumers no longer require minimum outcomes but demand absolute best possible practice in our health and food standards. This is widely applauded in many other industries and is pushed by many large organisations, which demand best practice of their management, their work force and their own outcomes. It should be the basis that we demand of our own. In particular, this should be the standard in determining food regulatory measures that provide consumer information. It must be an objective, not just a `matter to have regard to'. In the age of information, we have come to accept nothing less. Information is the great equaliser that brings people of all walks of life and backgrounds to a common point. This is the point at which people are empowered to make their own decisions and can make choices based on good and credible information. At the end of the day, it is one of the single most important issues in this whole debate.There has been resistance from industry and manufacturers regarding the provision of information—or more information or better information—and there is an argument that it costs too much. But the truth is that costs have not been driven by the provision of accurate and credible information or by the provision of better labels. This represents only a fragment of the total cost of any product. As we have seen in countries where further information has been required by law, the retail prices of those products were not affected by the perceived increased costs of providing the necessary information. There have been some dubious reports in recent times as to the expected cost to the Australian industry that would be borne by the manufacturers and ultimately passed on to consumers if this were to be the case in Australia. I do not believe that there is evidence to prove this. In fact, I believe that much of the work required to provide the sort of credible and meaningful information on labels that we would expect can be provided at a minimal cost because it is already a requirement on many labels.While trade and commercial considerations can also be used in developing food regulatory measures, they must not be used as an objective more important than consumer information. To base standards on the best scientific practice is currently far better than to base them on the proposed `sound scientific principles' contained in the amendments. The concept that `sound scientific principles' will do is another example of the diminishing standards that consumers are not prepared to accept. Surely, when it comes to what we put on our tables for our families, the principle of `only the best will do' must apply and, where it does not apply, it should be stated as such. Again, the benchmark and the level of the standard with which we approach this should be raised to meet these standards. It must be clear that best practice is the underlying basis of our food regulatory standard. As I said earlier, we require this in other domains: why should we not require this same principle in the area of food?The matter of refunding fees to unsuccessful applicants raises a number of concerns that I believe need to be addressed. This proposal could create a disincentive for ANZFA to reject applications which might otherwise be considered unfavourable. There should be no financial disincentive for ANZFA to make any decision—favourable or otherwise. I do not claim that this would be the case, but I am concerned by any legislative framework which puts in place financial barriers to decision making, in particular with regard to food regulation. ANZFA needs to be free from these constraints and from possible speculation that may arise out of situations created by these impositions. The Monash Centre for Population, Health and Nutrition, in the Senate inquiry on this matter, noted with concern the `no risk advantage' to industry organisations whose applications to ANZFA are unsuccessful and the incentive for ANZFA to approve applications in order to secure its own budget. The Organic Federation of Australia regarded these factors as having dangerous implications.However, cost recovery can be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that it is achievable without the possibility of affecting decisions—be it perceived or real—and only where there is an exclusive capturable commercial benefit to the applicant. Cost recovery that is too broad in the area of food regulation undermines the importance of an independent public regulator that prioritises public health and safety and consumer information. It also concerns me that the government could use cost recovery as a way of continuing to cut ANZFA's core funding. This is of great concern, considering that there has already been a cut of revenue paid to ANZFA from $9.1 million this year to $6.4 million next year, with the staffing budget cut by around 27 per cent. These cuts do nothing to maintain confidence in the ability of the regulator to deliver the type of system expected by consumers. The cuts to funding, at the same time as proposed legislative changes that reduce the powers of ANZFA to control food safety standards, raise more questions of concern regarding the direction of the government, the industry and the authority.On the other hand, giving ANZFA some discretion to deal with minor matters or creating a fast-tracking process to avoid every minor variation to the code from coming before the Ministerial Food Standards Council are proposals that have some merit. However, the drafting of the amendments needs to be significantly tightened to ensure that contentious issues and issues that are the subject of public concern are still decided by the council.Improved procedures such as these can lead to better economic outcomes for the authority and should result in better management of the standards. With the current wording, applications made under an existing standard, such as genetically modified food approvals and approvals for irradiation of specific foods, could be made by ANZFA under delegation without going before the ministerial council. This is clearly not satisfactory and needs to be reviewed.The issues of genetically modified foods and food irradiation are clearly two matters that cause much concern in the community. While there are those who favour genetically modified foods and have no concerns about their introduction onto the Australian market, there are also those on the other side of the debate who vehemently oppose their introduction onto the Australian market. There is an even larger group of consumers in the middle of this debate who are more concerned about choice and about how we deal with ensuring that there remains a mechanism in place to ensure industry control. Part of this process means that all matters such as these must be answerable to the ministerial council.The proposed amending legislation puts forward the notion that, in assessing proposed food regulatory measures, benefits to the public and public health should be weighed somehow against costs. This is clearly not acceptable and demonstrates the government's unrepresentative approach to the issue of cost-benefit analysis. Again this goes to the failure of the amending legislation to clearly prioritise public health and safety, which should be at the centre and which should be the underlying principle on which all the amendments to this legislation are based. Public health and safety, at the end of the day, should be the underlying principle to these and all other amendments on food standards.The minority report on the amendment bill from ALP senators clearly pointed out that the majority report from the Senate inquiry failed to adequately reflect and address the large body of evidence that was presented when it concluded supporting the bill without amendment. This is simply not good enough. There is a strong message from submissions and witnesses that public health and consumer safety must be the primary concern of Australia's food regulatory system and that the system should be regulated by a clearly independent authority.Opposition senators, like me and like many in the community, are concerned that many aspects of the bill do not work to achieve the sort of independent food regulation that Australia needs in order to have confidence in our own food supply and to reassure overseas customers that our agricultural products are clean and green. In fact, they go as far as saying that considerable evidence was presented indicating that the bill will weaken rather than strengthen the current system.Earlier this year I ran an information campaign in my electorate of Oxley, asking people what their concerns were about the proposed changes to this legislation and what they thought about such issues as genetically modified food, the quantity of meat requirements in meat pies and a range of other issues. Out of that information campaign came some public forums and some other meetings, which culminated in a petition to this House. I was almost shocked at the response I got. We collected over 7,000 signatures in a matter of weeks—an unprecedented number, certainly in my electorate. What that highlighted to me and what it should highlight to this House is the level of concern out there.I do understand that there needs to be some tightening of regulations and a simplification of the legislation, but at the same time great importance should be placed on the level of anxiety out in the community. People are not confident that these changes will provide the best possible outcome. They are concerned that these changes are for the benefit of industry, big business and government—but not for the benefit of their families. This is the same issue that should concern all of us. If this legislation is about nothing more than simplification to provide less work or less burden for industry, then it needs to be revisited. It needs to be looked at clearly from the perspective of the consumer. Does this legislation provide the consumer with more confidence? Does this legislation provide the consumer with a greater ability to have trust in our system of labelling and in the complete food chain? Government should revisit this amending legislation and look clearly at the outcomes. (Time expired)22:27:0012344Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—The Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 [No. 2] embraces the recommendations of a number of recent reviews, including the Food Regulation Review, the National Competition Policy Review of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act, the Review of the Model Food Act and the Review of the State and Territory Food Acts. The bill amends the Australia and New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991 to streamline and clarify the role of ANZFA.The bill addresses the issues raised in the reviews in four major ways. Firstly, it creates objectives for the act to ensure greater public transparency and accountability, and clarifies the roles, functions and regulatory objectives of ANZFA. It also provides more flexibility and efficiency in ANZFA's consultation and decision making processes, including allowing the authority to tailor its consultation processes and to allocate more resources where there are significant concerns, while also providing it with the opportunity to streamline its processes for minor issues while still giving stakeholders an opportunity for input.It also enables ANZFA to implement and enforce new food standards, thereby effectively protecting public health and safety and preventing misleading and deceptive behaviour. It also addresses the reviews' conclusions by allowing ANZFA to direct resources to its agreed work program and to food safety matters which are of major public interest, and to charge for services which are outside this work program. Under the new legislation, the authority will be able to take on additional food standards work on a full cost recovery basis. The amending legislation will also enable the authority to meet its statutory obligations by ensuring that its appropriated resources are spent on issues of greatest priority to the community. Perhaps that was lost on the previous speaker, who seemed to suggest that something quite the contrary was behind the bill. These changes seek to address concerns regarding the length of time it takes the authority to assess, and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council to make decisions on, less significant applications and at the same time ensure that public safety remains the number one priority.The current legislation is excessively prescriptive and although it lays down a strict set of rules it does not necessarily lead to the most effective outcomes. The prescriptive guidelines do not enable the authority to effectively allocate its appropriated resources to applications and proposals concerning public health and safety and consumer protection issues.Debate interrupted.Adjournment1234510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1234522:30:0012345Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Tonight I wish to bring to the attention of the House the very worrying housing situation facing single Defence personnel. All members of the House will be well aware of the problems that the current government is having recruiting sufficient people into the Defence Force, despite a massive advertising budget. On Friday we saw in the Financial Review a leaked official minute outlining serious shortages in certain key positions in the Army.There are a range of measures that must be implemented to make Defence service more attractive to potential recruits. The housing position of single personnel is clearly one such measure. Over the past decade, the program to raise the quality of off-base housing for Defence families, initiated by Labor, has been spectacularly successful. The strong reaction from the service community to suggestions that the Defence Housing Authority might be privatised is evidence of this, and it has engendered government assurances of some sort. That success has, however, only served to highlight the unresolved position of single personnel without dependants who live on base. This is a matter that the current government has reviewed several times but has failed to act upon. As far back as April 1998, a special bulletin told personnel that a comprehensive review of ADF housing and removal policies had been completed. The stated intention of this review was to more closely align assistance to single personnel with that applying to their married counterparts. For single personnel, this appeared to raise the promise of improved housing options, matched by increased charges for their meals and utility costs.Subsequently we have seen the increased charges proceed apace but very little action on the improved housing front. In September 1998, Defence agreed to introduce a new classification system for on-base accommodation, to take effect from July this year. The results of this exercise are quite startling. The classification system has five levels. Level 1 is described as basic accommodation in transportable, prefabricated or dormitory style shared rooms. Level 2 is single-room accommodation of an older type, lacking common rooms, with only external access to toilets and shower facilities, excessively small rooms and often exposure to frequent airfield noise. Level 5, on the other hand, is single-room accommodation in line with general community standards. The stated policy of the ADF is to progressively move towards level 5 as an acceptable standard, with the priority being to do something about those forced to live in unacceptable level 1 or 2 accommodation.Clearly, we see that this policy is now in tatters, for reasons I will explain. Before I do so, let me cite the official data I obtained from the government on the distribution of current accommodation for singles across the five levels. This data was reported in Hansard of 18 October. Data was provided on 10,989 single personnel who were contributing to the cost of their accommodation as at 16 Septem ber. It excluded those undergoing basic recruit training or those absent on duty. Of the almost 11,000 personnel reported on, a mere 319, or three per cent, were living in level 5 accommodation—the eventual target level. On the other hand, 4,482, or 41 per cent, were living in basic level 1 accommodation and a further 2,351, or 21 per cent, were living in level 2 accommodation. This means that more than 60 per cent of single personnel are living on base in accommodation that is considered unacceptable by the ADF.On 27 May, the ADF told these personnel they would have the option from 8 July of moving off base, renting accommodation privately and receiving rent assistance from the ADF. This was a clear admission that the government was unlikely to be able to bring the level of on-base accommodation up to a satisfactory level within a reasonable time frame. However, the story does not end there. Just before 8 July arrived, personnel received an urgent signal saying that this measure had been deferred. They were instead offered a small reduction in the charge they had to pay for living on base. Again, the answer to my question on notice reveals the truth about these two measures. The minister told me that the deferred option allowing people to move off base and claim rent assistance would have cost the ADF $78 million. Note that this is only for those living in level 1 or 2 accommodation, not for all singles. On the other hand, the reduction in charges to placate these personnel is to cost the government a mere $8.2 million, a difference of $64 million. We all know the defence budget is under strain, and I have spoken in the House on two earlier occasions about the rubbery aspects of the defence budget figures. It defies belief, however, that Defence did not know in 1998 just how much it would cost to give those in unacceptable accommodation the option of moving off base. (Time expired)1234622:35:0012346Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise tonight to raise concerns that were raised with me by a constituent recently. Mr Greg Forder wrote to me on 26 October this year complaining about an overcharge that he had on his Telstra mobile account. He enclosed four months of accounts for reference and complained that he had had a long conversation with Telstra and they had basically refused to consider the matter. I thought at the time that this was a fairly standard constituent concern and that if I was to contact Telstra through their liaison officer I would be able to allay Mr Forder's concerns. But it did not turn out that way. When I contacted Telstra through their liaison department, who are normally very good and very efficient, I found that they were unable to help. The person there said, `Look, I'm sorry, I can't access that person's account because I am locked out of that account.' The reason for that is that the account is not actually a Telstra account, it is an account of a company called United Telecommunications. Although the account comes on a Telstra form which I have a copy of here in front of me, the only hint to the fact that it is not a Telstra account is in very small italics the words, `Should you have any queries regarding this bill, please call United Telecommunications 24-hour customer service inquiry line.'The fact is that, under an agreement with Telstra, anybody who purchases a mobile phone through Strathfield Car Radios and who believes they are actually connecting to Telstra is in fact connecting to a company that is a subcontractor to Telstra, called United Telecommunications. I have no problem with the fact that you may be connecting to another company or that through the deregulation of the industry there are many other companies involved in the market that provide competition, but I do have a problem with the fact that it is not publicised that you are not connecting to our largest carrier, Telstra. Apparently when it is marketed through certain companies from whom you are buying a mobile phone, it is marketed that you are connecting to Telstra, becoming a customer of Telstra and will have all the normal backup services that are provided by Telstra. It is not indicated to you at the time that you are in fact connecting to a company called United Telecommunications, without the backup.After some inquiries and some difficult communications, I did manage to get hold of United Telecommunications. They rang me back to say they had spoken with Mr Forder, that he was now happy and that the problem had been fixed. I was not quite sure that was the case so I rang Mr Forder. He had not heard from United Telecommunications at all, was still unhappy and was still convinced that he did not owe them the money as they claimed. In fact, United Telecommunications then went ahead and disconnected Mr Forder's mobile phone. As I said, we could not help Mr Forder through the normal lines of communication through Telstra, which was most disappointing. My senior adviser, Mr Barrett, rang United Telecommunications again, expressing our concerns about the situation. I did finally receive a call from an Emma Wilson, the Team Leader Customer Care at United, who rang to inform me that the problem had been resolved and that the amount had been written off. This was, of course, after Mr Forder's phone had been disconnected. I then rang Mr Forder who by that time had made other arrangements with another contractor and was very happy with the service he was getting and certainly was not using United Telecommunications. I want to make the point to the Australian community that they should be aware of whom they are connecting with and to raise the question of why Telstra are allowing subcontractors to run many of their mobile phone accounts without informing the Australian community and without informing customers that they are not being connected with Telstra but with another company. It is important, and I would like to see far more publicity given to the fact that these subcontractors are being used and that in many cases customers are not actually connected to Telstra and are not getting the access to the backup that Telstra normally provides. (Time expired)1234722:40:0012347Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Tonight is the first parliamentary opportunity I have had to mark in this place the first anniversary of my community's victory over the Kennett government inspired plan to put a toxic dump in Werribee. In my first speech in this place I made the following statement:As part of Melbourne's industrial west, the people of Lalor have always had to try harder. There is a sense of community and a fighting spirit often missing from the sleeker suburbs. That fighting spirit is now being called upon in a major community campaign to stop CSR turning the local quarry at Werribee into a toxic dump. There are only two reasons why Werribee has been selected as the site for this toxic dump: CSR wants to make money by filling its disused quarry with toxic waste and the Kennett government thinks Werribee is no more than a dumping ground because Melbourne's sewage farm is located there. But Premier Kennett and CSR are wrong.When the Victorian Premier turns to the west, he holds his nose and closes his eyes. If he opened his eyes, he would have seen the 15,000 Werribee residents who rallied to stop the dump. And by now he should be smelling the scent of a political defeat because this is a fight that Lalor, named for that great fighter against injustice Peter Lalor, will win.Just two days after I gave that speech, on 13 November 1998, CSR and the Wyndham City Council settled Supreme Court litigation between them on the basis that CSR would not further proceed with building the toxic dump. My community has recently celebrated the first anniversary of that decision. How sweet a celebration it was when by the date of the first anniversary the architect of the plan to put toxic waste in Werribee, Jeff Kennett, had been dumped himself—dumped by Victorian people weary of his arrogance and neglect of basic issues like jobs, health and education. I would like to record my specific congratulations to the heroes of the toxic dump fight, including Joanne Ryan and Harry Van Moorst, who led the community group known as WRATD, Werribee Residents Against the Toxic Dump.Government members interjecting—83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—I hear the interjections from the other side. It is most unusual these days to find a member of the Victorian Liberal Party who will defend Jeff Kennett, but apparently some are still rattling around. I would also like to pass on my congratula tions to the Wyndham City Council, which played a critical role in the campaign, and to our very courageous Werribee South farmers, led by Julian Menegazzo, who risked everything to ensure that the toxic dump did not come to Werribee. Tonight I not only want to offer congratulations but also would like to speak briefly about the legacy of the toxic dump campaign. In the Werribee community it has left behind revitalised community structures and a feeling of belonging. It has created new community leaders and inculcated an active version of citizenship. This local example has convinced me that local communities, properly resourced and with a sense of involvement and empowerment, can be incredibly creative in working together to find solutions to even the most difficult of community problems. One such problem, indeed crisis, in my community is unemployment. While this government is keen to trumpet the national unemployment figures, the national figures disguise communities like mine which remain in crisis. In my electorate the unemployment rate remains at more than 30 per cent above the national average—that is, in the most recently released ABS figures for unemployment by region, my community recorded in October 1999 an unemployment rate of 9.4 per cent—the worst regional result in Victoria.In the last 12 months, despite national economic growth, the unemployment rate in my area has increased. Beneath these disturbing regional statistics lie stories of even more acute disadvantage. The teenage full-time unemployment rate in my community in October 1999 was 28.6 per cent. In the suburb of Sunshine, the rate for October 1999 was 14.9 per cent, and that rate increased by 1.8 per cent over the last 12 months.If we are to address the problems faced by communities like mine which are not sharing the benefits of economic growth, we need more than victim blaming, job snob calls and punitive social policies dressed up as mutual obligation. It is time to think more creatively and to extend the concept of mutual or reciprocal obligation so that it encompasses government and communities working to gether to address local problems. I know my community has the capacity, given resources and given respect, to work in partnership with government to address the unemployment crisis. The question I would pose tonight is: does this government have the necessary vision to embrace such a partnership approach for communities like mine which are in real need.1234822:45:0012348Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise tonight to celebrate a very important anniversary for the Dunkley community. I was very fortunate to participate in the second annual Seize the Day conference put on by Monterey Secondary College and the group of schools involved in the Frankston Regional Development Through Schools-Industry Partnership Project. It is a fantastic occasion and initiative to be involved with. Thirty of our best and most full of potential year 10 students from the six secondary colleges in the greater Frankston area—Frankston High School, Karingal Park Secondary College, Monterey Secondary College, Mount Erin Secondary College, Patterson River Secondary College and Western Port Secondary College—come together to share ideas, inspiration and motivation to look to the future. These year 10 students are at the cusp of this delicious world of opportunities that is out there for them. But, as we explained to them over the course of the weekend, those opportunities do not land in their laps.The community that I represent is not one of those blessed with all the good fortune that seems to be conferred on electorates where there is a Liberal member of parliament. This is a very proud community that makes the best of the opportunities that are available to it. I guess that is why there was such an impressive group of individuals who freely gave of their time to be a part of the conference.Mr Greg Bourne, Chief Executive Officer of BP Australia and Regional President/Director of BP Amoco Australia, gave us an inspirational speech on Friday night. Also at the conference were Shaun Carney, Associate Editor of the Age and political writer, who was a student at the same school I went to—Monterey Secondary College; Ms Ingrid Maynard, Sales Manager, National Business Development Unit from the Australian Retailers Association, who talked about retail career opportunities; Ms Danielle Moss, currently working with the HIV Services Unit at the Victorian AIDS Council, who explained about social work and the careers that could embrace; Dave Nicolson, Manager, Learning and Development, BP Australia, who showed how the key competencies which are most successfully celebrated, like Meyer, are actually implemented in BP Australia right throughout their corporate structure; Andrew Scagliarini, Manager of Computelec, who talked about information technology career opportunities; and Karen Underwood, a curriculum consultant, who talked about opportunities in education and learning.All those individuals, and I, freely gave of their time to work with these 30 young people. We worked through our career paths—the good, the bad and the ugly—to explain some of the stepping stones that we went through during our lives. We worked through the key competencies and how they are applied in the workplace, and we talked about how young people can develop their kitbags of capacity that they can take to employers, to their private lives, to their faith or to their community service objectives to make them more able to take advantage of the opportunities that are there. We also talked about different intelligences and the tendencies, strengths and weaknesses we all have, the way we think and the way we approach different problems.The point of the exercise was to work with these young people at this important time of their lives, to talk about some of the choices that they will be confronting and how best to make a go of the terrific potential, skills and talents that they have. Over the course of the weekend, they showed a terrific capacity to meet and exchange ideas, to share their hopes and aspirations, to be frank about the sorts of obstacles they may confront, and to think about contingency plans, options and choices so that they can live a life that is fulfilling in the terms that they select and define—not those that are defined for them by somebody else.This is an initiative that I wholeheartedly support and pencil in every year as one of the most satisfying and meaningful things I can do as an elected representative in the Dunkley electorate. It is an initiative which I hope will continue. Heather Worrall, from Monterey Secondary College, is just an angel. She cajoles and brings together the resources to make this occasion a terrific event.I would like to congratulate all those involved in it, particularly the young students who came out of that weekend better equipped for the lives and the opportunities that are ahead of them. I would also like to pay tribute to all of the industry representatives who so generously gave of their time to make sure that the Seize the Day conference, in Kallista this year, was an enormous inspiration for all those who participated.1234922:50:0012349Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Media reports today record the United States President, Bill Clinton, urging the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to return the Parthenon marbles to the Acropolis in Athens. This follows Mr Clinton's recent visit to Greece. I first raised this issue in the House in March 1994 in a question on notice to the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Gareth Evans. Mr Evans replied:The Australian Government considers that the question of the return to Greece of the Elgin Marbles—as he describes them—removed from the Parthenon to the British Museum in the beginning of the nineteenth century, is a matter for resolution by the Greeks and British Governments. My Department has not made representations to either the Greek or British Governments, nor in Commonwealth or UN forums on this matter.I next raised the matter in February this year. I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer:. . . In what circumstances has the Australian Government made representations to the Greek or British Governments on the issue of the Parthenon Marbles.His answer was:. . . The Australian Government has not made any representations on this issue.Mr Downer's answer also exposed Australia's lack of interest, through most of this decade, in the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin. The Parthenon marbles, of course, are the world's most prominent issue for the return of cultural property. Nothing could be more important for the work of UNESCO and its treaties and committees on cultural property than to secure the return of the marbles to Greece.This is not an issue on which Australia needs to keep its own counsel. More than 300,000 Australians—many of them in my electorate—nominate a Greek ancestry. As the Prime Minister's rhetoric can attest, Australia has a special constitutional and historical relationship with Britain. Yet, unlike Clinton, Mr Howard did not raise this issue with Tony Blair at the recent CHOGM in South Africa. We do not have to remain mute, as the most significant cultural issue affecting Britain and Greece also affects Australia.Earlier this year 341 of the 626 members of the European parliament signed a petition calling for the return of the Parthenon marbles to Athens. Now our great and powerful friend, the United States, has done the same. Australia can have an impact and gain international respect for our stance, particularly at UNESCO. I suggest that, the next time a former Australian foreign minister, sponsored by his successor, stands for the Director-General's position at UNESCO, he should check the parliamentary record on this matter. An active endorsement of UNESCO's work on cultural property and the return of the Parthenon marbles will do no harm at all.I also draw the House's attention to an excellent new book on this subject, the 3rd edition of William St Clair's Lord Elgin and the Marbles.Government members interjecting—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I did not write this one. I am indebted, though, to Gough Whitlam for securing a copy for me, as I believe he has done for the member for Melbourne. We could not have had a finer courier in bringing this book to our attention. The book produces new evidence concerning two of the great myths of the marbles. First, St Clair produces the only known version of the second firman, issued by the Ottoman government in July 1801, under whose authority the Ottoman officials in Athens permitted the first removals of the sculptures from the Parthenon. This removal should not have taken place for, as St Clair writes at page 89:The firman confers no authority to remove sculptures from the buildings or to damage them in any way. On the contrary it seems certain that the Ottoman government, if they considered the point at all, only intended to grant permission to dig and take away . . . Legally, there is an increasingly strong argument for the return of the marbles to their rightful home. Second, St Clair dismisses the myth that the marbles have been well protected in the British Museum for all these years. I quote St Clair as follows:My researches have brought to light the facts of how, in 1937 and 1938, while in the stewardship of the British Museum, the Elgin Marbles were, over a period of at least eighteen months, and against the regulations then in force in the Museum, scraped with metal tools and smoothed with carborundum in an effort to make them appear more white. As a result, the historic surfaces of most of the sculptures were severely and irreparably damaged.This further strengthens the case for their return. The Parthenon marbles are an incredible work of Greek cultural significance. As Melina Mercouri once put it, `They are part of the soul of Greece.' They are also a powerful international symbol for the virtues of liberal democracy. They affect us all. They belong in their place of origin.1235022:55:0012350St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I must get the book about the Parthenon marbles that the member for Werriwa was referring to. I rise tonight to raise an issue that is of great concern, and that is the information that has been put out by Telstra about the Telstra MobileNet CDMA rollout which is happening in regional and rural Australia. It has been brought to my attention by one of my constituents that, due to some of the information being put out by Telstra, people may be making decisions on the purchase of these new phones based on incorrect information.I am sure the history of analog is well known to people in this place. Certainly in my electorate of New England people heartily took on the technology of analog phones. At that time, you were able to boost analog reception by the use of three-watt in-car or in-truck aerials and kits. What concerns me greatly is the information being put out by Telstra. I will read from a letter that has been sent to one of my constituents in the town of Uralla. The town of Uralla does not receive normal analog reception. The letter says:It is my pleasure to welcome you to a new era in mobile communications. Telstra's MobileNet CDMA Network is ready with comparable coverage to analogue and a range of useful advantages right now.The CDMA technology is not being rolled out in New England until the latter half of the year 2000. It is not, as it seems to appear in this particular letter, available right now.In this particular CDMA Mobilenet update dated 17 September, they also say:It is also important to advise customers where there is no CDMA coverage that the CDMA handset can operate using the analog network when in analog mode. The performance of the handset will be affected when operating in this mode and customers must be informed of this.My understanding of this particular matter, via the agents for these phones, is that the only advice they have received from Telstra is that the battery life will be more affected than the actual reception. We are finding with this client, particularly in Uralla, that, having purchased a CDMA phone, his phone does not really work at all.Having outlaid a vast sum of money for these new telephones, he is concerned that, as an electrical contractor with certain contracts with various government departments, part of which is that he must be in touch at all times as he was with his analog phone, he now finds that he cannot get the reception at all. He went back to his retailer and spoke with him about a booster kit for the CDMA phone to help it on the dual mode that it was operating on. He found out that no booster kits are available for the new range of CDMA handsets that are coming onto the market.It concerns me that, particularly in our area of New England and, I am sure, in other parts of the country, people are now buying these CDMA handsets—which are being actively promoted by Telstra—without the clear knowledge that the CDMA technology will not be rolled out into the New England region until late in the year 2000 and they are also being informed—and this was received in part of a letter—that the analog system is going to be cut off in January.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing12352The following answers to questions were circulated:12352(Question No. 865)86512352McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) Has either the Australian Government Solicitor or his Department been requested to provide advice regarding the application to vehicles operating under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme (FIRS) , established under the Interstate Road transport Act, of load limit signs or other instruction issued under a law of a State or Territory which purport to limit the maximum axle-masses, gross vehicle mass or gross combination mass at which all vehicles may use a designated section of carriageway, or a bridge; if so, (a) when was that advice requested, (b) by whom was it requested, (c) of whom was it requested, (d) to whom was that advice provided and (e) when was the advice provided.(2) Has advice been requested specifically regarding the application of such signs or instructions in a situation where FIRS vehicles are otherwise authorised to travel at axle-mass, gross vehicle mass or gross combination mass limits which differ from those provided under the law of a Sate or Territory; if so, (a) when was that advice requested, (b) by whom was it requested, (c) of who was it requested, (d) to whom was the advice provided and (c) when was the advice provided.12352Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I provide the following answer to the honourable member's question:It has been the general practice of successive governments not to disclose whether specific legal advice has been provided to government for the purpose of developing government policy or making specific government decisions, nor to make available such legal advice.However, I can assure the honourable member that the Government has received appropriate legal advice on issues relating to the operation of the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985. 12352(Question No. 882)88212352Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 25 August 1999:Does the Government have plans to encourage the development of a nationally integrated emergency service communications system, including the coordination of police, fire and other emergency services; if so, what strategy will the Government pursue; if not, why not.12352Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Government is introducing the Australian Secure Network (ASNET) system to enhance the national counter-terrorist effort. ASNET links the eight police services, relevant Commonwealth agencies and State Premier Department agencies by secure e-mail.I also refer Mr Kerr to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts' answer to the honourable member's Question on Notice No. 881, tabled on 22 September 1999, which gives details about Telstra's role as the national emergency call person (ECP) under the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999.Although the Government is committed to implementing appropriate initiatives in aspects of emergency services which fall within its jurisdiction, such as those outlined above, those emergency service communications systems, which link police, fire, ambulance and other emergency services, are the responsibility of the States and Territories. I understand that several States have their own integrated Government Radio Networks.12352(Question No. 898)89812352Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 September 1999:Have there been communications between the Federal and Western Australian Governments concerning the 1974 Convention on the Settlement of International Disputes between States and Nationals of other States since his answer to question 1349 (Hansard , 14 May 1997, page 3667); if so (a) when, (b) in what manner and (c) with what outcome.12353Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No.(a), (b) and (c)—not applicable.12353(Question No. 915)91512353Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Will CSIRO retrench 37 staff from the Forest Products Laboratory at Clayton, Vic as an outcome of the organisation's triennial plan for the period 2000-03.(2) Does Australia have a large and entrenched trade deficit in paper and wood products; if so, what reason has the management of CSIRO given for reducing research funding to the Forests Products Laboratory.(3) What are the details of the specific research projects that will be (a) terminated and (b) rescheduled as a result of the funding reduction.(4) Has the Minister asked CSIRO management to reconsider funding for the Forest Products Laboratory, if not, why not.12353Moore, 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) Forestry and Forest Products Clayton Laboratory is currently undergoing significant change as a result of the recent planning for the next triennium and the winding up of the CRC for Hardwood Fibre and Paper Science which closed on 30 September 1999. To date the following staffing arrangements have been put in place:. six staff retrenched in July 1999. seven term staff not to be reappointed when their contracts expire. twenty four staff identified as potentially being excess to requirements. Of these, two have been found positions elsewhere in the Organisation.(2) Yes. The trade deficit, however, is only one factor that is considered. All decisions about research funding are based on a judgment of the return on investment in R&D in one particular area relative to returns in other possible areas of investment. In doing so an assessment was made about the attractiveness of the research, which includes an assessment of the likelihood of the capture of the potential benefits from research, and the feasibility of doing the proposed R&D.Based on these criteria, the judgment was made that a reduced but more focused effort including some change in research skills and a closer alignment with industry partners would lead to a better return on investment.(3) The Program/Project structure in CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products has been reorganised to focus on the highest priorities in line with the available budget. The Division will close or significantly downgrade work in long term studies of timber durability (biodeterioration), wood science and adhesives and pulp and paper processing. The Division will complete or renegotiate existing contracts to meet its commitments. Projects have not been rescheduled.(4) No. The decisions that have resulted in reduced funding for CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products are the result of a rigorous research priorities process that CSIRO conducts every three years in conjunction with its Sector Advisory Committees which comprise members from industry, government and other research organisations. These decisions are the responsibility of CSIRO management.12353(Question No. 923)92312353Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Has his attention be drawn to recommendations of the Green Paper New Knowledge, New Opportunities and the effects on university research funding.(2) Is he able to say whether there will be massive funding cuts to the University of Western Sydney (UWS) and other young universities.(3) Is he able to say whether the cuts at UWS will reduce public funding for research by $2.3 million a year.(4) Is he able to say whether the cuts will (a) reduce the number of postgraduate research students at UWS from 700 to 200 and (b) make it almost impossible for postgraduates to conduct high level research in Sydney between Strathfield and the Blue Mountains.(5) Will the industry related research capacity of Greater Western Sydney (GWS) be eroded by the cuts. (6) Is he able to say whether the cuts will reduce the opportunities for a research career for residents in GWS.(7) What steps is the Minister and the Department taking to ensure that the cuts are not made to UWS funding.12354Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Discussion Paper on higher education research and research training, New Knowledge, New Opportunities, was released by me on 29 June 1999. The report does not make recommendations on university funding, rather it proposes a new funding framework for research and research training.(2) It is too soon to say how UWS, or any institution will fare in terms of gains or losses in funding. Universities will be able to determine their share of funding and the basis of their success in attracting and retaining students and generating research income.(3) There has been no cut to public funding for research. The proposed new arrangements in the Discussion Paper are budget neutral. It is important to ensure that the framework for higher education research and research training is right before considering funding issues.(4) (a) No. Existing students will not be affected by the new arrangements.(b) If institutions continue to provide a high quality research environment, they should continue to attract research students from their regions and elsewhere.(5) One of the aims of the Discussion Paper is to encourage more university-industry collaboration, and institutions will be rewarded for their efforts in attracting research income from industry and other sources. This should benefit UWS and other regional universities.(6) The University advises that only 54% of its postgraduate research students come from the Greater Western Sydney. Under the proposed new Australian Postgraduate Research Student Scheme in the Discussion Paper, research students will be able to move to any institution of their choice, and any region of their choice. The Paper emphasises student choice and flexibility and seeks to ensure that institutions are responsive to students' needs.(7) The Discussion Paper seeks to ensure that Australia has a higher education research and research training system that keeps pace with the global revolution in knowledge production and use, is attractive for research and development investment and provides opportunities for our best and brightest research talent. Universities will determine their own funding outcomes on the basis of their performance. It is envisaged that the new arrange ments will be phased in and particular assistance will be provided to those universities needing support in the transition to the new approach.12354(Question No. 934)93412354Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) Will the research budgets of universities be reduced as a result of the proposal in the Green Paper entitled New Knowledge, New Opportunities to reduce recurrent funding for Doctors of Philosophy (PhDs) to a maximum of 3.5 years; if so, by what amount.(2) Does the Green Paper propose funding for public or private research organisations which have a research management plan to train PhD students; if so, what sum is expected to be moved from university funding to the CSIRO and private providers of research.(3) Does the Green Paper propose the same level of recurrent funding for arts and science PhDs; if so will the differential in HECS be maintained.(4) Is he able to provide recent figures on the extent of increases in basic research funding, in real terms, in (a) the United States of America, (b) Canada, (c) the United Kingdom and (d) Japan, and how does this compare with the reduction in funding projected for Australia in the budget for the Australian Research Council.12354Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The reforms in the Green Paper are budget-neutral and will not result in lower levels of funding for research.(2) It is envisaged that all institutions undertaking research and research training including Bond University and the University of Notre Dame Australia, would be eligible to receive block funding on the condition that they furnish an acceptable Research and Research Training Management Plan and are listed on the register of bodies for the Australian Qualifications Framework. There is no intention that this be extended to other public or private research organisations.(3) Under the Green Paper proposals, the differential between science and arts PhDs would be maintained, funded through the Institutional Grants Scheme, until studies have been completed in consultation with the sector which identify the relative costs of research training in different disciplines. This is foreshadowed in the Green Paper. It should be noted that postgraduate research students in receipt of an Australian Postgraduate Research Student Scholarship will not be required to pay HECS under the new arrangements.(4) Based on recent international comparisons carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia ranks fifth overall in terms of government sector R&D expenditure and third in terms of higher education sector R&D expenditure. On both measures, Australia ranks higher than each of the four countries for which comparisons are sought (see table attached.) It is not possible to provide information specifically on basic research.Public Sector R&D Comparisons 1996-97CountryGovernment R&D as % of GDPHigher education R&D as % of GDPAustralia0.40%0.45%USA0.23%0.39%Canada0.25%0.36%United Kingdom0.28%0.38%Japan0.27%0.42%There is no reduction in funding projected for the Australian Research Council. The reforms outlined in the Green Paper for funding to the Australian Research Council, provide that the ARC's peer-reviewed funding programs will increase from $234 million in 2000 to over $283 million the following year.12355(Question No. 944)94412355Wilton, Greg, MPMr WiltonYK6IsaacsALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 September 1999:(1) Is a lease held by the City of Kingston over 1.554 hectares of parkland in Levanto Street, Mentone, Victoria, owned by his Department, due to expire in November 2000.(2) Is it a fact that the land, Chiquita Reserve, is used by local residents for recreation purposes and includes a scout hall.(3) Did his Department advise the City of Kingston on 4 May 1998 that it intends to dispose of the property at the expiration of Council's lease and that the City would be offered first right of refusal on the property.(4) Did the Council write to his Department on 2 September 1998 advising that Council would be unable to raise the estimated $2.5m required for the purchase and requesting the transfer of ownership to Council at the expiration of the lease so that the land may continue to be used as recreation space.(5) Has the Council's letter remained unanswered for thirteen months; if so, why.(6) Will he direct his Department to transfer ownership of the parkland to the City of Kingston Council for the continued recreational use of Mentone residents.12355Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. There is a 25 year revenue lease over this property that will expire on 29 November 2000.(2) Yes, the land is open to use by local residents. A small portion of the property is sub-leased by the Council to the Mentone Scout Group, formerly the 13th Mordialloc Scout Group.(3) Yes. The Department also advised that should Council not be interested in acquiring the property, it would be offered for sale on the open market in line with the Commonwealth policy on the disposal of surplus property.(4) Yes, although there was no mention of the estimated value of the property.(5) and (6) In view of the expiry date for the lease of 29 November 2000, a response to the Council was not provided until Defence had considered a possible strategy for this property. Notwithstanding, Defence should have acknowledged the letter. On 15 September 1999, Defence wrote to Council in order to commence discussions on the future of the property. A meeting was held subsequently between Defence and Council officers on 15 October 1999. Defence agreed to commission a valuation of the property to provide to Council for its consideration. The meeting also discussed the framework in which Defence has to work in relation to the disposal of surplus Commonwealth property. 12356(Question No. 956)95612356Crean, Simon, MPMr CreanDT4HothamALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 30 September 1999:(1) Does his departmental publication Exports of Primary and Manufactured Products, Australia, 1998, state that exports of elaborately transformed manufactures (Australian produce) in 1998 were $15 689 million.(2) Is it a fact that this represents an $868 million or 5.2 per cent fall on the 1997 figure.(3) When did this series last show a fall in these exports, in dollar terms.12356Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Yes.(3) 1998 was the first time a fall was recorded in this series since compilation began in 1978. The fall was mainly the result of the economic situation in East Asia, as foreshadowed early this year in the Government's Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement, 1999. East Asia accounted for 39 per cent of our exports of ETMs in 1997, and in 1998 was experiencing its worst ever economic setback. The contraction in exports to East Asia more than offset strong gains in ETMs exports to other markets in 1998, such as the US, Canada, the United Arab Emirates, the UK and Germany.12356(Question No. 958)95812356Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 September 1999:(1) Does the Danish Government maintain an Embassy in Australia; if so, (a) where, (b) when was it opened and (c) does it maintain other diplomatic posts or missions in Australia.(2) Will he make a public statement on the location of (a) the Australian Embassy in Denmark and (b) the residence of the Australian Ambassador to Denmark, including all costs associated with the (i) selection, (ii) purchase or (iii) renting of the appropriate premises; if not, why not.(3) Is he able to say whether (a) Australian exports to Denmark have reached the lowest point since 1995 and (b) Australia's trade imbalance with Denmark has grown to $381 651 million in 1998-99; if so, (i) why does he say in his answer to question No. 847, part 4 (b) that the decision to re-open Australia's Embassy in Denmark was made in the light of Australia's growing trade interests with that country and (ii) are such bad trade figures related to Australia's decision to close its Embassy in Denmark; if so, will he take action to station Austrade staff at the new Australian embassy; if not, why not.(4) What was the full cost to the Commonwealth, including all staff redundancy payments and costs associated with re-locating and transporting Australian diplomatic staff, of closing the Australian Embassy to Denmark and the associated residence of the Australian Ambassador in May 1997.(5) Can he provide a breakdown of the costs referred to in part (4).12356Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(1) (a) Denmark maintains an Embassy in Canberra.(1) (b) The Danish Embassy was first opened in Canberra in 1967.(1) (c) Yes. There is a Danish Consulate-General in Sydney, an honorary Consulate General in Melbourne and honorary Consulates in Hobart, Brisbane, Adelaide and Fremantle.(2) These details can and will be made available after the post has been opened and when the selection of premises has been made.(3) (a) Australian exports to Denmark of $77.49 million in 1998-99 were at their lowest level since 1993- 94.(3) (b) The deficit in trade with Denmark was $381.615 million in 1998—99.(3) (b) (i) A judgement on the prospects for trade was just one of the factors, albeit an important one, underlying the decision to re-open. Exports to Denmark reached their highest level—$221 million—in 1998. Exports were boosted by the sale of two fast ferries in that year. While no ferry sales occurred in 1998—99, Australian fast ferry companies remain active in the market and overall, we remain optimistic about future export growth, including in other areas.(3) (b) (ii) No. It is normal for trade figures to fluctuate. Austrade already has an office in Copenhagen, staffed by a Senior Trade Commissioner and three other full time staff.(4) As a result of the closure, there was a net saving in running costs incurred by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of A$1.3 million in the financial year 1997/98. Savings of A$5,501,189 also accrued to the Overseas Property Group (OPG) in the financial year 1996/97, achieved largely through the sale of the Commonwealth-owned Chancery and the Ambassador's residence. Local staff redundancy payments cost A$315,000, while costs of removals and airfares for relocating Australian-based employees totalled A$66,153.(5) See (4) above.12357(Question No. 959)95912357Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 30 September 1999:(1) Further to the answer to parts 7 and 11(b) of question No. 847, is he able to say whether, following the Howard Government's decision to close the Australian Embassy in Denmark in May 1997, the Commonwealth-owned (a) building which housed the embassy and (b) Ambassador's residence were sold after the mission was closed; if so, for what price were they sold, in Australian dollars.(2) If the building and residence were not sold, have they been rented throughout the period since the mission was closed; if so, (a) by whom, and (b) for what annual rent, in Australian dollars; if not, why not.(3) What was the full cost to the Commonwealth, including all staff redundancy payments and costs associated with re-locating and transporting Australian diplomatic staff, of closing the Australian Embassy to Denmark and the associated residence of the Australian Ambassador in May 1997.(4) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of these costs referred to in part (3).12357Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, both properties were sold. The Embassy sold in September 1997 for AUD $2.92 million, and the Head of Mission residence was sold in August 1997 for AUD $1.55 million.(2) Refer to answer (1) above.(3) This matter does not fall within my portfolio responsibilities.(4) This matter does not fall within my portfolio responsibilities.12357(Question No. 973)97312357Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 October 1999:(1) Did the Minister for Defence in an answer to a question without notice (Hansard , 23 September 1999, page 7870) following the fist week of operations advise that Australia had deployed 2468 ADF personnel to East Timor, another 987 person nel were serving on ships and that 282 personnel were serving from coalition partners.(2) On the basis of the answer, is Australia currently providing 92.5% of the INTERFET forces.(3) What will be the percentage of Australian forces deployed in East Timor when coalition partners have fulfilled their promised commitments.12357Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) No. Increasing international troop contributions have reduced the proportion of Australian forces in INTERFET. As at 19 October, the percentage of foreign forces was 27.5%.(3) Not all INTERFET coalition partners have finalised their intended commitments at this stage and so it is still too early to give a final percentage.12357(Question No. 1008)100812357Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:(1) Is he able to say whether the age pension is now locked in to increase with the CPI and to stay at 25 per cent of the Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE).(2) Has he publicly raised the idea of linking politicians' base pay to 50 per cent of the salary of Federal Court Judges.(3) On what basis is his suggested pay rise for Members of Parliament justified.(4) Will the Government consider linking pay rises for Members of Parliament to increases in the age pension and MTAWE; if not why not.12357Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Pensions are increased in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and benchmarked to Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE) on 20 March and 20 September each year. This Government legislated in November 1997 to keep the maximum single rate of pension at 25 per cent of Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE) with proportional flow ons to the partnered rate.(2) No.(3) There has been no suggested pay rise. The Government has not yet made a submission to the Remuneration Tribunal on the issue of Parliamentarians' salaries. Any member of Parliament may make a submission. The Remuneration Tribunal is an independent tribunal.(4) Refer to (3) above.