2000-04-103915REPS1553102000-04-10—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Delegation Reports155311553112:31:0015531McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Canada and the United States of America from 25 October to 5 November 1999. It was my first trip to America and Canada. Canada is an interesting country, similar to Australia, with a Westminster system of government and with its population concentrated on the eastern seaboard. It is an exporting country, exporting commodities, and it has a population of 30 million. Fundamentally, most of the exports go to the United States. So we see an interesting similarity between Canada and Australia.The Speaker of the Senate, Mr Gildas Molgat, was an outstanding figure and became a personal friend of mine. He spoke French and English fluently and, being a part of the Senate, was appointed as a senator and as the Speaker. He was an outstanding listener and enthusiastic about the cause. He had been in politics for some 37 years. Mr Molgat really is a beacon of light on what is good about the Westminster system both here in Australia and in Canada.The delegation visited the House of Commons. We might take a page out of their book—41 questions were answered in 45 minutes. Such matters as the budget surplus, airline ownership, unemployment and subsidies to farmers were raised in that short period of time. The delegation found that there was no support for a republic in Canada, which was an interesting side issue. English is the number one language, the second highest used language is Chinese and the third is French, which we found somewhat surprising. The immigration program in Canada brings in approximately 250,000 immigrants each year. There is an argument similar to the one we are having here in Australia about the indigenous people. The Inuits, as the indigenous people are called in Canada, comprise four per cent of the population, and the debate is very similar to what we have here. The impression I have of Canada is that it is a big country, bilingual and the influence of the eastern seaboard, as I mentioned, is paramount. The Canadians dislike America's political system because, they suggest, their politics are dominated by money, not the real issues.The delegation visited America. New York is a very interesting and vibrant city—I had not been there before. We visited the New York Stock Exchange—the `centre of irrational exuberance', according to Dr Alan Greenspan. This was a focal point of the delegation's activities in New York. One of the reports we had said that the USA provides 23 per cent of world consumption and is the driver of world economic growth. Consul-General Michael Baume was hospitable to the delegation and we had the honour of participating in events in the Macarthur Room, opened by the Prime Minister in July last year.We met Mayor Rendell of Philadelphia, who is the Chairman of the Democratic Convention. He was a very impressive figure and gave us an insight into the way in which the American system worked. We also met the Senate majority leader, Mr Trent Lott, the Republican member for Mississippi. Again, he was a very important and impressive political figure. He gave a lot of time to the Australian delegation and we were particularly well received. He argued the case for lamb imports and free trade. I think this further cemented the very important Australia-US relationship. We met Governor Ridge, the Governor of Pennsylvania, who is, again, another outstanding political leader in the US. The delegation was received extremely well. Governor Ridge could be the vice-presidential candidate for George W. Bush. We visited Fairfax County, a visit which demonstrated the importance of information technology and the changes in that particular area, similar to Silicon Valley. The delegation's visit to the Capitol building was historic. The delegation was bipartisan. It represented this parliament very well and had very high-level contacts in both Canada and America and cemented the goodwill between those countries in an outstanding manner. 12:36:0015532Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I would like to support my colleague the member for Corangamite and to record thanks to the leader of the delegation, the Hon. Margaret Reid, President of the Australian Senate, who did a magnificent job. Also I would like to thank Andrew Snedden, the delegation secretary, ably supported by Chris Fox, adviser to the President. I just want to touch on three main points to highlight the fact that, in America, it was very significant to observe the number of relatively young Australian men and women who are doing very well in the corporate world. During our visit to the New York Stock Exchange and to merchant bankers in New York, we saw participating in the upper management of major merchant banks in New York Australians occupying the seats of executive management. I felt quite proud about that. It was good to swap notes with those young Australians and to hear about their experiences and also their commitment to continue to contribute to Australia despite the fact that they are working over the next few years in America.In Fairfax County, which is one of the most dynamic economic IT areas of the world, it was absolutely fascinating to meet the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority and hear of their achievements. We noted that they had no tax support at all for their activities. It comes from the contributions of local industry and local government. They have a vested interest in ensuring that the value of real estate increases, because most of the local government revenue comes from the increasing rates based on the capital value of property. That said, when meeting with one of the industrialists in the IT area, we heard how it was felt that the Achilles heel of the economy in America—which is dynamic and burgeoning—was the shortage of skilled labour. There was mention of the fact that a young American graduate in IT who had no experience at all in the work force—not even a part-time job during college at McDonald's—was graduating and being offered $US60,000 opening salary with a $US10,000 cash incentive payment to sign on, such was the shortage. They were furthermore offering stock options—and perhaps a BMW thrown in—to recruit young graduates without any experience at all.Whilst it was interesting to hear that, it did cause me some concern because in Australia we have a number of outstanding young people studying information technology and we need them in Australia. The thing I fear most of all about America's burgeoning economy and their labour shortage—particularly in skilled areas—is that they will be offering green cards to our Australian graduates to recruit them from here. Whilst I am never against Australians getting experience overseas—that is a great thing—we have to be mindful of the fact that we cannot match those huge salaries and incentives that America's burgeoning economy is offering now and will continue to offer in the future. I foresee a problem for Australia in first of all ensuring that we have enough young Australians gaining skills and training—which is a very important issue for this country—and also being able to compete and ensure that the brain drain from Australia does not accelerate, and we finish up not being able to develop our own industries and businesses because our bright young people have succumbed to the temptation of the huge remuneration packages being offered.That is something that has caused me some concern, and I wonder whether we should be devoting more time and attention to expanding our efforts to increase training in Australia for young people and also offering some form of additional incentive to them perhaps in the early years of graduation to keep them here, rather than lose them forever to other parts of the world, particularly America. The contribution made by the speakers in the Canadian parliament was a real highlight. They went out of their way to ensure that the Australian delegation was received by key ministers. In my case I was particularly fascinated—(Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.Committees15533155331553312:41:0015533Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources, I present the committee's first report of its inquiry into increasing the value added to Australian raw materials entitled Of material value?: inquiry into increasing the value added to Australian raw materials, together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.RI4Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSER—Australia has historically been one of the world's leading exporters of minerals resources and agricultural products. However, we have all heard the argument that Australia fails to gain the maximum economic benefit from these raw materials. The claim made is that, by exporting our raw materials in unprocessed form, we surrender to other countries the opportunity to convert those materials into more valuable products for export. The committee wants to determine whether these perceptions are justified and, if so, what should be done in response.The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has asked the committee to inquire into the prospects of increasing the value added to Australian raw materials. I stress that the report I am tabling today does not conclude the inquiry. The terms of reference specify that the inquiry should commence with `an evaluation of the current state of value adding in Australia, and how that compares internationally'. This first report sets out some initial findings of that evaluation. The committee will now go on to examine the more detailed issues listed in the terms of reference for the inquiry. At this stage of the inquiry, our intention is to report on the current state of value adding in Australia and to stimulate further discussion. We therefore have not made formal recommendations to the government in this first report. Such recommendations will however be made in our final report.Australia has a number of advantages when it comes to adding value to raw materials. Processing industries can benefit from our relatively low energy costs, the generally capital intensive nature of those industries, our mature infrastructure and our stable social and political environment. Despite these advantages, the committee has so far received mixed signals on how successfully Australia is adding value to its raw materials.We are pleased to note that Australia's exports of processed raw materials—especially elaborately transformed manufactures—have been increasing at a rate well in excess of industry output. However, overall growth in the processing industries has not kept up with the country's increasing raw materials output over the same period. Although some processing industries have performed better than others, it appears that Australia has had increasing opportunities to develop these industries and may not have fully realised the potential benefits. The committee accepts that decisions to encourage certain industries must not divert national resources from where they can most efficiently be used. However, we still believe that there is much that governments and industry can do to enhance Australia's prospects of adding further value to its raw materials.We now want to get first-hand experience of the successes achieved and the challenges faced by the industries that are adding value to Australia's mineral resources and agricultural products. To achieve this, the committee will now undertake case studies of Australia's aluminium, magnesium, wine, dairy and grains industries. We will use those case studies to identify the drivers of successful value adding in Australia and the measures needed to overcome any impediments. As noted in our report, issues such as access to infrastructure in remote regions, business taxation, government project assistance, and Australia's greenhouse obligations have already attracted particular attention during the inquiry. Other issues which have been raised include: resource licensing and permit arrangements, environmental legislation, marketing efforts, assistance to local companies in identifying export and investment opportunities, protectionist trade policies in overseas markets, government policies in support of research and development, transport systems, and the ongoing reforms in the energy sector. The committee will be seeking advice on all of these issues from people involved in the five case study industries, especially in rural and regional Australia. Where Australia has been successful in adding value to its raw materials, we want to find out what has driven this success. Where Australia is failing to add value, we will ask: what is holding us back? I thank my fellow committee members for their assistance during this first stage of the inquiry, particularly Jim Lloyd who, in my absence, chaired the committee for much of the inquiry, and also the Deputy Chair, Allan Morris. I also thank our adviser from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Mr Paul Bellchambers, who was of great help to the committee throughout this first stage of the inquiry. The committee is particularly grateful, of course, to those people who have made submissions and appeared as witnesses at public hearings. We look forward to further public advice during the forthcoming case studies.12:47:0015534Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—It is with pleasure that I speak to the report: Of material value?: inquiry into increasing the value added to Australian raw materials that has been tabled just now by the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources. I think this report is a useful and important addition to the work of the parliament and in terms of the development of the country. At the outset I want to place on record my appreciation to the committee secretariat, ably headed by Paul McMahon, and the secretary of the inquiry, Mr Russell Chafer. I join my chairman in expressing our appreciation to Mr Paul Bellchambers, who has been on secondment from the department. To add a word about that, the use of departmental secondees to committee inquiries of this parliament is extremely valuable. This must be the fifth or sixth time I have been involved in such a case, and I have always found it to be a mutually beneficial exercise. They bring to the inquiry a lot of internal expertise and often the jargon and the mind-set, but they usually go away with a different perspective, and it certainly helps match up our inquiries with the way things are seen by departments. I thank the administrative staff, Gaye Milner and Lisa Kaida. Often we leave those thankyous to the end and miss them out, so it is important they be put up-front to make sure they are said. As we all know, without the staff, these inquiries would be of much less value.This is a valuable inquiry but it is not the first on the subject of adding value to resources. The topic has been around for a long time. It has been a matter of concern in the community, in the parliament and in governments for a very long time. This inquiry may well be different, because we have tried to take a different approach, recognising that inquires have been held previously, yet we still do not seem to have made the progress we would like to have made. The idea is to do a first report which lays out an analysis of where we are up to as a country, looking across various industries—primary industry, minerals and so on—and looking across the broad landscape and seeing what we are doing to lay a base for the next stage, which will be a detailed examination of some case studies. These will hopefully go into much more detail and perhaps meet the gap left by other inquiries, because normally an inquiry has to cover both and it is often perhaps too general. What we are trying to do here is to give the generalities at the start and then go into details of the drivers and the impediments of successful and unsuccessful resource value adding exercises. The ones we undertake next are with aluminium and magnesium—two extremely important metals. Aluminium has obviously been successful in its primary role, and magnesium is still developing. The wine industry, of course, has been a massively successful exercise for this country, but dairy and grain not quite so much. So by looking at those areas we hope we can give governments, the community and the parliament a much better insight into how we can improve, because improve we must. As a country we have valuable resources but, unless we can maximise those benefits to the country as a whole, eventually those resources run down; they do not last forever. How we value those and how we use those is extremely important.One of the issues that came up in the early stage of the inquiry was: what do we mean by value adding? (Extension of time granted) If we look at Bureau of Statistics assessments and those of other organisations, we find that there are a number of different instruments to measure value adding, and that there is quite some dispute as to what is meant by value adding. It is very difficult to get an apples and apples comparison. Part of the reason is: how do you value, say, resources? How do we take into account the iron ore in the ground as the start of an industry which ends up with the iron ore being exported? Technically, in all the measures we use the ore is not valued; effectively, it comes out at zero value. The value added to the product of that industry when sold looks on the surface to be very high. But, on the other hand, if you take a dairy farmer who has got a massive investment in his dairy farm, the value that he adds to that investment eventually looks quite small. So it is difficult to find a way to get over that; to be able to compare, say, a mining industry with a high-level processing industry in a way which is absolutely accurate. I think you will find that in this area people will debate the different issues and argue for particular measurements. But the reality is we do not have one which we can say fits all. That will be a cause of concern for us in the years ahead because it seems the various interest groups use the measures that best suit them. I should point out, by the way, that the discussion of that issue in chapter 2 is well worth examination. I hope we can get some responses to that chapter. If people give us more input we may go into that in a bit more detail and perhaps eventually make recommendations as to a more effective way. We will not get a perfect way, but there may be a more effective way.This report particularly looks at how we are going in the world, and the fact is that in many areas we are doing very well. For example, with alumina we feature very highly; we are one of the world's best converters of bauxite into alumina. But at the same time we do not do all that well with aluminium. We seem to work at various levels of the various chains. Probably the most disturbing things are the national comparisons of how we perform in the various sectors. We find that 2.9 per cent of Australia's economy is in agriculture, forestry and fishing—which, by the same, is the same as Canada—whereas the percentage for Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States is between 2.1 and 2.3. In other words, their sectors in those areas are smaller. That is partly because we export more than we use ourselves. But, switching to manufacturing, we find that 14 per cent of our economy is in manufacturing, compared with Japan, 28.7 per cent; the United Kingdom, 24 per cent; and the United States, 20.3 per cent. So there is a very serious gap between how much of our economy is taken up with manufacturing and how much is taken up with other activities. It is clear that we are much bigger in mining and quarrying than comparable countries.It is that inconsistency in our economic structure and balance that we hope to address. I would recommend that all members with an interest in this area encourage their constituents and the companies and organisations in their electorates to look at this next stage, and the case studies and the issues raised in this report, and provide a bit more information. This report is only as valuable as the eventual input we get. I recommend it to the House.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Forrest wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?15535Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKER, MrMr 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.155351553512:56:0015535Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Three treaties tabled on 7 March 2000—Report 31, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—The report I have just presented contains the results of the review by our committee of three of the treaties tabled on 7 March 2000. They are: the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel; the partial withdrawal of Australia's reservation regarding women's employment in combat and combat related duties to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, sometimes known by the acronym CEDAW; and amendments to the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonisation of Customs Procedures. We support all three of these proposed treaty actions. There were a number of other proposed treaty actions tabled on that day, 7 March 2000, but we have not yet been able to complete our review of these treaties. I have advised the relevant ministers that we intend to complete our reviews and report on these treaties as soon as possible.I would like to make a few remarks this afternoon about two of the treaty actions described in our report: the partial withdrawal of Australia's reservation to CEDAW, and the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. When Australia originally ratified CEDAW in 1983, the government of the day lodged a reservation which allowed the Australian Defence Force to exclude women from combat and combat related duties. This reservation reflected Australian policy and indeed the law at the time. According to Australian law, combat duties are declared to be duties `requiring a person to commit, or to participate directly in the commission of, an act of violence against an adversary in time of war'. In effect, combat duties involve direct face-to-face fighting. However, in 1992, the Defence Force policy was changed to allow women to perform combat related duties, so women can now be employed in 85 per cent of all Defence Force jobs; for example, as pilots and aircrew in the Air Force, as helicopter pilots and field intelligence officers in the Army; and as marine engineers and indeed all positions at sea in the Navy.The Navy now has its first female commanding officer of a ship, and women have been serving on warships for some time now. All three of Australia's services have women pilots. It is only a matter of time then before Australian women pilots emulate their American counterparts by being in hostile combat. Indeed, American women fighter pilots flew bombing missions over Iraq during the Gulf War, and the first missile fired in anger from an American FA18 during Operation Desert Fox was launched by a woman pilot. Her name is not given here, but she will go down in history. Like the United States armed forces, which we admire greatly, the Australian Defence Force has a policy that does still exclude women from situations which might involve face-to-face combat, such as in armour, artillery or infantry units, as airfield defence guards in the RAAF or as clearance divers in the Navy.It is interesting to note that even these barriers may be broken soon. The Defence Force is developing a competency based employment policy, as a part of which employment decisions will be based on ability and not on gender. This policy is going to be considered by the government over the next 12 months. If adopted, it will allow women to be employed in combat units if they have the necessary skills and strength. The treaties committee did not express a view on these broader employment questions, because they were really beyond our mandate. We did, of course, support the withdrawing of that part of Australia's CEDAW reservation dealing with combat related duties. This action will ensure that Australia's treaty obligations are aligned with our current law and policy.In this report we also recommend that Australia accede to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. It is clear that in recent years there has been an increasing number of attacks on the UN and associated personnel that are deployed in UN operations. The aim of this convention is to deter violent acts against UN personnel, by ensuring that those people who commit such crimes are brought to justice. Australia's support for this convention is really a logical extension of our commitment to United Nations operations. (Time expired)13:02:0015537Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—Three treaties have been tabled, and the Joint Committee on Treaties recommends that binding treaty action be taken on all three proposals. The three treaties are: the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, which the chair, the member for Wentworth, just alluded to; the withdrawal of Australia's reservation regarding women's employment in combat related duties to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, CEDAW; and the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonisation of Customs Procedures.Regarding the first treaty, the committee was told of the increasing number of attacks against UN and associated personnel deployed in UN operations. The examples included murder, kidnapping and attacks on premises in which UN personnel lived or worked. People who work with or in association with the UN deserve as much protection as the organisation and the international community can provide. Australia's support to the International Force East Timor is a notable example of our continued commitment to UN objectives. We also saw some of the terrible attacks on the UN headquarters there and on UN staff and support staff. The convention will help ensure that those who commit crimes against such personnel are brought to justice. This will help to deter acts of violence against UN personnel.In withdrawing the reservation to women in combat duties we will fall into line with Australian law and policy, which already prevent discrimination against women in combat related duties. The original reservation to women in combat and combat related duties was lodged at the time of the ratification—28 July 1983—because the ADF policy and domestic law excluded women from combat and combat related duties. However, since 1992 ADF policy has allowed women to perform combat related duties, which includes positions such as pilots, aircrew, field intelligence officers and marine engineers. But it is worth pointing out that women are still excluded from carrying out combat duties requiring a person to commit, or participate directly in the commission of, an act of violence against an adversary in time of war. So the support is a partial withdrawal of the reservation in line with Australia's treaty obligations under CEDAW but taking into account current domestic law and policy.The third treaty has to do with simplifying customs procedures. This one seeks to replace the original 1973 customs convention. The 1999 protocol restructures the convention by setting out consistent and transparent procedures, including reference to modern management techniques such as risk management, audit based controls and the use of information technology. It will also reduce the complexity of rules and establish predictable and efficient customs procedures. This will be to the benefit of Australian and overseas based companies seeking to engage in international trade, by reducing costs and delays. The 61 contracting parties to the 1973 convention are expected to accept the 1999 protocol. The document also reported that six of Australia's 10 major trading partners are members of the 1973 convention and can be expected to sign the 1999 protocol. Of the remaining four countries, Hong Kong and the Special Administrative Region of China are keen to accept the 1999 protocol; and Singapore and Indonesia, both members of the World Customs Organisation, are actively considering acceptance as well. This does not do anything to affect Australia's surveillance, quarantine, or drugs or weaponry laws or practices in any way. (Time expired)13:07:0015537Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to support the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report No. 31, which recommends, firstly, that the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel be adopted by Australia and, secondly, that the Attorney-General and the Minister for Foreign Affairs develop and raise for discussion in appropriate international fora proposals to strengthen the protection afforded to non-United Nations humanitarian and development assistance workers. The Commonwealth government proposes to ratify the convention because of an increasing number of attacks against UN and associated personnel deployed in UN operations. The convention would help to ensure that the perpetrators of such crimes against UN and associated personnel, including Australians working for the UN, are brought to justice. The Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel relates to a murder, kidnapping or other attack upon UN or associated personnel, a violent attack upon official UN premises, a threat to commit any such attack, an attempt to commit any such attack, and participation as an accomplice or ordering others to commit any such attack. The convention specifies various obligations, including that state parties must take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of UN and associated personnel, military police and other personnel must bear distinctive identification, host states must conclude an agreement with the UN on the status of the operation and personnel engaged in the operation and transit states must facilitate unimpeded transit of personnel to and from the host state. The UN and associated personnel covered under the convention include those engaged or deployed by the UN as members of the military or the police, other officials and experts on a mission to the UN and certain other persons, such as civilian contractors and persons belonging to humanitarian NGOs, authorised by the UN.To gain an appreciation of the real danger UN peacekeepers face in carrying out their duty, one need only read the report of the independent inquiry into the actions of the UN during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. This report detailed the tragic killing of Belgian peacekeepers that occurred outside the Prime Minister's house during the civil war. The Belgian troops guarding the residence were disarmed by Rwandan soldiers and taken to Camp Kilagi, where they were badly beaten and, after being separated from other peacekeepers, brutally killed. Those involved were not equipped, trained or staffed to conduct intervention operations, so there was no chance of assistance from colleagues. Mr Annan, who was the head of the UN's department of peacekeeping during the Rwanda genocide, demonstrated that he had learned from the shortcomings of the UN mission to Rwanda through his handling of East Timor's move to independence.The 50 Australian Federal Police peacekeepers who helped to supervise the UN sponsored ballot on 30 August 1999 began to urge the Australian government to consider arming them in the face of increasing intimidation by violent loyalist militiamen. In an event reminiscent of the dressing up of Australian journalists in Fretilin uniforms following their assassination in the 1970s, a UN worker found a gun, which had been planted in his vehicle, and was accused of pointing it at an Indonesian soldier when he handed it to police. In the town of Liquica, Indonesian police and military personnel were not only assisting the militias in an attack but also themselves shooting at UN vehicles and their passengers. Following the passing of a deadline for the Indonesian government to restore order, on 9 September 1999 UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, was forced to announce the evacuation of UN personnel and the 2,000 refugees who had sheltered in the compound. An evacuation was a better option than leaving these people vulnerable to those who did not respect the institution of the UN.All the signs show that, had this not occurred, the history over the last few months, with the successful operation of INTERFET from 19 September 1999, would have been quite different. The INTERFET force did not spread itself too thinly, as was the case in Rwanda, but aimed to cover East Timor through gradual expansion. It was indeed a tragedy that people in outlying villages died during the gradual expansion of the INTERFET mission from Dili but, in terms of safety of UN personnel, it showed that the lessons of the peril of leaving small sections of troops in dangerous situations had been learned. My reason for drawing attention to the contrast between the Rwanda and the East Timor operations is to refute a submission by Mr Abbott of Randwick received by the committee. The submission advised that adopting this treaty would involve Australia in lengthy litigation and that a better result would be achieved if closer attention were paid to the rules of engagement developed for UN operations. He mentioned, in particular, the need to ensure that these rules reflected the different circumstances and situations facing UN and associated personnel. The response from the states and territories to the convention has been positive. The ratification of this convention is supported by the United Nations Association of Australia, the Australian Red Cross, World Vision Australia and the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. (Time expired)13:12:0015539Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I am pleased to speak about report No. 31, which contains advice to the parliament on the review of several proposed treaty actions. These include a recommendation to ratify the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, a partial withdrawal of Australia's reservation to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women regarding women's employment in combat and combat related duties and a recommendation to the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonisation of Customs Procedures.The three treaty actions we propose today do not in any way threaten our sovereignty. One provides for agreement on the protection of United Nations staff working on UN operations around the world. The next provides for the partial withdrawal of a reservation that we lodged in 1983 to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women regarding women employed in combat and combat related duties. This partial withdrawal does not in any way indicate a change in defence policy but merely reflects the fact that over the past 17 years women have been trained for and are employed in a range of combat related duties in our defence forces. However, I must point out that Australia's laws and policies still exclude women from combat duties that are declared to be duties requiring a person to commit or participate directly in the commission of an act of violence against an adversary in a time of war. This situation does not in any way change—and we are not proposing that it should—but the fact is that women today are eligible to be employed in around 90 per cent of all categories of employment in the Australian Defence Force, except those directly involved in combat. The reservation withdrawal merely acknowledges a fact; it does not in any way broaden the current situation. I believe there are some very good reasons why women should not be employed in direct combat duties, and I would not support any agreement that proposed they should be.The third action allows for the 1999 Protocol on International Customs Procedures to replace the original customs procedures set down in 1973. Uniform customs procedures and guidelines make a great deal of sense. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Wentworth wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?15539Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—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.Bills15539R103215539Bill presented by Mr Andren.13:15:0015539Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The Amendment of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 Bill 2000 is aimed at enabling the Commonwealth through this parliament to amend the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, an act of this parliament, to ensure the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory cannot make laws which would require a court to sentence a person to imprisonment or detention for an offence committed as a child. As the Constitution provides under section 122, this parliament has that right and specific power. Only last week this House approved an amendment to that very same legislation, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. For what purpose? The federal government was quite happy to enable the appointment of junior ministers to an absurdly bloated executive in an assembly of just 25 in the most expensive per capita and overgoverned constituency in the land, yet it has not as yet formally moved against mandatory sentencing. Such are our priorities in this land of the fair go. Section 122 of the Constitution has been used before, most recently in 1997, when the Commonwealth, with the first Howard government at the helm, used this power to override the Northern Territory's euthanasia laws. I voted against overruling those laws because I believed they were good laws, because they had in place a very carefully constructed process by which incurably ill people could choose to exit this life. I wish now to vote to overrule mandatory sentencing laws as they apply to any person under 18 in the Northern Territory because I believe they are bad and unconscionable laws. I would prefer to include all mandatory imprisonment laws, Western Australia's included, but that is not yet politically achievable.This argument is not about states' rights but about what is right. I ask all Australians, including Northern Territorians who support mandatory detention for children and juveniles, to examine the facts, examine their consciences, examine the real impacts of these laws and seek a proactive response to these immense indigenous social problems rather than apply these reactionary, highly selective and counterproductive penalties. The people of the Northern Territory have recently indicated by referendum that they do not wish to proceed to statehood at this stage, further underlining the legitimacy of the Commonwealth to make laws or overrule laws made in or pertaining to the Territory. People who say that other states have mandatory laws and penalties should be reminded that they allow for appeals and are not laws that, by their application, if not their intent, selectively target Aboriginal offenders.If anyone challenges this, then tell me why the Northern Territory laws target specific property offences, including theft, irrespective of the value of the property but exclude theft where the offender was lawfully on the premises. Such an exclusion is the crime of shoplifting. Why would shoplifting be excluded? Anyone with a working knowledge of teenage culture knows that shoplifting is not an uncommon behavioural pattern. Indeed, I have known over the years of school students from very well-connected families who needed naught by way of material possessions but were caught shoplifting for the thrill of it. Under Northern Territory laws, such offenders would not be subject to mandatory detention, nor should they. Nor will tourists, kids from well-off family circumstances or perhaps the good burgher's wife in the Territory face mandatory detention for stealing a can of coke or a bottle of spring water, even if it is their second or third offence. Ways will be found to circumvent penalties for such transgressions.But that was not the case for an Aboriginal youth from Bagot community at Ludmilla in the Northern Territory who was sent to jail for 28 days as a 17-year-old adult, by Territory definition, for receiving a bottle of spring water to the value of $1 which had been received by means of a crime, namely stealing, knowing it to have been so obtained. Indisputably these laws are biased, unstated but very clear, if you scratch the skin, against the indigenous population. Why, even if it is the fourth, fifth, 10th or 20th offence, are we jailing for 28 days or even one day the young woman on this charge sheet from Argulluck Camp, Oenpelli, Northern Territory for receiving two litres of unleaded petrol worth $2, knowing it to be stolen? Why are we jailing any person whose need of petrol is a sniffing dependency? We are simply locking away the problem.Many millions of words have been written on this issue. I have been fielding many comments on my stance from around Australia and within my electorate. I would have far preferred this bill to come from the government or as a private member's bill from its own backbench. Perhaps it may still take that course if no progress is made in persuading the Territory to reconsider its laws. I would be quite happy to hand this legislation across to the government so it can introduce it, as it should, as its own bill. I thank those who have understood and supported my position. I also thank those who do not but have been prepared to listen to my point of view as I have listened to them. I speak of a gentleman from Bathurst who has been the target of break-ins and stealing by young Aboriginal boys, while an elderly woman from Orange rang me in fear because the young non-Aboriginal offender charged with invading her home is out on bail. Both constituents wonder what punishment will be enough to prevent such crimes. They both believe judges and magistrates are not tough enough, but they both believe that the magistrates and judges should still retain the power to decide just what any penalty should be. Others have strongly criticised me and vowed to withdraw their support. The National Party is doing its best to stir this opposition in the electorate, but I am prepared to defend my stance in any forum. The National Party would be well advised to listen to Peter Costello on this issue and attend to the real problems of rural Australia, such as fair access by farm children to the youth allowance and Telstra's services, rather than trying to topple an Independent. I ask opponents of my stance to put themselves in the shoes of parents of children convicted under these laws. How would you feel if your child was detained 200 kilometres from home for stealing chocolates, bread or glue to sniff?I want to turn to some facts that underline how fruitless, how unproductive and how counterproductive mandatory sentencing is. According to my information, property crimes have increased in Darwin and Alice Springs since the introduction of mandatory sentencing. In the Darwin region for the year ending June 1999, unlawful entry rose 48 per cent and reports of property damage increased 35 per cent. For the same period in Alice Springs, the increase in both categories was 21 per cent. These figures come from the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services annual report. From the same report, 88 per cent of perpetrators of home burglaries in Darwin are not caught.It is far easier to target offences in smaller remote communities, where the perpetrators are more readily identifiable. The rhetoric of mandatory sentencing, `tough on crime', might be superficially attractive to an electorate fed up with and fearful of home invasion, but the fact is the level of crime is not being reduced. But, critically, children are being summarily incarcerated, are being polluted by the criminal environment and are far more likely to continue that path once released. A study of charge sheets from remote communities shows a pattern of stealing or receiving food—eggs, biscuits or chocolates—or drink—mineral water or coca-cola—or petrol. Petrol sniffing, I am told, apart from numbing and destroying the brain, suppresses hunger. Yet these mandatory detention laws leave the magistrate or judge with absolutely no discretion at certain defined points in the offender's criminal record, no matter the triviality of the actual crime for which he or she appears. As men and women were sent here on convict ships for stealing a loaf of bread in 1788, so too did a young man from Nhulunbuy go to jail on 5 March 1998—210 years later—for stealing four slices of bread and some cordial.Victims of crime against property as these laws address should never be ignored. They are entitled to every safety we can deliver: meaningful crime prevention programs, restitution of their loss where possible by remedial action or in kind and, where appropriate, one-on-one meetings between victim and perpetrator so the consequences of such action can be understood. But mandatory sentencing does none of this. Mandatory detention in the Northern Territory achieves nothing for the sentenced or the victim, because it forces judges to sentence the most minor property offenders to jail or detention, with absolutely minimal diversionary programs available. Indeed, the Northern Territory Correctional Services says that the incarceration of young people has little positive effect. It said a decade ago, before mandatory sentencing, that the detainees learn from their fellow inmates how to become more effective in committing crimes.Under these mandatory laws, juveniles from remote Aboriginal communities are being sent to detention centres or jails for a minor offence, perhaps petrol stealing. Most have massive social, education, health and other disabilities, and many will graduate as criminals, because that is all they believe they now are. But they graduate still with massive social, education, health and other disabilities. What progress have we made for either the detained or the victim under that model? Of all young people incarcerated in the Northern Territory, 75 per cent are indigenous, and juvenile detentions have increased by 145 per cent since mandatory sentencing was introduced. Correctional Services expenditure in the Northern Territory has increased by 27 per cent to over $41 million since mandatory sentencing was introduced. One wonders if a 10th of that money were used for proper, culturally relevant diversionary programs, language courses, interpreter services and early intervention drug programs what would be the result. Over the next 12 months, as the inevitable wave of third offences hits the Northern Territory for 17-year-olds and above, according to the Territory definition of an `adult'—I should say that that is the definition of an adult for penitentiary purposes, not for other purposes—the cost of jailing will increase enormously. Seventy-five per cent of Northern Territory expenditure is paid by the Commonwealth. Surely, there should be a reappraisal of just how effectively this money is being spent on behalf of all Australian taxpayers. Much has been said in recent times about diversionary programs. Indeed, the Prime Minister is holding talks with the Chief Minister on such initiatives. I wish him every success. But diversionary programs must replace mandatory sentencing, not supplement it. The current Northern Territory laws as they apply to juveniles provide that diversionary programs are an option only if the offender is 15 or 16 years old, is being dealt with on a second occasion and is charged with a property offence. But a child who completes a program successfully will have this disregarded if they commit a further offence. A child will be sentenced without consideration of any previous success in programs, which completely ignores any incremental development that occurs in changing self-destructive or property destructive behavioural patterns.Currently, there is no residential diversionary program in Darwin for young people brought from outlying communities hundreds of kilometres away. I have a list, advertised by the Northern Territory government, of so-called diversionary programs in the Central and Katherine region. My advice is that only three—Holyoake in Alice Springs, the Titjikala remote community and the Tangentyere Council—have any semblance of a program operating. The five other communities listed say that programs have been cancelled, that they have had no referrals or that they are unaware of any program being in place. We often hear the argument that so much money has been thrown at our indigenous programs yet so little has been achieved. I challenge that. Some important headway is being made, and I particularly commend the current federal Minister for Health and Aged Care for his commitment. I think he has made an absolutely generous and genuine attempt to tackle these problems.Despite the enormous handicaps, how disproportionate is the achievement in the arts, sport and law, for instance, by indigenous people from just two per cent of the population when opportunities are provided and when these problems are proactively attacked? How more positive might the outlook be if the legitimacy and incalculable worth of the many facets of what is simplistically described as `Aboriginal culture' were genuinely recognised and honoured and truly nurtured, beginning with the Commonwealth restoring funding for bilingual education programs? Let us also have diversionary programs, but let us first and foremost have justice in our legal system for all. No amount of diversionary programs can compensate for mandatory sentencing. It mocks the very basis of our justice system. Mandatory sentencing directly contradicts our obligations under the International Convention on the Rights of the Child which, among several articles, requires signatories to ensure imprisonment of children is used only as a last resort for the shortest period of time.There are members on the government benches, including perhaps the Treasurer, who would wish to support this bill if the Territory administration fails to act first because they understand true justice and because these amendments are specifically aimed at removing children in the Northern Territory from the injustice of mandatory sentencing. I congratulate those government members for their courage. I urge them to continue their campaign, depending on the Northern Territory's own actions, to enable a conscience vote on this bill, for it surely is a matter of conscience. I call on the Prime Minister to let the second reading debate on this bill continue and then adjourn it, without a vote for the moment, to encourage the Northern Territory government to repeal these laws itself and implement with Commonwealth support meaningful juvenile offender programs and culturally supportive education and health initiatives. If that does not happen, this bill should go to the vote. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired) KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—by leave—I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Bill read a first time.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills15543R103315543Bill presented by Mr Beazley.13:31:0015543Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I present the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 2000. We have just heard an absolutely superb speech from the member for Calare, forceful in its logic and commendable in its objectives. The bill that I propose here on behalf of the opposition, but formally on my own behalf, is aimed at dealing across the country with the issues that he was dealing with in relation to the Northern Territory. But we also acknowledge that in dealing with it in the Northern Territory he was dealing with the main problem as far as mandatory sentencing is concerned in this country overall. It applies in Western Australia but to a much more limited range of offences and, because of the courage of judges in Western Australia, it has failed in its effect. Mandatory sentencing breaches both international human rights provisions as well as longstanding common law principles. Mandatory sentencing breaches articles 37B and 37C of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by arbitrarily depriving children of their liberty, failing to use detention as a measure of last resort and failing to take the needs of a particular child into account. Mandatory sentencing also conflicts with article 14(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and with article 42(5) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires that sentences should be reviewable by a higher or appellate court. In making no distinction between trivial and serious culpability, mandatory sentencing breaches the fundamental common law principle of proportionality, which requires that the particular circumstances of an offence and an offender need to be taken into account in the process of sentencing. This issue has been dominated today and probably for all this week by discussions between the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Therefore, as we consider this legislation, it is appropriate to ask questions regarding what sort of arrangement is being reached between the Prime Minister and the Northern Territory government. Will their arrangement redress the fact that there is no juvenile justice system in the Northern Territory, that there is no juvenile court, that there are no specialist juvenile magistrates, that there are no specialist legal services for juveniles and that there are no specialist community corrections officers? Children are often held in adult cells. Children are placed in custody with adults in court, children are frequently handcuffed to adults when brought to court and children witness adult court proceedings such as murder and rape whilst sitting in court waiting for matters to be heard. On one occasion reported recently a 14-year-old was seated beside an adult who was appearing in court charged with the murder and rape of a six-year-old. Will the package involve a commitment to diversionary programs? The Prime Minister will be aware that the Burke government, in taxpayer funded advertisements in national newspapers, told the nation that the Northern Territory already has a large number of diversionary programs. Just as surely, he will be aware that these so-called programs were later exposed as being non-existent, inoperative or defunct. Clearly, the Commonwealth and this parliament would have to be satisfied that any funding for diversionary programs is totally bound up with strong provisions for the monitoring and implementation of outcomes. We understand that the so-called package will include funding for interpreter services. The Prime Minister may be unaware that between 40 and 100 per cent of indigenous Territorians speak an indigenous language as their first language. The percentage is highest in remote communities. There are, as there no doubt should be, translation and interpreter services available in the Northern Territory for over 100 non-indigenous languages. The Prime Minister may not be aware that there are currently no indigenous interpreter services available to the Northern Territory health or justice systems. How can we explain this disparity? Perhaps the explanation lies in the attitude of the Chief Minister and his government. Late last year the Northern Territory Chief Minister, in reply to criticism of a lack of interpreter services in Territory hospitals that had led to a young Aboriginal woman having a caesarean section and another being sterilised without giving informed consent, had this to say: To come up with a program such as an interpreter service in the Northern Territory or elsewhere to my mind is akin to providing a wheelchair for someone who should be able to walk. That was the view of the Northern Territory Chief Minister. It did not prevent him, as I said, providing in the Northern Territory services for some 100 non-indigenous languages—but this appalling performance in regard to indigenous languages. Indigenous Australians merely happen to constitute something like 30 per cent of his population. Given Mr Burke's attitude to interpreter services, what value is there in the federal government giving him funds for such a service as a trade-off for not having the courage to force him to drop mandatory sentencing? Such money will go the way of funding for bilingual education—anywhere but to the intended program. Any deal with the Northern Territory will, therefore, have to be totally transparent and rigorously monitored. That government cannot be trusted to effectively implement a program in which they have no faith and to which they have no real commitment. We must accept that the problem of petty crime, which the mandatory sentencing of juveniles is meant to address, is a real problem. The fact is that mandatory sentencing is not the answer. Too many police are tied up in arresting, preparing and processing paperwork, escorting to court and assisting the prosecution of offenders accused of such heinous ills as stealing a chocolate bar or four slices of bread—for which they have been charged, convicted and jailed. They would be better used improving the 16 per cent clear-up rate on property crimes in Darwin.If the Prime Minister's deal for the Northern Territory does not involve overturning mandatory sentences, perhaps it will address some underlying causes of juvenile offences. Will this package go to improving education for the most disadvantaged Territorians? Fourteen per cent of indigenous Territorians progress from year 8 to year 12, compared with 80 per cent of non-indigenous Territorians. Will it address limited employment opportunities or devastating health outcomes, social dislocation, cultural disadvantage and alcoholism? Will it address the fact that 11 per cent of indigenous families have an income of less than $200 per week? Will it address the fact that crisis accommodation is virtually nonexistent in the Northern Territory? There are at this time a total of five funded beds for safe refuge for under-15-year-olds in the central region of the Territory. Until these and other problems are successfully addressed, the existence of mandatory sentencing for juveniles can only be seen as compounding a problem of ingrained institutionalised injustice. Mandatory sentencing solves nothing. It targets minor offenders and does nothing to reduce the incidence of the offences they commit. It places them in institutions that will almost certainly release them at a later date as more hardened, angry and skilful criminals. It takes young children from remote communities away from their families, away from their language groups, and places them in situations of alienation and despair. It provides nothing of the early intervention and prevention, diversion and good policing necessary to reduce offence rates. It does nothing to recompense victims of crime or to reconcile offenders and victims. It is a cynical hoax visited on those with genuine concern about crime and its effects. Mandatory sentencing for juveniles places Australia in breach of the international undertakings I referred to earlier. These undertakings were freely given by Australians and have never been repudiated. The rest of the world have little understanding or regard for our internal politics. They cannot be expected to grasp that a Prime Minister may be unable or unwilling to have some functionary do the right thing. It is this Prime Minister, this government and this parliament which will stand discredited in the international arena if we fail to address the mandatory sentencing issue. All members in this place with any semblance of conscience must support this bill.This bill received the support of more than just opposition members when it was considered recently in the Senate. It is identical to a bill that was seen as House of Representatives members imposing upon the Senate a gross act of discourtesy. The only way this bill is to be considered by this House, given the attitude of this government, is for us to vote on and have a chance to debate an identical bill moved by a member of the House. We are always quick off the mark in the House of Representatives to tell the Senate what we think they ought to be doing with legislation that is passed in this place. When a serious matter is considered by the Senate and it is passed down to us, it is acceptable for a government that needs the Senate to consider its legislative program with alacrity to play with the Senate's legislation in a cavalier fashion. That is for our relationships, the relationships between us and the Senate, and that is a specialist attitude. More important is the impact of this legislation in the general community, on our reputation internationally and on social cohesion within our community. Those are, of course, the real reasons why this matter ought to be given a decent deliberation by the House of Representatives and ultimately passage by this House. In saying that, we are not ignoring the fact that large numbers of Australians are rightly fearful of the consequences of crime for themselves and their family. They are reasonably fearful of it, but the figures that were mentioned by the member for Calare and the figures that are out there anyway in the general public show that, in terms of their concerns, the mandatory sentencing laws—be they the quite draconian laws that are applicable in the Northern Territory or the milder version of them with a much narrower range of offences that exists in Western Australia—are basically completely irrelevant to those concerns.Nor does the mandatory sentencing legislation in the Northern Territory get at the heart of the problem of the loss experienced by victims of crime. Where are the opportunities for victims to get recompense in the Northern Territory? There aren't any. Where are the opportunities for victims to feel that there has been a proportionality in the punishment? If you happen to be a decent shopkeeper or a decent householder in the Northern Territory and think upon the consequences of reporting a theft in terms of the life of somebody in your community, you would have a second thought, when you ought to actually be entitled to have the police intervene to protect your property at any time without feeling that you are sending somebody to jail illegitimately. There are legions of stories now out of the Northern Territory of shopkeepers and householders saying, `I really didn't expect it to come to this extent. I wasn't looking for this person to go to jail for 14 days, 28 days, a year or whatever. That's not what I was looking for.' What you are basically looking for is the police to be able to buttonhole a couple of young offenders, remonstrate with them on the offences they have committed and put them into programs which are alternatives.So there are a couple of tests that we have for the Prime Minister in his discussions he is now having with the Northern Territory. I have mentioned what we expect to hear from him, but at the nub of it there must be this: at the end of the day, Prime Minister, are you going to walk out of your discussions with Mr Burke, leaving the magistrates in the Northern Territory in a position where, when a young juvenile offender comes before them, there is an alternative to jail at the point of sentencing? That is the bottom line: `at the point of sentencing'. Is there going to be an alternative for the young juvenile offender other than jail should the magistrate think that is appropriate? It should be understood in regard to mandatory sentencing that it is not automatically going to be the case that a young person who commits an offence would not ultimately end up in jail. There are circumstances when they should, but the international covenant anticipates that as the last resort, not the first resort. It is the first resort, or the second resort depending on the age of the juvenile, as far as the Northern Territory is concerned, and that is what places it in breach. I would commend to members of the House the legislation that we have introduced. It is legislation that has been considered by the Senate at some considerable length. It is legislation that attracted, at least in the form of its committee consideration, strong support from not just simply opposition senators in the Senate. We all in this House live in hope that a decent outcome will come forward from the negotiations between the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The Prime Minister goes into those negotiations with a very strong hand. I hope he understands that. He goes into them with the support of the majority of members of this House for the removal of mandatory sentencing. He ought to know that. He ought to act with that strength of hand to end this injustice, to enhance the reputation of this nation internationally and, more importantly, to add to our social cohesion by ensuring the fairness of our justice system. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Bill read a first time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Statements by Members155461554615546Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—Today, I want to take the brief opportunity I have to talk about the Certificates of Appreciation Program, which officially recognises the contribution of Australian volunteers and the work they do in Australia's aid program. Certificates are presented to volunteers who have served with organisations such as Australian Volunteers International, the Australian Expert Service Overseas Program, the Red Cross, Red R Australia and Rotary International. They contribute a variety of skills, and members from my electorate who have been awarded these certificates have, for example, provided an anaesthetic service, built a school, managed a printery, taught English and engaged in civil engineering and community development projects. Their time abroad has ranged from two months to more than three years in places such as Papua New Guinea, Nepal, Cambodia, Thailand and the Niger.I would like to place on record my personal tribute to my constituents Dr Piers Booth, Captain Rupert Hoskin, Henry Falson, Susanna Watt and Michael Hadley, the first four of whom I had the pleasure of presenting certificates to recently in this House. I would like to think that the example that these people have set within their own community can be met by more people in the future in considering such worthwhile work in some of our Third World countries around the world.1554615546St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—Yesterday in Tamworth, in my electorate of New England, I had the privilege to attend the dedication service for the Anzac Field of Remembrance by the Tamworth and District War Widows Guild. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the president of the Tamworth guild's club, Mrs Joan Rankine, and her hardworking committee for their fantastic effort in putting on this wonderful dedication service.The New South Wales state president, Mrs Beryl Page, was a special guest at the ceremony and delivered a comprehensive address. Mrs Page said there were 15,000 war widows and widowers belonging to the New South Wales guild, which began in 1946 to provide support, welfare and housing advocacy. The organisers of the day handed out about 400 hand-painted white crosses to the gathering of widows and family members, many of whom took more than one to plant before the World War II memorial in Bicentennial Park. The crosses will remain in front of the memorial until sunset on Anzac Day, 25 April. The Tamworth and District War Widows Guild do a tremendous job in Tamworth and need the ongoing support of the community at large. We must never forget the sacrifices that were made by service men and women in times of war for this great nation, nor should we forget the spouses who are left when those service men and women pass away. As one war widow said to me yesterday, no-one comes back from war unchanged, and it is the spouses and the children who continue to need vital assistance and recognition.1554715547O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I am most concerned that the government is putting our environment, the human rights of foreign nationals and the future working conditions of Australian seafarers at risk. The prevalence of single voyage permits for vessels on our coast and the appalling state of repair which many of these are under seriously endanger our coasts and our industry.Only a few weeks ago in Tasmania the Nicholas Star was detained in port not by the federal government but by the International Transport Federation due to human rights abuses of the crew. The working conditions of the seafarers are, by their nature, dangerous, but the appalling conditions on this ship, while disgraceful and an infringement of the rights of the crew, also pose a risk for Australian maritime industry employees. If vessels such as the Nicholas Star are able to transport cargo in Australian waters, the Australian industry will be forced to compete on an unequal basis with foreign shipowners with little regard for the welfare of their crews, the integrity of our coastal environment or the maintenance of their vessels. It is time the government acted to ensure that the condition of vessels which would qualify as ships of shame does not become the norm in Australia and that Australian seafarers are never exposed to such poor working conditions. It is time the minister acted on transport.1554715547Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise in support of two particular recommendations that have come out of the government initiated review of service entitlement anomalies in respect of service in South-East Asia from 1955 to 1975. Members in this House would be aware of the outstanding work Minister Scott has done in addressing anomalies in the way service personnel are treated for repatriation benefits and for medals, something that could have been done by previous governments but was not. To his credit, Minister Scott is recognised as the best Minister for Veterans' Affairs this country has ever had.There are two particular areas I would like to speak about. The first relates to members of the naval component of the Far East Strategic Reserve. I for the life of me cannot see how the naval personnel should be treated differently from Army and Air Force personnel and am encouraged that the review also sees it that way and makes a recommendation for change. The second area relates to the SEATO civilian nurses, who were selected by the Department of External Affairs, as it was then known, and sent to Vietnam under diplomatic passports for the purposes of civilian support. In my mind there appears to be little doubt that these nurses were at the heart of the Vietnam conflict. There were about 400 nurses involved in the treatment of military personnel from both sides of the conflict in conditions Sir Weary Dunlop is said to have compared to those of a POW camp. Thankfully, in this review there is a recommendation to recognise the service of those civilian nurses and to have their warlike service embraced by the Department of Veterans' Affairs so that assistance can be provided to those exhibiting medical and psychological conditions. I encourage the government to embrace those recommendations. (Time expired)1554815548Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—On Saturday evening, I had the pleasure to attend the Big Bash at Smithton in Circular Head as part of National Youth Week and the theme was `Count me in'. `Count me in', of course, has several meanings. On a personal level, for young people it means taking ownership of being a citizen, joining in community organisations and events and seeking and making positive contributions in community affairs. On a community level, it means giving genuine opportunities and encouragement for young people to participate in community affairs and events and taking into account youth aspirations and ideas—a genuine social contract of mutual recognition and obligation. `Count me in' as a theme should be the reality every day of the year, not recognised for one week every now and then. Congratulations to all those involved in organising the excellent events so well attended by the Circular Head community, young and old, and also to the Circular Head Aboriginal Corporation for its excellent publication Circular Head Youth Directory, a calendar of events and details of service providers. This was a very groovy publication, very well received by the 500 or so young people attending the Big Bash at Smithton. It included things to do, clubs to join and assistance to seek. `Count me in' is obviously well and truly part and parcel of the Circular Head community and we encourage it today, tomorrow and in the future. 1554815548Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—That was a very groovy speech by the member for Braddon. I want to speak briefly today about a flogging which occurred on Saturday—a flogging of the Bendigo Diggers by North Ballarat by some 103 points. I can see the look of trauma on my friend and colleague's face the member for Bendigo, Steve Gibbons. The North Ballarat footy team flogged the Bendigo Diggers by 103 points. I think it was a fair indication of the relative status of both cities. Although it was disappointing to see us lose the seat, it is very pleasing that I can talk about Bendigo and Ballarat in this parliament. I am sure that the member for Bendigo will try as he does and as hard as he can to convince the House that the relative merits are the other way, but I can assure all honourable members that Ballarat again has given Bendigo a darn good pasting. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—As a South Australian and as the occupier of the chair, I think that any reference to football is very inconsiderate. 1554815548Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I want to raise today the plight of the Kosovo refugees who at this very moment are seeking to establish a right to stay in Australia. Mr Speaker, you may be aware that of the 4,000 refugees nearly all have been pressured to return to Kosovo, even though the majority of them were very unhappy to return at this point. The circumstances in Kosovo are quite difficult and there are insufficient guarantees of protection or basic food and shelter. The government has now declared the 135 refugees who remain to be illegal and has cancelled a number of provisions which had been made for them. It now seeks to hold them in detention while their claims for protection are considered. But the Kosovars should not be held in detention while the Refugee Review Tribunal deals with this issue; they should be released to the care of the Albanian community and other organisations. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs insists that he cannot show such compassion in this matter because he is bound by the current mandatory detention policy. However, this event should give us cause to reconsider the unfair and all encompassing nature of the policy itself. Mandatory detention of refugee claimants has been condemned by Amnesty International, the Refugee Council of Australia and many other organisations as contrary to our international human rights agreements. There are alternatives to this inhumane policy and the government should be considering them. We should act in this parliament to change to an alternative policy that is not contrary to human rights. The Refugee Council of Australia has developed such an alternative that all political parties should consider. (Time expired)1554915549Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—Yesterday I had the privilege of participating in the final day of the RTA Big Ride, which travelled from Tweed Heads to Hornsby over 16 days, some 1,100 kilometres. Yesterday I rode 110 kilometres from Ourimbah to Hornsby. For me that was a personally large feat, but it pales into insignificance when you consider the feat of those riders who did ride the 16 days. They were riders of all ages, men and women, children, family groups and bikes of all descriptions. It was a fantastic thing to see. They were not only enjoying the ride but also raising money for the MS Society for the fight against multiple sclerosis. I would like to offer my congratulations to the organisers Bicycle New South Wales, to the police, to the hundreds of volunteers who travelled with the riders over the 16 days, to the caterers who managed to provide many thousands of meals over those 16 days, and to everyone else who was involved in the whole 16 days. It certainly was a great event. I understand that my colleague Larry Anthony also participated in one of the days as they rode through his electorate and that everyone involved had a wonderful time. Certainly I would encourage everyone in the Australian community who is able to jump on a bicycle and enjoy bike riding to do so. For the last 12 months I have discovered the pleasures of riding my bicycle when I can and I encourage all members to do so. (Time expired)1554915549Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I spent a very enjoyable Saturday with a group of 40 cubs at their camp at Conningham in my electorate. These young people were spending the weekend preparing to pass their tests for the award of the yellow rope—the highest award for cubs. These young boys and girls in groups of 10 undertook a series of activities. I would like to pay tribute to Adrian and Jim from the Hobart/Kingston coastal patrol for their dedication and commitment for a very meaningful group of sessions they provided for the cubs. I was involved in four sessions centred on the issue of civics. The cubs were expected to have a knowledge and understanding of the three levels of government and be able to articulate the interrelationship between them. For children so young, most were able to differentiate the roles each level plays in our Australian society. Their insight into the role of councillors and state and federal members, and their comments on what they as children expected of them, proved to be very interesting and very enlightening. I would like to pay a special tribute to Ros Brown and her dedicated group of leaders and parents from Kingston, Woodbridge and Cygnet. They unselfishly worked to provide these young people with an amazing role model for their futures. Finally, happy 10th birthday today to one young cub I met on the weekend, Jason Szoka of Blackmans Bay. 1554915549Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—A global commitment to meet the needs of today without disadvantaging future generations has been translated into a tool kit for nationhood action funded by the Howard government. This kit produced by Environment Australia was launched late last year and it is a practical how-to guide called Our community our future: a guide to Local Agenda 21. It is designed to stimulate Australian local governments to undertake efforts to lead sustainable development at the local level. Local Agenda 21 is the process for translating principles of sustainable development into strategies that can be used by local communities to embrace environmental, economic and social sustain-ability in their day-to-day activities and plans. Councils have daily contact with the community when it comes to urban planning, environment, health, pollution control, storm-water, waste management and disposal, and, in some parts of the country, natural resource man-agement, water supply and sewerage treat-ment. I encourage the Frankston City Council and the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, in fact all councils around Australia, to embrace this guide produced by the Howard government as another practical example of how the Howard government is looking after our natural systems, our environment and the future of our nation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the time for members' statements has concluded. Questions Without Notice155501555014:00:0015550Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the package you have put to Chief Minister Burke contain a requirement that judges and magistrates sentencing juveniles in the Northern Territory must have available to them alternatives to imposing jail sentences at the point of sentencing—yes or no?15550Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can inform the House that the Chief Minister and I met last night. I can also inform the House that the Chief Minister and I have agreed on a number of initiatives to deal with this issue, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. During our meeting last night, I indicated to the Chief Minister the Commonwealth's particular concern about the practical impact of the policy of mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory on juveniles. Both of us recognised that these matters are ones normally dealt with by the criminal laws of the states and territories. We agreed, however, that our common objective—and I would think it is the common objective of all members of this House—was to prevent juveniles entering the criminal justice system.Accordingly, we agreed on a number of initiatives designed to achieve this goal. They address the particular concerns of the Commonwealth, whilst respecting the role of the Northern Territory parliament. I can inform the House that the Northern Territory legislation will be amended so that a person will be treated as an adult from the age of 18, rather than 17 years as it is at present. I also agreed that the federal Attorney-General will approach the governments of Victoria and Queensland requesting them to bring their laws in relation to juveniles into line because, at present, in both Victoria and Queensland—and it has gone unremarked—the juvenile age is designated as 17; we think it is desirable that it be 18. We will approach the two governments on this. In the end, of course, it is a matter for the parliaments of those two states as to whether they bring their laws into line, but I imagine that I would have the support of all members of the House in any approach that the Attorney-General might make.Importantly, in relation to juveniles, the Northern Territory government has agreed to amend the general orders of the Northern Territory police, so that, firstly, the police will be required to divert at the pre-charge stage all juveniles apprehended in relation to minor offences. What that means in practice is that, in respect of minor offences, there can be no mandatory sentencing of juveniles because they will be compulsorily diverted by the police to a much expanded program of diversion, including many of the things about which the member for Calare and also the Leader of the Opposition spoke only a few moments ago in this parliament. Secondly, in relation to more serious cases, there will be a discretion provided for the police to divert offenders into those same diversionary programs and, on successful completion of programs, not to pursue charges. The Chief Minister has agreed that the Chief Magistrate would continue to have special responsibility for juveniles within his jurisdiction. In addition, court lists will be scheduled so that the juvenile matters are dealt with separately, wherever possible, in a dedicated juvenile court.The additional funding that will be needed for these programs will be substantially provided by the Commonwealth. We will be making available an additional annual amount of about $5 million to the Territory. This will be provided to help fund a much enhanced diversionary program, including conferencing with victims—another matter I think mentioned by the member for Calare, perhaps also by the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, by many of my own colleagues. It will also fund greater opportunities for involvement in substance abuse and drug diversion programs. There will be additional community based diversion programs. We will also make money available, within that $5 million allocation, to fund jointly with the Northern Territory government an Aboriginal interpreter service, which will be an important element of successfully addressing this very difficult issue. It has been agreed between the two governments that the effectiveness of these new measures will be reviewed after they have been in operation for a period of 12 months. This outcome represents a practical dealing with a difficult issue. It recognises in relation to the change in the age a specific alteration to the law. In relation to the handling of matters prior to charges being laid, by the introduction of what is, in effect, mandatory diversion for minor offences, it means that juveniles apprehended for minor offences will not be caught up in the mandatory sentencing regime. I think that is an important consideration. In relation to more serious offences, there will be the option, depending on the circumstances, that that not occur. I think that represents a fair and balanced outcome. In other respects, the laws in the Northern Territory are not being altered. There are those who argue that the Commonwealth should have gone further; that is not a view that is shared on this side of the House. We think there is a role for the local parliament, the local people and the local expression of will in relation to these matters. I think running through all of this debate has been a concern about the practical impact of mandatory sentencing regimes on juveniles. There is also a concern within local communities about the need to have effective legal responses to certain forms of behaviour. I believe that these changes strike a fair balance in relation to those matters.I want to thank the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory for his constructive approach to this issue and I want to thank members on both sides of the House who have shown a concerned interest in resolving what I think is a difficult issue, and one that reflects on the kind of society we are, but also one that has to take into account the fact that it is a large country and thoughts on issues like this in parts of metropolitan Sydney are not the same as thoughts on this in Darwin and Alice Springs. That is why you have a federation, that is why you have states and that is why you have territory parliaments, and I think we are very foolish if we ever lose sight of that fact.1555114:08:0015551Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Would the minister inform the House what steps the government is taking to achieve a practical and lasting reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians?15551Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Bradfield for his question. I want to make a number of points in relation to the practical steps that the government is taking to work on the issue of reconciliation with our indigenous people. The government has committed itself to this task, and the Prime Minister made a statement shortly after the last election about the efforts that we would put into working with the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation on developing a document of reconciliation during the course of this year. We remain committed to that task and will continue to constructively engage with the council in the hope that there can be a document of reconciliation which both sides of this House can support, and which the great bulk of the Australian community can support, because our desires and aspirations are to bring as many people on board as possible. In a practical way, we have been implementing programs which are designed to raise particularly Aboriginal health standards, and to meet their housing and education needs and boost their employment prospects. As an indication of that, something of the order of $2.2 billion has been committed to indigenous specific programs during the course of this year. We are encouraged in pursuing this course because so many of the reports and other commentary on what is necessary have pointed to the need to address the underlying disadvantage that indigenous peoples suffer in Australia.We also think it is important to provide constructive leadership in relation to these matters. Of course, it is always disappointing to us when people use terms which are designed to be divisive and designed to suggest that in some way we are lacking in a genuine commitment to be able to deal with these issues in a positive way. When you hear reference to wedge politics and dog whistles—which is a term I have heard the member for Denison use on a number of occasions—they are clearly trying to suggest that there is a lack of genuine intention on our part to work through on these issues in a positive way, but their record in relation to these matters can be something that is totally unquestioned. It is obviously of great concern to me when I hear comments of the sort that we heard over the weekend from the honourable member for Banks. The member for Banks is the one who, of course, has been making allegations about wedge politics played over the last four years. I think he suggested that in the The World Today on 3 March. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—You're a long way behind, Phil.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Let's just look at where you are in relation to this matter and where your colleagues are in relation to this matter, because yesterday on the Sunday program was a superb example of those who want to play both sides of the street.MG4Lee, Michael, MP0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Here you have the member for Banks first saying:The position, Laurie, is that an apology costs nothing ... It can be given—and the government has legal advice to that effect—without costing the taxpayer a cent.Yet, when he is pressed on the issues later—after he makes the pleading claim that he is known for using colourful language and that this is not a time for colourful language, of course—he went on to say that in the Canadian context, when you look at the issue of apologies, they set up a reparations tribunal. He further goes on to say in relation to that matter, when he is asked whether Labor would set up a compensation fund:It's not about money, Laurie... Our policy is an alternate mechanism. You don't have to go to court ...Of course, the reporter asked:Which involves a fund? Now, how big would it have to be?Now this is not about compensation, but it clearly has to be about a fund. You cannot have it both ways. You have either got to commit yourself to compensation and spell out what you mean and what it means in a budgetary context, or you have to make it clear that what you see from an apology are words that do not cost a cent.MG4Lee, Michael, MP0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Of course, the Labor Party also wanted to have you believe that in relation to native title issues there are different views. I went back and looked at what happened after the United Nations—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Dobell might follow the example of the member for Banks.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I went back and had a look at the statement that was issued by the member for St George and the member for Banks back in August 1999, which was headed `Howard Government's Day of Shame'. It said:This is a shameful day in Australia's history. However, in order to appease sectional interests the Howard Government has passed a law that has sullied our international reputation.They go on to say:The Labor Party will continue to pursue this issue to ensure that this stain on Australia's reputation is lifted.Clearly, what they were saying was that this legislation, in the way in which it impacted, is racist. That was the suggestion. Yesterday, the member for Banks, when pressed on those issues, made it clear that some sections were not but some sections were.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What are you going on about?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Well, you ought to listen to what your colleagues are saying on these matters. You may find it difficult to understand because there was a very clear question from the interviewer to the member for Banks. He asked:Would a Labor government move to repeal those amendments?The member for Banks said:No, Laurie. Not all ... look, Laurie ...The interview continued:REPORTER: No?MELHAM: The Labor ... Laurie ...REPORTER: No?MELHAM: Laurie ... no. Let me answer. All the amendments are not discriminatory. A lot of those amendments, in relation to the registration—you see, again, this is a side issue. REPORTER: But would you repeal?MELHAM: Our policy ...REPORTER: ... the ones that are discriminatory?MELHAM: Our policy ... REPORTER: The ones that Bill Jonas and the UN Committee ruled as discriminatory ... MELHAM: Our ...REPORTER: ... will you repeal those if you win government?MELHAM: Our policy, Laurie, is clear.The interview later continues:REPORTER: So, if you're not in favour of them, why can't you say yes, we'll repeal them?... ... ...MELHAM: Laurie, in my view, we will sit down in government, with all the stakeholders and ... we'll take advice. And, in my view, those things will be looked at. What I've done on this thing is produce proper advice ... You blokes need to come clean on these matters. You need to have a clear position. If these issues are, as you suggest, discriminatory—and we do not accept that they are—you should have the courage to take a decision and to announce what you intend to do. You should not be walking down both sides of the street by saying, `These are racist provisions but we will not commit ourselves to repealing them.'1555314:18:0015553Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party and Minister for Regional Services. I refer to the weekend decision of the central council of the Queensland National Party that its federal members oppose any further sale of Telstra. Is this decision binding on your Queensland federal MPs?8H4Hawker, David, MPMr Hawker—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule that question out of order. That question is not within the responsibilities of the minister.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Wannon may be interested to know that when I was about to call the Deputy Prime Minister I was about to not call him but say that the Deputy Prime Minister had been asked a question in an area over which he has no administrative control and that for that reason it is out of order.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on that point of order, it has been commonplace in this place to ask positions of party leaders on the policies of those parties—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation is interrupting the Leader of the Opposition, and I will not tolerate that sort of behaviour.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—That has been so particularly when the policies relate to matters which are before the federal parliament—and, manifestly, this one is. I notice that on one occasion one of the members in the previous parliament asked the Leader of the National Party a question about a report related to the Commonwealth Bank, which was outside the jurisdiction of that particular minister. He was asked:Have you at any stage in your capacity as Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party publicly or within the government voiced any concerns about the impact of these decisions on farmers?Basically, it is routine in this place, where a matter of federal policy is under consideration, that party leaders can be asked questions in relation to the responses of their party. This is no different from those occasions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the Leader of the Opposition that my decision was based on House of Representatives Practice page 509. Relative to the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition it says: Consequently, Speakers have ruled out of order questions to Ministers which concern, for example: statements, actions or decisions of the Minister's own party or of its conferences ...1555314:21:0015553Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General inform the House of the benefits for all Australians of the government's 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act? Is the Attorney aware of any alternative policies regarding native title issues?JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClelland—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. On the basis of your last ruling, the second part of that question must necessarily be out of order because it asks about some alternative policy other than the government's policy. HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: that form of question is one which has been used extensively and accepted by yourself as Speaker over a long period of time, and I urge you to rule the question in order.5I4McMullan, Bob (Manager of Opposition Business)Mr McMullan—To that point of order, Mr Speaker, it is true that that form of question has been asked and accepted in the past, as has the form of question asked by the member for Perth been asked and accepted in the past—for example, on 29 June 1998, when the Leader of the Opposition asked a question of the then Leader of the National Party about his party's attitude concerning One Nation preferences. That question was accepted and answered on 29 June 1998. So if we are creating new precedents, you should create consistent new precedents, Mr Speaker, and rule the second part—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The chair takes exception to the suggestion that new precedence has been created by my reinforcement of what is clearly part of House of Representatives Practice and has been established over time. There is a point of order currently before the chair on which I will rule. The member for Menzies has asked a question of the Attorney-General which asked for comment about alternative policies. It has been the accepted practice of the House, no matter which party is in government, that alternative policies have been commented on in that it is assumed that they impact on the way in which the minister discharges his duty.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Mr Speaker, with reference to the point of order, could you please explain to the House how a leader of a party is not able to explain his party's policy but the Attorney-General is able to answer a question where he attempts to emphasise the points of Labor Party policy?4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr Causley—Mr Speaker, standing orders require that questions be relevant to the portfolio area of the minister. In this case it is a question as to the alternative policies in that particular portfolio area, and therefore it would be within order.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—And I have so ruled. I call the Attorney-General.15554Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government is committed to giving Australians a mechanism for dealing with the difficult subject of native title that is fair and effective and efficient for everybody, and the government's 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act provide such a benefit. The 1998 amendments have streamlined the processes: they allow for states and territories to develop alternative laws to deal with native title as part of their day-to-day land management practices. Last year, the National Native Title Tribunal reported on progress that has been made in streamlining those processes since the Wik amendments. The report shows how well the government's amendments are working. It makes it clear that the new processes give industry and indigenous groups a mechanism to avoid the need to go to court and to enable them to resolve issues in the spirit of cooperation. The government will continue to be committed to achieving a workable and equitable native title system.Labor left us with fundamentally flawed legislation, and it was left to this government to take the hard decisions involved in remedying those laws. Labor currently is just sitting and sniping from the sidelines. What the Australian people are entitled to know is whether the Labor Party wants to open a divisive debate on native title again. These are not new issues—the Wik amendments have been in place since July 1998—but the Labor Party has not yet made any commitment. All it has done to date is be as hypocritical on native title as it is on the GST. The Labor Party is saying that the 1998 amendments are racially discriminatory, but it is refusing to commit to repealing those laws. It is just like the GST. On the Nine Network program yesterday, the member for Banks, as the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs just mentioned, was repeatedly asked whether he was going to commit to repealing laws that he regards as racially discriminatory. I have never seen anybody have so many opportunities to make a commitment and to fail on all accounts. On this issue, as on a number of others, Labor talks tough but fails to take the tough decisions. It is time the Leader of the Opposition showed some leadership and stopped deceiving the Australian public. 1555514:28:0015555Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Leader of the National Party, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I refer to the weekend decision of the central council of the Queensland National Party that its federal members oppose any further sale of Telstra. Is this decision binding on your Queensland federal MPs, and will this affect the capacity of the government to privatise Telstra?8H4Hawker, David, MPMr Hawker—Mr Speaker, I take the same point of order because this is an almost identical question to the one that came from the member for Perth.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I listened closely to the Leader of the Opposition's question, and I consider that it was reasonable for him to ask whether or not the minister's policy would be influenced by the decision. I will allow the question to stand.15555Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I thank you, and I thank the honourable member for the question. I have no problem with it at all. We in the National Party listen very closely to what people out on the ground say. We actually go out there and listen and talk to them and communicate. I have been to Longreach something like eight or nine times over the last 12 months. We, of course, have quite an exhaustive policy making process in the National Party as well. There will be a series of central council meetings throughout the year. There will be a series of state conferences. There will even be a federal convention of the National Party this year. All of those views will be taken into account in the National Party room, because we value the input of people who particularly have concerns about the level of services provided in rural and regional Australia, after the appalling job that you did in office. But, quite simply, in the end the party room will make decisions about the final policy position of the party.1555514:31:0015555Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, you would have seen recent reports about loans by the Reserve Bank of Australia to its staff. Can you detail for the House the background and history of such loans?15555Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for his question. I did notice in some of the newspapers today some attention being paid to loans to the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank. It is well worth reminding the House, I believe, that there has been provision in the Reserve Bank Act since 1959, when the bank was established, for the bank to provide housing loans to its staff. That provision would have been there beyond 1959, except the bank was only set up in 1959. That provision had been in the Commonwealth Bank Act, which had been the predecessor to the Reserve Bank Act prior to 1959. The practice of the bank making housing loans to its staff existed throughout all Labor governments: the Whitlam government, the Hawke Labor and the Keating Labor government. Fringe benefits tax is payable by the bank on these loans. The bank is not empowered to lend to non-executive members but can lend to executive members of the bank board, and that is disclosed in the annual report.I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition was out trying to play a bit of politics on this issue this morning, trying to work the issue up, as if he had ever been opposed to such a practice under the many Labor governments in which he actually served. For example, in 1995 when the current Leader of the Opposition was then the Minister for Finance and Bernie Fraser was the Governor of the Reserve Bank, the RBA annual report indicated there were two housing loans then outstanding, aggregating $408,714, as opposed to the most recent report, which indicated that there was a loan outstanding in the order of $77,007. There was not one word of criticism from any member of the Labor Party during the period that they were in office of that practice. It is a practice which had been continued from the inception of the Reserve Bank. While the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Finance he apparently had no objection to the practice whatsoever—his comments today were more evidence of hypocritical opportunism, trying to get engaged in a particular issue over which he had no objection at all times when he had relevant influence. 1555614:34:0015556Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is also to the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to the appointment of Mr Ray Braithwaite, a former National Party member of this House, to the government's Telstra inquiry panel. Why doesn't Mr Braithwaite's attendance and participation at the Queensland central council weekend meeting fatally compromise his role on the government's trumped up Telstra inquiry?15556Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for the inevitable question—on which, if you note, he fudged very carefully—because the short answer to the question is that he specifically did not buy into the issue of the privatisation of Telstra. But the long answer is that this continues matters relating to the very question that you yourself asked about the party's internal procedures. That is the answer to the question. But the long answer, because I do want to make a couple of points here, is: when Ray Braithwaite left this place it was very widely acknowledged that he was—and this was recognised right across all sides of politics; it was widely acknowledged by the press gallery—a man whose integrity and decency had never been questioned in this place during the entire time that he served in public office. I find it grossly offensive that all the opposition spokesman can do in relation to this inquiry is seek to besmirch the name of decent Australians who have a capacity and a willingness to go out of their way to contribute to important national debates. The fact of the matter is Ray Braithwaite is on this inquiry because he was the member for Dawson for 20 years; he is a very experienced accountant in regional Australia; he was on the Industry Commission inquiry into the impact of national competition policy on regional Australia—5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Honorary director of the National Party.4K4Mr ANDERSON—He is of course a member of the National Party. Is that some sort of clandestine secret that has never been referred to? Is this some new revelation of shock horror that should disqualify him from making a contribution? What utter ridiculousness. It just reflects so poorly on the member for Perth that he really ought to hang his head in shame.1555614:37:0015556St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister inform the House about the government's policy regarding the sale of Australian grain in the international marketplace? Has the government had any success recently in securing markets for these exports?15556Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for New England for his question. He represents a very significant grain growing industry and I am sure, like many members on this side of the House, has been concerned about threats to the export of Australian wheat and barley to China. China is one of our most important export markets for wheat and barley, worth about $700 million a year. Two years ago the Chinese published a list of three pests and diseases which were no longer permitted to be present in any exports of wheat to China. They therefore threatened to close off Australian exports because of their concern that these pests and diseases existed in Australia. We have been negotiating with the Chinese on this matter consistently since that time, and I am very pleased to report to the House that last Friday an agreement was reached with the Chinese.The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service were able to convince the Chinese authorities, on the basis of sound science, about certain facts concerning these three particular pests and diseases. They convinced them that the fungus—which is present in Australia and, I might add, in most of the wheat growing industries of the world—is not of economic consequence in this country and is therefore not significant as a pest of wheat and barley. They were also are able to convince the Chinese, on the basis of sound science, that the striped mosaic virus had been eradicated from barley in Australia and that the nematode which had been causing them concern had never even been recorded in this country. This is an example of sound science winning the day. This follows on from the announcement I made last week about access to the Korean market for the first time for Australian fruit, an example where again science won through and was able to demonstrate that these products could be safely exported without any threat of disease or pest incursion to the importing country. This is a major breakthrough for the Australian wheat and barley industry, coming at a particularly difficult time for the industry. This is a vital market, potentially worth $700 million—or even more. We now have an advantage in exporting our cereals to China because they have accepted that Australia is free of any risk to them through our exports of these commodities. 1555714:40:0015557Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party aware of the following remarks about Telstra and about the government's Telstra inquiry made by Mr George Souris, State Leader of the New South Wales National Party:Service levels are not adequate, maintenance levels and repair times are way too slow... ... ...I can't see how the Inquiry could declare that Telstra has delivered. I know they haven't, and I have plenty of war stories.Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with Mr Souris or does he agree with the Liberal Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, who asserts that such views about Telstra's service levels are `a myth'?15557Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. The reality is that Telstra has some considerable way to go before it delivers satisfactory services in rural and regional Australia. We have not been backward in making that point. We have, I think, shown very considerable commitment to the only real issue in town here for rural and regional Australians—that is, securing the quality of access to and pricing of the services they need to build successful industries in the future. It is very interesting to note that those opposite spend a great deal of time defending the very thing they say they are against. They are out there every day making spurious and, I believe, unwarranted attacks on the integrity of the panel set up to do the inquiry, saying that this inquiry ought to be defended because, in their view, we have undermined its integrity by putting the wrong people in control of it—something I completely and absolutely reject.It is interesting to note that Mr Souris, in the particular interview that you highlighted, was talking about the Mudgee Hospital. The media reports about the Mudgee Hospital went out under the letterhead of an upper house member of the ALP in New South Wales. In fact a couple of weeks after it happened I rang the Mudgee Hospital looking to talk to the CEO about this and I got to speak to a senior nurse. The senior nurse said to me, `We do not know what all this fuss is about. I work in the place and I have not heard about the problem.' I do not want to make light of this—it was a problem—but it was not the crisis that it was painted to be, that Mr Souris was understandably responding to.Two lines out of 13 went down. This was reported at 10 a.m. on Monday 13 March, if my memory serves me correct, and the fault was identified that afternoon. The part was brought in and replaced on the Thursday. There is a lot of exaggeration surrounding this particular story. The question that remains unanswered but that I challenge the ALP to answer is: given that the incident became the subject of comment only after the ALP stirred it up a couple of weeks after it happened—ironically on the day that the inquiry panel met for the first time—just when did the ALP first know about this incident? The other point that needs to be made about this is that I think the hype that surrounded this event is grossly unfair to the doctors, the CEO and so forth at Mudgee Hospital who plainly, if they felt people's safety or livelihood was at risk, would have taken very concrete action indeed. So you can go overboard on these things. I just say to the honourable member who asked the question: a little balance and a reasonable approach will give us what we need out of this—that is, an accurate indication of where Telstra is performing and where it is not performing. That would be a lot more use than simply piling hype on hype. 1555814:44:0015558Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of whether government policies relating to Australian workplace agreements are being implemented in my state of Victoria? Are there any barriers to their successful implementation in that state?15558Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. When the Bracks government were elected, the first thing that Steve Bracks did was appoint a former union official as his Minister for Industrial Relations. The second thing he did was confirm as his chief of staff a former ACTU official. Shortly thereafter, the Victorian government issued a ban on Australian workplace agreements in the Victorian public service. It has now come to pass that the Victorian state government also in a very deceptive way set out to bury a report which showed the benefits that were flowing to workers in the Victorian public sector at the time that they themselves moved to ban them and their availability. In 1999, an independent report was undertaken at the consent of the then Victorian government into Australian workplace agreements. When the Bracks government were elected, the report had been completed, but the Bracks government did not want the positive message about AWAs to get out, so they withdrew the permission that had previously been given to the Employment Advocate for the release of that document.ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane!WI4Mr REITH—This comes from a state government. This was done independently—ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—By your former staffer!WI4Mr REITH—Mr Richard Curtin of Curtin Consulting has never worked for me, so it was not a fair statement.ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane.WI4Mr REITH—I did not even know that bloke's name until I read it today. What is interesting is that the state government claims to be an open and transparent government, but when there are reports that are not suited to its political purpose then it works to make sure that they get buried. We will expect this week to see 100,000 AWAs approved, and they have been for many employees a vehicle for improvements in working terms and conditions. This particular report showed not only that there was no lessening of terms and conditions but that in fact there were terms and conditions available for workers under AWAs that were not otherwise available—for example, the opportunity to cash out long service leave, access to family leave provisions, access to novated leasing and access to discounted health benefits. These are benefits for workers which the Labor Party are opposed to because the unions tell them to be opposed to them. The report says:Three-quarters of responses indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with the statements that measures to balance work and family responsibilities were included within the AWAs. This strong perception of inclusion of measures to balance work and family responsibilities within AWAs carried over into what the AWAs were seen to deliver.The report said that workers were happy with the consultation, they were happy to receive the benefits not otherwise available and they were happy with current employee relations. What did the Labor Party do? Because the unions tell them what to do, they set out to bury the report. Fortunately, this report has come to see the light of day by access through the Senate. It shows you that, if ever Kim Beazley were leader in this country, he would dance to the tune of the unions and the people who would pay the price would be the very employees that they claim to represent.1555814:48:0015559Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. It follows a question I asked in this place last Thursday about John and Wendy from his GST advertisement. Prime Minister, isn't it a fact that, if John and Wendy earn respectively $30,000 and $28,000 a year and Wendy decides to take a year off work from December to look after a baby, the family will lose $67 a fortnight in existing parenting payment? Isn't it the case that this family will be up to $63 a fortnight worse off after paying the GST? Prime Minister, given that John and Wendy will be worse off, how can you claim that there are no losers from your GST package? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will allow the question to stand, but just before I recognise the Prime Minister I want to make a comment. A similar question was asked last week which I thought ran the risk of in fact being hypothetical and which could have been written so that it would not have been hypothetical, because it was based on the presumption that Wendy was expecting a baby. I want to indicate that I allowed it to stand, but I think it has some hypothetical parts about it that could have been clarified without it specifically referring to John and Wendy.15559Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Your ads will be apparent in a minute, I hope. Wendy is having a baby. After the question was asked by the member for Lilley last week, we had a little bit of an examination made of the matter and I am informed that the claim made by the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. I am acting in bona fide belief that the advice that I have received is correct. The Leader of the Opposition claims that the tax package will take up to $67 a fortnight from thousands of Australian families, of which John and Wendy are a hypothetical example. I am quite happy to treat it as a live example for the purposes of this answer, Mr Speaker. In making the claim that changes to the income test for family assistance will leave many people ineligible for family tax benefit part B, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lilley relied on that cameo, claiming that they would be $29.06 a fortnight worse off. I am informed that John and Wendy would actually be $12.78 a fortnight better off under the changes and that, in the following financial year, John and Wendy could be up to $109.50 a fortnight better off. To further reassure Australian families—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh, we are now introducing the GST. I have dealt with the erroneous proposition put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, but I say this to all Australian families—to John and Wendy, if they are listening, and to the many others who are contemplating raising families and generally taking advantage of the enhanced family benefits: one of the great features of this tax package is that it provides more options for Australian families, and that is very much what the coalition is all about. But to further reassure Australian families—as it were, to lay reassurance upon reassurance—the Family Assistance Office will establish a review mechanism to enable anybody who thinks they have been financially disadvantaged by the implementation of family tax benefit part B to have their circumstances assessed. The Leader of the Opposition's question is welcome as far as the government is concerned. I can assure John and Wendy they will not be worse off. They will in fact be better off under the measures introduced by the government. My colleague the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Jocelyn Newman, will be making a further statement about this matter today. I thank the Leader of the Opposition.1555914:53:0015559Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Could the minister advise the House what significant decisions have been made by the Commonwealth, states and territories in setting standards for education? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches being made?15559Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Wannon for his question. The council of state, territory and Commonwealth education ministers, the Ministerial Council on Education, Training and Youth Affairs, met 10 days ago and took further significant decisions to provide educational benchmarks and nationally accepted standards in education in Australia. The ministers decided to extend the process of literacy benchmarking to year 7, and they also decided on numeracy benchmarks for years 3 and 5. So Australia now has the agreement of all governments to the benchmarking process, which is driving higher standards in literacy in this country and extending equity in education. Work is also progressing on benchmark standards in relation to science, mathematics and vocational education. This agenda is all about parents' right to know about, and have, objective standards against which they can compare their child's and their school's performance. This benchmarking process and this process of establishing accountability standards is right at the world forefront of educational policy, and it is lifting educational standards in this country in a way that has not happened for decades. The Howard government is marking up achievements which the Labor Party is unable to match, and the reason is that the Leader of the Opposition is too weak to stand up to the education unions. At the July conference, we read in the press, there is going to be a huge brawl over education and education policy. Sharan Burrow, who is the ventriloquist to the ventriloquist's doll on the other side of the table, dictates policy to the Labor Party and has issued her ultimatum. We read in the Australian Financial Review of Friday last week:Last night, the new ACTU president, Ms Sharan Burrow, issued a blunt statement that the Left would be seeking to exert its influence over policy direction.And I quote the comment attributed to her:We would want to see key areas like trade, industrial relations and education measure up to fundamental principles ...We know what these fundamental principles are: they are no national standards, they are no accountability, they are no reporting to parents, they are no school choice for low income parents and they are more power to the union bosses over these vital areas of government policy. The July conference of the Labor Party is shaping up to be a very big test for the Leader of the Opposition. We will see whether there is any substance at all to his rhetoric that he wants to be a supporter of education in Australia. So far, he has capitulated to the trade union movement and to Sharan Burrow on every policy. When Shazza rings, the Leader of the Opposition jumps. He knows she is the one who ultimately calls the shots for him. We will see in July whether he can pass the leadership test or whether he will continue to be, as he is widely perceived to be, a very weak and very opportunistic Leader of the Opposition.1556014:57:0015560Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. It follows my earlier question on the goods and services tax and television advertisements, and I refer to the Prime Minister's answer to that. Prime Minister, doesn't the $12 per fortnight benefit you quote for John and Wendy—and let me emphasise that that is a $12 total tax benefit—exclude the cost of the GST? Won't the GST cost them $34 a fortnight? Isn't it therefore true that, after the GST is factored in, John and Wendy will be $22 a fortnight worse off, even based on your own calculations?15560Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As I always do with these things, I will take on notice the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I have them analysed, because they are never as they appear to be. I remind the House that I answered the question earlier based on the parameters put to me by the Leader of the Opposition last week. I will do exactly the same thing in relation to this, and we will come back.1556014:59:0015560Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Has the minister seen reports of last week claiming that Work for the Dole projects in ACT schools have stalled? What are the latest developments regarding opposition to Work for the Dole projects in ACT schools? What similar projects have operated in the past?15560Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—Last week the government announced 279 new Work for the Dole projects to provide work experience for some 5,000 young Australians around the country, including 10 who will be getting work experience in a recycled clothing shop in Goulburn, in the member for Hume's electorate. I thank him for his question. I am aware of a report in last Friday's Canberra Times claiming that Work for the Dole projects in ACT schools had stalled as a result of union opposition. The project, originally sponsored by the ACT Department of Education, was for 140 participants. Due to union opposition the ACT department now thinks that only 16 Work for the Dole places will be available. In other words, thanks to the Australian Education Union, 124 Canberrans have lost their chance to gain work experience in ACT schools and now the Australian Education Union is threatening the opportunities of the final 16. Last year, when he was the employment spokesman, the member for Batman encouraged community groups to make the most of Work for the Dole. In the absence of any more recent statements, that obviously remains the ALP's policy—to encourage community groups to make the most of this great program. Unfortunately, the Australian Education Union hasn't got the message. I would suggest that next time the member for Dobell is talking to Sharan Burrow—if it is possible to get a word in edgeways—he should tell Ms Burrow and her hench persons to stop playing games with the young people of Australia. The parliamentary representatives of the Australian Education Union, the members for Corio and Brisbane, should similarly tell their union to stop playing games with the job seekers of Australia.When they do speak to their union, and if they are looking for a precedent to tell the union that Work for the Dole is a good thing, let me point out to the House that when the member for Hotham was the minister for employment there were at least six New Work Opportunities projects placing long-term unemployed people in schools in Melbourne as teachers' aides and as before and after school child-care assistants. In fact, under the New Work Opportunities Program there was a special category of projects to place job seekers in schools to help with numeracy and literacy. This special category was negotiated by none other than Sharan Burrow herself. So if it is all right to put New Work Opportunities participants in schools, it is certainly all right to put Work for the Dole participants in schools. This union opposition is nothing other than rank hypocrisy—in fact it is worse than this; it is a bad case of the unions punishing the unemployed of Australia on the grounds of ideological prejudice. 1556115:04:0015561Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. It follows the two that I have asked previously. Given that you have conceded that your $12 per fortnight for John and Wendy is before the GST impact, will you reiterate your promise that no Australian will be worse off under your GST package? 15561Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I haven't conceded anything. What I have done is to indicate that, as with all hypothetical questions of this kind asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I will have it analysed and come back. But as to the broader question asked, it is the belief of the government that Australians will be better off as a result of our taxation package. Of equal importance, the Australian community will be better off as a result of taxation reform. The Australian community will be much better off, but individual Australians will be significantly better off. Seeing that we have been asked questions about a whole range of families by the Leader of the Opposition—not just John and Wendy, but also many other families—I just happen to have in my possession some tables prepared by Access Economics and also by Ann Harding, who is an academic, I think, at the Australian National University and someone who on occasions is quoted with great approval by the member for Jagajaga. The member for Jagajaga thinks Ann Harding is pretty good. PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—I thank the member for Jagajaga. Ann Harding, for example, goes through different income ranges. After allowing a cost of living adjustment for the GST, according to Ann Harding—not according to the Treasury but according to Ann Harding—a single income couple with two children on $35,000 a year will be $61.76 a week better off. That is Ann Harding—not John Howard, not Peter Costello, not Michael Carmody, but Ann Harding—the mention of whose name brings a furious nod of approval from the member for Jagajaga. But in case anybody thinks that we are relying exclusively on Ann Harding in relation to the two income points, if we take the same family and the same income points, according to Access Economics the amounts in question are $62.28 and $59.27 a week. This is a great tax package for middle Australia. It is a great tax package for John and Wendy. It is a great tax package for the entire Australian community. I think the Australian community is increasingly looking forward to the introduction of the taxation package. I am looking forward to its introduction. I want all of those people who sit opposite to understand that every day that goes by between now and 1 July brings closer the introduction of the greatest single improvement to the Australian taxation system since World War II. When that new scheme comes in and after people have absorbed the benefits, they will realise that for 80 per cent of them all that is going to be involved is the fact that some of the things they buy will be a little dearer. Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—They will! But the bad news for you is that a lot of things will be a little cheaper as well, and you will be very, very, very upset about that. I know you will go in there and there you will see the member for Hotham and the Leader of the Opposition with long faces outside the supermarket.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—They will be ringing into the talkbacks.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, they will have their mates ringing into the talkbacks saying, `I went down to Woolies today,' et cetera. But the great bulk of the Australian public will find a few things go up, a few things go down and a great number of items will stay the same. Australians will be better off because they will have tax cuts. The more you try and scare people with all this negative talk, the more contempt they will have for you after 1 July, because their memory of your contribution to this debate will be that you spent two years trying to prevent them from getting something that will make them better off.1556215:09:0015562Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of recent positive developments in Australia's relationship with Indonesia? What steps has the government been taking to help ensure the future of the relationship?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—By any measure, the chair exercises a great deal of tolerance to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and others on the front bench. I expect them to exercise just a little more restraint.15562Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Aston for his question and recognise his interest in the issue of our relationship with Indonesia. Obviously members of the House are aware that, as a result of our East Timor intervention at the end of last year, there was a deterioration in our relationship with Indonesia. But in late January I went to Jakarta and I must say that I found President Wahid very cooperative and the meeting I had with him most fruitful. Since then, there have been a number of very constructive contacts between Australians and the President of Indonesia. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs went to Indonesia in late January or early February to help develop cooperation on the people smuggling issue. The President received, quite recently, the board of the Australia-Indonesia Institute. He also received the federal president of the Liberal Party, Shane Stone; former Prime Minister Bob Hawke; and the Queensland Premier, Mr Beattie. The Indonesian government have now agreed that the Australia-Indonesia Ministerial Forum will convene this year, and I very much hope that the forum will be taking place in Adelaide. I do welcome these steps and I particularly welcome the very positive remarks President Wahid has recently made about Australia and about the importance of the bilateral relationship. Equally, I think it is worth noting a comment our Prime Minister made on 6 April in relation to President Wahid, where the Prime Minister said, `The President is the best hope we have had for a long time because he is a person of great integrity, commitment and he has achieved a lot.' I do think this is a relationship which is developing and maturing. 5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—Oh, yeah!4G4Mr DOWNER—I think we are now achieving the revitalisation of the relationship at about the speed we hoped to achieve it, and I think the signs for the future in this bilateral relationship are very good. In particular, we are looking forward to the visit to Australia by President Wahid, which is likely to be around the end of May, that sort of time frame. I know that that will make a very constructive contribution to the relationship. And you are welcome to ask a question, but in this millennium you have yet to ask one.1556315:12:0015563Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that a mother leaving work to have and care for a child not only stands to lose up to $67 a fortnight in parenting payment but also faces a GST on baby clothes and nappies, breast pumps, feeding pads, baby bottles and bottle cleaning solution, just to name a few of the baby items hit by the GST? Prime Minister, why is your tax system hitting families so hard at the very time they most need assistance, when they have a baby?15563Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Jagajaga for her question. It invites a variety of responses and I will try and limit myself to just a few. The first one is: if what we are proposing is so bad, why aren't you going to abolish it if you win government? That is the first thing. It is an increasingly pertinent question in relation to a large number of things. Families will be very much better off under our new taxation system. We are now almost a third of the way through April—you have another two months. Somebody made the comment—I think it was a journalist—on radio the other day, and I agreed with the comment that this particular journalist made. I think it was Tim Colebatch from the Age who said that, `Really, all of this debate and everything about what the GST might be and might not be, and what it all means, gets less relevant as each day goes by because we are fast approaching—'5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—It will be relevant to your future.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Hang on, I will come to people's futures in a minute—Laurie Brereton asked me about futures. The point that Colebatch was making, which I thought was a fair point, was that the argy-bargy and the attempts at point scoring about who is going to be better or worse off becomes less relevant as each day goes by because it is coming in on 1 July.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—And you're going.ZD4Mr HOWARD—And we have these little rhetorical flourishes from the member for Kingsford-Smith. Of course, at the present time it is easy to run a scare campaign.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and it goes to relevance. The Prime Minister has been asked a specific question on an aspect of social benefit in this country, the parenting payment, for which the government have introduced a new means test, the consequence of which for a large number of families is that they stand to lose up to pretty much the lot—$67 a fortnight. That is what he is being questioned about, and he is obliged to answer it, not some other question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is advancing an argument, not raising a point of order and will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was asked a question about the impact of tax changes on the parenting allowance, and a range of products that are allegedly affected by the tax changes were listed. I heard the Prime Minister responding to the tax on families and deem him to be relevant.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The first point I simply make to the member for Jagajaga is, if what we are proposing is so bad, why are you not committed to getting rid of it? Why do you continue to walk both sides of the street on tax reform, as you try to walk both sides of the street on amendments to native title and a whole range of things? Of course the opposition can run a fear campaign between now and the introduction, and I hear people muttering things about people's futures. The future I am concerned about is the future of Australia and the Australian people. That is why I am very happy for the Australian people to remember and to make the judgment that it was a government led by me that had the courage to confront the challenge of taxation reform. Somebody else interjected about the polls. Of course, when you introduce a major reform, you take a bit of a battering in the polls. So what? In the long run, what counts is the judgment that the Australian people make about the worthwhileness of what you have done. To be perfectly honest, now that you raise the subject of polls, I am surprised that, as a result of the guerilla campaign that is being run in relation to this, the situation there is not more favourable to you lot than it is at the present time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is now moving more broadly than the question allows. ZD4Mr HOWARD—All of that becomes a little bit irrelevant because on 1 July this new system will come in. Instead of it being an assertion by the member for Jagajaga answered by the government, the Australian people will be able to make their own judgment. The millions of Johns and Wendys around Australia will make their purchases at the supermarket and will find that some things have gone up a little in price, some things have remained the same and some things have gone down. But the great bulk of people are going to be significantly better off. Australians all will be better off and, most importantly, they will know that they have a government that has been willing to confront the challenge, difficult though it is, of introducing long-term beneficial reform. Months after it has been introduced, they will remember with increasing contempt the negative role of the Australian Labor Party which at every turn, on every moment, on every occasion, at every opportunity, sought to destroy and drag down rather than to build up and improve. That will be the legacy of, and what will be remembered about, the Labor Party on the issue of taxation.1556415:19:0015564Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, what is the government doing to protect the entitlements of workers whose employers become insolvent and are unable to pay their entitlements? What is the government's response to any alternative plans that have been proposed in relation to this issue?15564Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Boothby for his question. He will be pleased to hear that the government is progressing at putting in place an administrative scheme to support employees who have lost their entitlements as a result of employer insolvency. This is a significant extension to the safety net available to workers. In fact, for the whole 13 years that Labor was in government not one minister, not one cabinet, not one backbencher, was ever prepared to stand up and say that something ought to be done to protect workers in the situation of their company going insolvent.This government is prepared to act. We have a very fair scheme, which we are putting in place, and that will be available for workers as soon as we have completed a proper assessment of each and every one of those circumstances that has been brought to our notice. Over 190 workers have lodged applications, and no-one in the Labor Party—not one of them—is prepared to stand up and support those workers for their entitlements. Over 60 companies have gone insolvent and left employees without their entitlements, and the Labor Party is not prepared to stand up and lift a finger to help any of those employees. What is the Labor Party's alternative position? It has three different policies—two are from the backbench, and they are both from the member for Prospect.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Do you want me to spell it out completely for you?WI4Mr REITH—In her press release of 12 March 2000, she advocates trust funds and does not mention insurance. In the bill that she has before the parliament, she has an insurance scheme. Back in February, the frontbench announced their policy, which was an insurance scheme based on a premium through the superannuation guarantee levy and with funding through superannuation funds. Do they have a policy? No.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Where's your legislation? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Prospect!WI4Mr REITH—The fact is that they have three policies because they have never been prepared to have a policy to support workers. Furthermore, to show you the hypocrisy of these Labor people, now we have the Queensland Premier and the New South Wales Labor Premier who are both publicly opposed to helping workers in their own jurisdictions. What response, what leadership, do we get from the Leader of the Opposition? Not one word uttered in defence of those workers who have lost their entitlements.Opposition members interjecting— WI4Mr REITH—Ah, this hurts because this just demonstrates that when it comes to helping workers these people are not prepared to do a thing. The fact is that this is a classic consequence of weak leadership. Here you have two of your own. Bob Carr was prepared to put in money for blokes at National Textiles but he is not prepared to help workers up the road at Scone Meatworks. What do we expect of the leader of the Labor Party? He ought to exercise some leadership. He ought to tell Bob Carr and Peter Beattie that the Labor Party supports workers in these situations. It is a national disgrace for the Labor Party that it is not prepared to match the federal coalition on a dollar for dollar basis to help workers. I say to the backbench of the Labor Party: it is about time you put a bit of pressure on this weak, vacillating leader and did something for workers for just once in your lives. ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker155651556515:23:0015565Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Mr Speaker, I ask that you write to the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence seeking an answer to my question on notice No. 1115 from 9 December last year, which is now double the time delay anticipated in the standing orders. 15565SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the issue as standing order 150 allows. 1556515:24:0015565Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—Mr Speaker, will the Presiding Officers and their information technology advisory group review the Teletracer beepers supplied to members and senators with a view to replacing them with a more compact and gender-friendly device? 15565SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will have a look at the request made by the member for Charlton and get back to her in due course. 1556515:24:0015565Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—Mr Speaker, I ask that you write to the Minister for Health and Aged Care with regard to question on notice No. 960, which I placed on the Notice Paper on 30 September last year. 15565SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will attend to that matter as standing order 150 allows.Privilege1556515:25:0015565SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Last Tuesday the honourable member for Calwell raised as a matter of privilege actions which amounted in his submission to improper interference in the performance of his duties as a member. The honourable member's concerns arose out of an investigation by the National Crime Authority. His complaint had three aspects: first, alleged improper or illegal activities by or on behalf of the authority; second, the involvement of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in the matter and the use of records held by the department; and, thirdly, the use of telephone interceptions of the member's telephone services. The member provided a substantial amount of material on the matter and examination of this material has revealed questioning of, and comments about, the investigation and the propriety of some of the activities involved. There is also material concerning the involvement of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The member made the point that he believed the issues raised were of general concern in terms of members and their constituents and not raised in advocacy of his own defence. It is not difficult to accept that an investigation of this kind and related matters may have a very negative effect on a member's performance of his or her duties as a member. The task for me as Speaker is, however, to make a judgment as to whether there is prima facie evidence of a breach of privilege or contempt. While there appear to be a number of unresolved issues in respect of the matters complained of, it is not clear to me at this stage that there is evidence of an offence against parliamentary privilege such as would allow me to give precedence to a motion. I understand the position in which the honourable member finds himself and the depth of his feelings on the matter. The Committee of Privileges at present has a general inquiry into the status of records held by members, and the member may feel that he could take up aspects of his present concerns with the committee in connection with that inquiry. If, at the conclusion of the current proceedings against the member, he feels that additional material has come to light which raises issues of parliamentary privilege which should be pursued, I will of course be happy to consider them. 155661The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:1556618083NJK6Hall;McClellandTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of Parliament of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned draw to the attention of the House that under the Imperial Award system, the award of the Victoria Cross was denied to John Simpson Kirkpatrick, of Simpson and the Donkey fame, as the result of an error in the original application. A second application, in 1967, was also denied as the British Government claimed a dangerous precedent would be set, in spite of such a precedent already existing.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives does everything in its power to ensure this situation is rectified and that John Simpson Kirkpatrick receives appropriate recognition by the Award of the Victoria Cross of Australia.27Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 27 citizens) and153Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland (from 153 citizens).155669983YJK6Hoare;McClellandTo 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 under current legislation the GST will not be included on dockets and that consumers will not know how much GST they are being charged, or whether they are being charged correctly.Your petitioners therefore request the House that when a business provides a consumer with a receipt or docket issued in respect of a taxable supply the receipt or docket must separately include:(a) the price of the goods or services excluding the GST; the amount of the GST; and the total price including the GST.9Ms Hoare83YMs Hoare (from nine citizens) and90Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland (from 90 citizens).1556619UT4NugentTo 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 Stephen's Anglican Church, Bayswater, Victoria 3153, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.19Mr NugentUT4Mr Nugent (from 19 citizens).155668QK6SercombeTo 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 Alban's Anglican Church, St Albans, Victoria 3021, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.8Mr SercombeQK6Mr Sercombe (from eight citizens).15567228783UCoxTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The Petition of Certain electors of Australia draws the attention of the House to the unfair burden the GST will place on charitable organisations, particularly:the increased administrative costs to charities of GST compliance that will force these organisations to reduce service delivery to people in need;the imposition of the GST on fundraising activities that will reduce funds available to provide additional services to people in need, and;increasing the running costs of many smaller charitable organisations by forcing them t pay the GST on goods and services they buy.Your petitioners therefore request the House to amend the `A New Tax System Legislation' to exempt charitable organisations from the GST net by providing them with a simple GST exemption certificate.2287Mr Cox83UMr Cox (from 2,287 citizens).15567131WF6DanbyTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned, draw the attention of the House to the discrimination experienced by same sex couples in the provision of superannuation benefits.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to reintroduce and pass the Private Member's Bill, entitled the Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Amendment Bill, introduced into the House by the Member for Grayndler, Mr Anthony Albanese and seconded by the Member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Michael Danby.131Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby (from 131 citizens).15567177LS4FergusonTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned residents of Auburn Municipality, and locally employed and interested citizens urge Government action to pressure the Banks against persistent withdrawal of services. We especially deplore the decision to close the Commonwealth Bank's Berala branch.Previous Government decisions to reduce Government regulation of Banks and liberalise foreign entry has accomplished little. The reality has been burgeoning profits, excessive salary packages for the executives, reduced local services, and a persistent strategy by the Banks to determine how people will operate their banking.The climate for banking and investment is heavily influenced by Government policies.The time is past when the Australian electorate will continue to tolerate a free hand for the Banks to essentially close down shopping centres and reduce services.We request that the House take action to reverse these trends177Mr Laurie FergusonLS4Mr Laurie Ferguson (from 177 citizens).155671768T4FergusonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the Summerhill Residential Park at Gremel Road, Reservoir in the State of Victoria, draws to the attention of the House an anomaly in the GST legislation, which constitutes a gross act of discrimination.Your petitioners express their disgust and sadness at the impact of this discriminatory tax on the elderly and the frail and call upon the House to remove it.176Mr Martin Ferguson8T4Mr Martin Ferguson (from 176 citizens).1556895183WGerickTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain electors of Australia draws the attention of the House to the discriminatory nature of imposing a GST on women's sanitary products, particularly taxing tampons.Tampons are currently exempt from tax and should continue to be exempt once the GST is implemented;The use of tampons is not solely a hygiene issue but a health issue;Taxing sanitary products discriminates against women, by limiting choice and making them pay for a necessary health product;This demonstrates the discriminative nature of the GST which imposes a tax on necessities and places an unfair burden on people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.Your petitioners therefore request the House to amend the GST legislation to exempt all sanitary products particularly tampons from the GST net.951Ms Gerick83WMs Gerick (from 951 citizens).15568289283WGerickTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of Parliament of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the Government make all residential rentals GST free including rental on sites paid by residents of relocatable, manufactured home villages or parks and residential parks.The GST on site fees unfairly discriminates against residents living in relocatable, manufactured home villages or parks and residential parks. The Government promised that no-one would pay GST on rent and this is an anomaly which allows village/park/residential park owners to charge GST on site fees.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to make rental on sites GST free.2892Ms Gerick83WMs Gerick (from 2,892 citizens).1556884883NHallTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of we, the undersigned Australians, draws to the attention of the House, the Government's plan to allow the operators of parks containing manufactured homes, mobile homes or caravans to impose a GST on site fees paid by residents.Over 100,000 Australians live permanently in this type of accommodation. Many are homeowners and a significant proportion are retirees who remain in the same location for many years. Permanent park residency is not merely reserved for tourists, but rather, the only realistic accommodation option for many Australians.The Government's plan to directly burden permanent park residents with a GST on site fees is unjust and inequitable.Your petitioners therefore respectfully urge the House to reject any plan to impose a GST on site fees paid by residents of parks containing manufactured homes, mobile homes or caravans.848Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 848 citizens).155681283NHallTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of we, the undersigned, draws to the attention of the House the Government's proposed plan to impose a 10% GST on tampons and sanitary pads. Women have no choice or control in whether or not they have to purchase these products each month. Women already carry the burden of paying for menstruation products. We do not believe that women should carry an additional burden of 10% GST on a product that women have no choice but to purchase, and for which men have no equivalent. The imposition of 10% GST on tampons and sanitary pads is discriminatory and unfair.Your petitioners therefore respectfully urge the House to reject the proposed imposition of 10% GST on tampons and sanitary products in favour of adding these products to the list of GST-exempt health items.12Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 12 citizens).15568198I4MartinTo: The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.From: The Citizens of New South Wales and in particular all members of Combined Pensioners & Superannuants Association of NSW Inc and all older citizens.We point out to the House that it is imperative that all labelling of Genetically-modified food should state the products used in the manufacturing process. It is requested that no manufacturer be granted any exemption. The members of CPSA and all older citizens are alarmed by the reaction these genetically-modified ingredients could have on their medication. This petition therefore requests the House to take the necessary action to ensure that any product used in genetically-modified food is clearly stated on the label. 19Mr Martin8I4Mr Martin (from 19 citizens).15569526KV5NevilleTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This humble petition of the citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that we the undersigned citizens of Australia do most strenuously object to any consideration being given to the proposal by the Pangea Company to utilise the centre, or any part of Australia. as a `nuclear waste dump'.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray and call upon the House to reject any plans to introduce such a facility anywhere on the Australian continent and Island territories, and set in place a law which will protect this country, both now and in the future, from any further such enterprise—regardless of party politics—and thereby observe the wishes of the undersigned Australian citizens.526Mr NevilleKV5Mr Neville (from 526 citizens).Petitions received.Bills15569R103415569Bill presented by Mr Bevis. 15:30:0015569Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—At the end of question time, we witnessed a most amazing outburst by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business on this very topic, in which the minister totally and completely misled the public as to how this issue has been dealt with over the course of the last few years. In consideration of the problems confronting workers who find themselves employed by a company that becomes insolvent, this parliament has had three bills before it over the course of the last three years—every one of them moved by the Labor Party.The Employment Security Bill 2000 that I present today has been before this parliament previously. In accordance with the standing orders, time has run out and the bill has been removed from the Notice Paper; that is, it is no longer listed for consideration by the parliament, because this government and that minister—the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—as Leader of the House, have prevented the parliament even debating it. For the person who has stopped the parliament debating these measures to stand before the House, as he did just 10 minutes ago, and claim that his government, or he, have done something to address this problem when he has, in fact, prevented the parliament even debating the issue is a gross offence. What is worse, to this very day, that minister has refused to introduce any legislation whatsoever to deal with these problems. The minister refers to the administrative arrangements he has put in place. There is no bill before the parliament, no law that the minister has presented, to deal with any of these issues—none whatsoever. Instead, behind closed doors, without any public scrutiny or scrutiny from the parliament, the minister for workplace relations has decided to set in place administrative arrangements and play politics with the states, trying to score cheap points off state governments, when it suits him, as particular companies go belly up, leaving their workers without their entitlements.This bill I present today deals with one of the most obnoxious aspects of the circumstances in which workers find themselves when their company goes belly up. This bill deals directly with the predicament faced by workers where the company has restructured its resources and deliberately taken money and resources out of one of its legal entities and put them into one of the other corporate identities within its structure, and it has done that deliberately to deny the workers any access to their entitlements: their redundancy pay, their long service leave, their holiday pay and, in some cases, even their superannuation. Companies have done that and got away with it.The worst example of that was during the Patrick waterfront dispute—a company which followed the advice of this government. Taxpayers paid for consultants to dream up this scheme whereby the proprietors of Patrick could engineer a restructure of their company and, with the aid and support of the government, could recruit people out of the military and send them to Dubai to learn how to operate cranes. Of course, that all fell apart when it was exposed and when the courts of this land stepped in and said, `You cannot behave in that way.' But that restructure denied those workers any access to any of their entitlements because Chris Corrigan and his crew at Patrick deliberately took the resources out of the company that employed the workers and put them in the rest of his company. So when the firm that employed the workers went belly up the workers could sue until the cows came home—it did not matter because the company they were suing had no money left in it. At that time, the Labor Party introduced this bill into the parliament to put an end to that: to say that the courts should be able to extract the money from those related entities and other parts of the corporate network, and to say that the courts should be able to go to their bank accounts and extract the money to pay the workers what was legally due to them. We have tried now on three or four occasions to get this parliament to debate that issue. At every opportunity, the government have used their numbers to prevent debate on it. We are reintroducing the bill today—and we will continue to reintroduce the bill—to ensure that this important area of law and rights is addressed. If the government are not willing to deal with this clear example of corporate manipulation in which, effectively, companies can fraudulently take money from workers, if they are not willing to deal with that very clear example, what hope is there that they are serious and genuine about wanting to deal with the problems at large in relation to employee entitlements when a company goes belly up? The sad answer is that the government have, at the very top, no commitment to that at all.I will quickly mention a couple of examples. Last year, during the Oakdale miners dispute, the minister for workplace relations publicly, and in private with the companies, made it plain that he did not support any scheme for the public purse or anybody else to pay out those workers—that was just tough luck for them. The fact that Max Dunbier, who operated that mine, was able to go on and run other businesses quite profitably and live a very comfortable lifestyle made no difference. The workers just had to bear the cost of that and lose their life savings. But the government were dragged kicking—in fact, credit should be given to the Minister for Finance and Administration: he rolled the minister for workplace relations in the cabinet room on this—and reluctantly came to a position that allowed the workers to access their industry fund. At that time the government said they were going to do something about this problem. Two commitments were given: one by the minister at the table, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, who said that he would be introducing laws to deal with Corporations Law to tighten up the responsibility of directors, and the other by the minister for workplace relations, who gave a commitment that he would legislate to ensure that a national scheme was in place.At least the minister at the table managed to get his legislation into the parliament and it is now in the Senate for consideration. It is not exactly a good piece of legislation. It does not provide any worker in this country with a single cent; it will not help get one cent for one worker, but it does try—albeit in a fairly unsatisfactory way—to deal with the problem. I might say that it is not just our view that it is unsatisfactory. Recently I was reading a magazine put out by the chartered accountants. They commented on the legislation and said:The Society has pointed out that increased penalties will be of little practical benefit unless the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is given greater resources, which of course it has not.The view of the practising professionals—the accountants—is that, whether you think the law goes far enough or not, in practical terms it will make no difference anyway. It will not help anybody because there are no enforcement mechanisms in place or proposed to be put in place.But at least the minister at the table got his piece of legislation before the parliament. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has not produced any legislation to deal with the problems of workers confronted by being left without their entitlements. That is because he is in part not committed to it and it is also because in part he has this schizophrenic approach to it. In August last year he told the parliament: The intention of the government in respect of our legislative scheme is to work to put a national scheme in place by 1 January. That was the commitment he gave in parliament and he did not honour it. To this day there is no legislation. Then the heat got turned up on the government at the start of this year when National Textiles burst onto the scene, because there was a complicating factor there. Not only were there lots of workers owed lots of money, but the chairman of the board was the Prime Minister's brother. I imagine someone in the government thought they had better do something pretty smartly to sort that out. So there was a great burst of activity surrounding that and a great deal of public interest.By 24 January the media was taking a very keen interest in what was going on at National Textiles and they interviewed the minister for workplace relations. In an interview with Stan Zemanek, Stan Zemanek put it to him that the minister had promised that he would have a legislative scheme in place by January. This is what Minister Reith said on 24 January:We didn't say we'd have it in place by the first of January.He told Stan Zemanek that there was no commitment from the government to have a scheme in place by 1 January. Let me repeat his words to the parliament on 31 August:The intention of the government in respect of our legislative scheme is to work to put a national scheme in place by 1 January. The truth is that either the minister was not telling the truth to the parliament on 31 August, or he was not telling the truth to the Australian people on the radio program with Stan Zemanek on 24 January.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon—It wouldn't be the first time.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—Absolutely. As my colleague interjects, it would not be the first time he had failed to tell the truth. On 13 February this year, National Textiles had got so far into the mire that the government felt compelled to do something to get themselves out of the predicament. By 13 February there was going to be a scheme, and this was not the safety net that the minister was talking about a minute ago. This was the Rolls Royce scheme. This was the scheme that frankly every Australian is entitled to which is that you get all of your benefits. You do not get back a little bit of what was all yours to start with, which is the government's position and a minister's position. You do not get a little bit back. If you happen to be lucky enough to work for a company called National Textiles, and have the Prime Minister's brother as chairman of the board, you get it all back. How did the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business handle that, having told the world only a matter of two weeks before that there were no schemes planned for 1 January? This is what the minister said on 13 February:The fact is that we said last year we were going to start up a scheme. I made it my sort of personal campaign as it were to have a scheme in place as at the first of January.There is one thing about the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. In American politics they used to say, `Read my lips.' With the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business it is, `Watch his hands', because what he says and what he does are two different things. When he is giving the personal commitment, you know damned well that that is not what he is going to do. You know damned well that that is not what is in his heart.It is like the Patrick dispute when he stood up here and out in the media and said to the world, `I had no advance knowledge that the dogs and the balaclavas were going to go onto the waterfront, and they were going to sack all these people all around Australia. I didn't know.' That is what he told parliament and the people. Strange coincidence that he introduced legislation 12 hours later into the parliament to look after all the Patrick problems. For a person who knew nothing of it in advance, he whipped up the legislation in record time. When this minister gets up, hand on heart, and tells you that it was his personal campaign and he supports it, you know he has the knife out for your back. The simple fact of life is that he was dragged to that position and, as he told the public two weeks before, they were never intending to do it anyway. He has been all over the shop on this and so has the Prime Minister. The fundamental problem is that this government actually do not want to address this issue. The reason why we have had to move, re-move, re-list and argue about getting these basic problems seen to is that this government do not want to tackle the problem at all. They were forced to do it with the Oakdale miners and they were forced to do it with National Textiles. They ignore the workers at Braybrook and they ignore the workers in most other examples, such as Linda in Victoria, which is now before the public eye, and the meatworks at Scone. Those people are not entitled to all their benefits. No, they are not entitled to them, and the minister for workplace relations will play petty politics because there are state Labor governments involved in that. There is no sincerity in the way they are approaching it. Why? Because even the Prime Minister does not support this. Apart from looking after his brother's company, the Prime Minister does not seem to care too much about what happens to workers in these circumstances. Last June at the height of the Oakdale miners dispute he was interviewed by his good friend—and it is his good friend—Alan Jones. Alan Jones raised the concerns and said:... if you could have a central fund into which long-service leave entitlements are paid, why can't you have a central fund into which annual leave's paid...The Prime Minister said:... there are pluses and minuses. I know at the moment it sounds all plus but the more money that small businesses are not able to invest in the day-to-day running of their businesses the lesser will be their operations.In other words, the Prime Minister was saying that it is all right for companies to take workers' money and use it for the day-to-day running of their businesses.The Prime Minister thinks that when workers have an entitlement to annual leave, long service leave, sick leave cash pay-out and any other benefits, the workers are actually giving the company some sort of unsecured interest-free loan. Well, they are not. It is the workers' money—and that was the point Alan Jones made to him:Oh yes, but it's not their money.So he gave the PM a second go, and the PM got it wrong twice. He said:... in reality because of cashflow needs many companies, many firms actually use this money for the day-to-day operations of their business ...Time does not permit me to go through the rest of the transcript—I have done that on other occasions. Suffice to say that five times in that interview Alan Jones put it to him that `it is not their money' and five times John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, defended the right of companies to take that money—the workers' entitlements—and use it as if it were their day-to-day cash flow fund. He did it then and he did it a month later in July. The simple problem we confront is that this government do not support these reforms. In spite of the bluff and bluster from the minister for workplace relations, which is his standard way of dealing with everything, the record speaks for itself. We will persist with this resolution. (Time expired)Bill read a first time.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon—By indulgence I seek to indicate my support for this bill and my intention to formally second it at the appropriate time in this House.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—There is no point in granting or refusing indulgence; you have already done it. In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business155721557215:46:0015572Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I move:That this House:(1) expresses its concerns about the Vietnamese Government's continued detention, house arrest, and harassment of political dissidents and religious leaders;(2) further expresses its concern in respect to the restriction of freedom of speech, the press, assembly and association in Vietnam; (3) calls on the Australian Government to take concrete steps to monitor the human rights situation in Vietnam, including requesting the Vietnamese Government to allow Australian diplomats to visit those alleged to be prisoners of conscience and to do so on a regular basis;(4) calls on the Australian Government to make regular representations to relevant Vietnamese Ministers and officials in Vietnam and the Vietnamese Embassy in Canberra for the immediate release of all prisoners of conscience, and for accelerated progress in moves to wind back restrictions on democratic freedoms; and(5) calls on the Australian Government to provide the Parliament with regular reporting on its human rights representations to the Government of Vietnam, on the responses by Vietnam and the overall human rights situation in Vietnam.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—The position of human rights in Vietnam is well documented by reputable organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The 1999 report of Amnesty International has the following comments, amongst many others:At least 56 prisoners of conscience and possible prisoners of conscience continued to be held throughout the year. At least, 15 prisoners of conscience were released. At least a further 10 possible prisoners of conscience were arrested, tried and sentenced. A further 40 people were imprisoned for political offences following unfair trials. Fifty-three new death sentences and 18 executions were reported, but the actual numbers were believed to be much higher. The report indicates that in October 1998 the United Nations Special Rapporteur on religions intolerance visited the country. He was prevented from meeting most religious dissidents. Lack of official information and restrictions on freedom of expression made obtaining details of human rights violations difficult. In their 1999 report, Human Rights Watch said—and once again I will quote limited sections of it:The Vietnamese government continued to show little tolerance for political criticism of the government, despite the release of more than a dozen prominent political prisoners in amnesties ... Political and religious dissidents faced repression and heavy surveillance, with several key dissidents remaining under house or pagoda arrest ...The report also makes the point that international human rights organisations were not permitted to visit Vietnam during the year, nor were domestic human rights organisations allowed to operate.I would like to refer briefly to two specific cases. One is a Dr Nguyen Thanh Giang. I will refer to this gentleman at this point but also in the context of talking about the Australian government's role in this, because this Dr Nguyen has been the subject of DFAT correspondence and in fact his name appears on the DFAT Internet site. Dr Nguyen was released in May last year after two months imprisonment, but that has certainly not been the end of the harassment that he has faced. He wrote a very moving letter to a number of leaders in Vietnam on 26 February 2000 in which he itemises a continual habit of harassment, including sudden visits, having things like computers confiscated, having his phone disconnected and the like. To members who are interested I would recommend the letter Dr Nguyen wrote to Vietnam's leaders.Another case that attracts considerable interest in Australia is that of a most important Buddhist cleric, the Venerable Thich Quang Do, who in fact is a nominee—including by a number of members of this parliament—for the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize. It is not the first time that the Venerable Thich Quang Do has been in prison. He was imprisoned in the 1960s under the Diem regime. So it is not only this current regime that has imprisoned people for advocating religious freedoms. His case was strongly supported within the international community, including by a number of Nobel Peace Prize winners and including the Dalai Lama and Jose Ramos Horta. He was released but, in his own words:I have come out of a small prison only to go into a larger one.This cleric is denied freedom of movement and is deprived of the obligatory residence permit. He is under constant surveillance by the secret police. His correspondence is censored and his telephone is tapped. When the UN's Special Rapporteur on religious tolerance attempted to visit him at the monastery he currently resides in, he was prevented from doing so. I think those examples illustrate the extent of human rights difficulties in Vietnam. This motion calls upon the Australian government to take a number of initiatives to strengthen its focus on human rights issues in Vietnam. I think Australians generally require that the values of our community, including the values of human rights, ought to form a key basis for our international role. This is an important consideration in terms of this country obtaining international respect and also self-respect. The initiatives proposed in my motion are very much in line with the views of Australia's Vietnamese community leadership. The government's present approach is indicated by a number of letters to Vietnamese community leaders during 1999, Frankly, the government's approach is not good enough. In this correspondence the government say that 13 of 17 people about whom they made representations were included in an amnesty in 1998. They also referred to Dr Nguyen, whom I referred to earlier, and indicated that his release followed a visit to Australia by the Prime Minister of Vietnam and some discussions that occurred between our Prime Minister, our foreign minister and the Vietnamese official.The Australian government say that they `wish to follow a non-confrontational, pragmatic approach' and do not wish to `single out' Vietnam. The government also say that they provide a `snapshot' on human rights on their Internet site, and that they aim to increase awareness amongst Vietnamese decision makers by funding training programs at Vietnam's elite training academy for officials. All this means there is no need, in the government's view, for the government to report to parliament and no need for them to support human rights projects in the non-government sector or make an attempt to visit prisoners of conscience in Vietnam. Indeed, in a letter from a DFAT official to a prominent member of the Vietnamese community on 11 June last year, the following was, quite extraordinarily, said:... we are presenting a shorter list as the core group around whom representations will focus this year.What the government were saying was that they were going to make even fewer representations last year than they had in previous years. That simply is not good enough. It is good enough for the British foreign secretary to provide a human rights report to the British parliament. The Internet is not a substitute for the symbolic importance of this parliament giving human rights issues the status and importance they deserve.If the government were effective, as they imply in their representations, that is a reason for enhanced effort, not a lesser effort, as the government flag in the correspondence I have referred to. If the government are implying that they can claim some of the credit for the release of Dr Nguyen and others, that ought to lead to a much better and stronger effort, not a lesser effort. Of course, one needs to take the government's claims in that respect with a grain of salt because Australia's role in those matters was a relatively small part of a widespread international effort along the lines that I referred to. The government's concerns about `non-confrontation' miss the point. Because we have a more formal, structured dialogue on human rights with China, does that mean that we are confronting China or singling China out for some sort of special treatment? No, it clearly does not mean that. More effort is required in many areas of the world on human rights. As I said, it ought to be a fundamental and key part of our respect as a nation that we give human rights issues a very high priority in the way we conduct our foreign affairs. Vietnam is one such country. It is not a matter of singling Vietnam out; it is a matter of recognising that in our region it is a country that has issues that need to be dealt with. Frankly, the government's position is not satisfactory, and Australia needs to make a substantially better effort in these areas.It is not as if these things are some distance in the past. I referred earlier to the letter from Dr Nguyen in February this year, and new evidence of abuses regularly comes to hand. For example, I am told that only a couple of weeks ago—on 30 March—the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church tried to hold a ceremony to commemorate the 53rd anniversary of the death of its founder, Huynh Phu So. The Vietnamese government reportedly effectively stopped believers from attending. Government radio and television programs regularly warned believers not to attend. The security forces reportedly arrested at least 23 people. The security forces set up checkpoints on all roadways and waterways leading to the site of the ceremony. So it is a matter of Australia's giving human rights the priority it deserves in our foreign policy. We are in this motion asking the government to take a number of quite modest additional initiatives. If the government are as effective as they imply, the reality is they ought to follow that through. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Is the motion seconded?83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:56:0015575Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I would like to speak on this motion moved by the member for Maribyrnong. I feel the member for Maribyrnong neglected to mention the significant progress that has been made in this area since 1995, both by the previous government and by the current government. In fact, the report of the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on Australia's regional dialogue on human rights actually said that Vietnam should be singled out, but that it should be singled out as a model for a constructive human rights dialogue which we would establish with that country.Clearly there are significant human rights concerns in Vietnam, but since 1995 Australia and Vietnam have developed a dialogue on human rights with new areas of cooperation such as training and institution building. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has raised individual cases with the Vietnamese foreign minister. The Australian Embassy in Vietnam makes representations about individual cases; the most recent representation in Hanoi on 15 March 2000. AusAID has funded a course on human rights and international law for high-level government officials. There is also a human rights fund, funded by AusAID and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which provides a library of human rights resources for the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Our dialogue on human rights is enhanced by our aid program to Vietnam. Vietnam is the third largest recipient of Australian aid, and we are the second largest bilateral donor after Japan.In its June 1998 report on Australia's regional dialogue on human rights, the Human Rights Sub-Committee welcomed the joint initiatives in Vietnam and recommended that they be used as a model for other countries in the region. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade web site recognises there have been improvements in the human rights situation in Vietnam. The ending of isolation and the integration of Vietnam into the wider community have contributed to this improvement. In 1998, 8,000 prisoners, including the Venerable Thich Quang Do, Doan Viet Hoat and Nguyen Dan Que, were released. In 1999, 6,000 prisoners had their sentences reduced, and 1,700 prisoners were released. However, there were no political or religious dissidents released.A grand amnesty has been foreshadowed for April and September 2000. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian government, is encouraging the inclusion of political and religious dissidents in this amnesty. The number of political and religious prisoners in Vietnam is estimated at 30 to 150. It is true to say, as the previous member did, that the press remains restricted. It is true to say that a number of Internet sites have been blocked, but there are also a lot of opportunities through the Internet. Urban Vietnamese are becoming increasingly IT literate, and dissident views can be now expressed through the Internet. There are still limits to religious activities. There is some dissent allowed within the Communist Party, but it is only limited dissent.Australia's approach is a practical one. It is the same one that was adopted by the Labor Party when they were in government, and it is working. As I said before, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has raised human rights concerns with his counterpart, including individual cases. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have both raised human rights issues with the Vietnamese Prime Minister, Phan Van Khai, during his visit to Australia in April of last year. Also, since 1997 AusAID has sponsored a human rights course in Hanoi with the Ho Chi Minh Academy and a study tour to Australia with visits to human rights institutions. Next is planned a study tour by Ho Chi Minh Academy officials to see the operation of human rights institutions in the Asia-Pacific region, translating human rights text and practical training in research and training of human rights. There have been improvements—for example, 13 out of the 17 people whom the government made representations about were released from detention in the 1998 amnesty. What I would say to the sponsor of this motion is that if he does have individual cases that he feels should be raised then he should raise them with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and ask the Australian Embassy to make representations on their behalf. In summary, the human rights situation in Vietnam is of concern. The approach that Australia has taken is in no way to apologise for the situation but to say we are making practical improvements. It is wrong to say that there has not been improvements; there clearly have been.16:02:0015576Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I endorse the comments by the member for Maribrynong and congratulate him on raising in this parliament the issue of human rights in Vietnam, particularly freedom of expression and religion. It is an issue which has been raised many times and should be raised again and again. As a member representing Sydney's south-west, which is home to many thousands of people of Vietnamese background, I can appreciate the heavy hearts of all who hold these fundamental rights dear when considering how slowly the Vietnamese government is responding to the concerns of the international community over the imprisonment, detention and suppression of dissidents and the state's uncompromising control of religious belief.Religious persecution is poor politics, and the oppression of the Buddhist churches in particular is unlikely to achieve anything for the government. Buddhism has existed in Vietnam as long as Christianity has in all the world. Organisations like Amnesty International, of which I am a member and to which many in this House belong, have voiced continuing criticism over the lack of progress in ensuring basic human rights in Vietnam. Amnesty is not alone. The speed of today's communications means most of the world is aware of the infringements of those rights. A house arrest of any dissenting voice is quickly published to an increasingly wider audience. Oppression is becoming counterproductive.Many democratically elected Australian representatives have added their support to the nomination of the Very Venerable Thich Quang Do for the Nobel Peace Prize. Such gestures are drawing the world's attention to the stature and humanity of those whose voices the Vietnamese government believes should not be heard. It serves to make their voices louder. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and many delegations have pressed the case diplomatically.Our help in the development of Vietnam's institutions—particularly in its educational and legal framework and its commercial and economic machinery—provides us with a friendly approach in promoting values which recognise the rights of individuals. But, as I have said, this is a slow path, so much so that our willingness to assist in the further economic renovation of Vietnam might not maintain the same momentum unless prisoners of conscience are free, unless there is freedom to practise one's religion. Our largest foreign infrastructure aid project, the My Thuan bridge, is an example of the sorts of projects which might be compromised if more is not done to guarantee human rights.Friendships can be tested. We were able to respond to last year's devastating floods, the worst for 40 years, quickly because of friendship. We are optimistic that our friendship can grow. What happened 25 years ago should be put behind us so we can work together. Just as communications threaten the state's effective control over dissidents, so too does the need for Vietnam to integrate itself more into the regional and world economy if it is going to have continuing prospects. And the presence of some 4,000 Vietnamese students in this country—more than anywhere else—means human rights and the freedom of religion and ideas is inevitable among the young, who will determine the future of Vietnam. Australia is a friend, but the Vietnamese government needs most to befriend all its people, regardless of religion and regardless of belief. We also have many wonderful, enterprising, talented Australians of Vietnamese background. Many have contacted me to voice their support for this motion today. I am grateful to them for doing so, because they are promoting the need for some mutual obligation by the Vietnamese government in relation to Australia's aid and investment commitments. It makes good sense for the Vietnamese government to realise the failure to observe human rights could lead to Vietnam's failure to succeed in bringing its 79 million people the prosperity it has fought to achieve.16:07:0015577Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—In participating in this debate on the motion concerning human rights in Vietnam I would first of all like to acknowledge, once again, the deep appreciation of the Australian community for those Australian ex-service men and women who served in the conflict in Vietnam 25 years ago and for their families. I think we should, at this stage, acknowledge that point and also that many of the scars of that conflict still have a grave effect on the health and wellbeing of some of those veterans. We hope they will recover their health and understand that the Australian community has a deep respect and appreciation for their contribution on behalf of Australia during that difficult time.The Australian government is deeply committed to working with Vietnam to improve their human rights situation. We have a good bilateral relationship with Vietnam—a mature relationship that has diversified, particularly over the last decade. It encompasses dialogue and cooperation on a very wide front, including on police and defence matters. The human rights issue is a difficult one, as has been spoken about. As a nation we quite frankly approach this issue from a different perspective to Vietnam and the government of Vietnam at the moment. But Australia and Vietnam both belong to relevant international instruments. We are both active participants in the United Nations and we sit alongside representatives from Vietnam in forums dealing with human rights issues. As a result of that good relationship and the friendship we have developed, we are taking every opportunity to promote the observance of human rights in Vietnam through, I guess, quiet diplomacy and the provision of practical and technical assistance. We have sought to increase awareness of human rights among decision makers in Vietnam. We have provided funding for and conduct training programs in human rights at Vietnam's elite Ho Chi Minh Political Academy. Through our embassy in Hanoi we also monitor the human rights situation in Vietnam on an ongoing basis.We regularly make representations to the Vietnamese government regarding the detention, house arrest and harassment of individuals. We are particularly concerned to ensure that Australian diplomatic representatives are also able to assist Australians who are incarcerated in Vietnam, which is a matter that does cause concern from time to time. We do not have a large diplomatic presence in Vietnam and, because of that, it is a bit hard to envisage us doing more in these direct ways, but we do our best. The relationship is a mature one and I think we are respected as a friendly nation, regarded as a friend, by the government of Vietnam. That is always the best basis for achieving successful negotiations with another country about its sovereign rights and the way it treats its citizens. We have of course urged Vietnam to observe internationally recognised human rights standards, including freedom of speech and freedom of religion. There have been improvements in some areas of human rights in Vietnam, but of course there are some areas of concern. There has been an improvement, for example, in the environment for practising officially sanctioned religions. You might baulk at the words I just used, but that does represent some progress because there had not been any progress before. Thirteen out of 17 people, on whose behalf the government made representations, were released from detention in the 1990 amnesty. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 1557816:12:0015578Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I move:That this House:(1) notes the Government's commitment to delivering rural, regional and remote health services;(2) notes the low numbers of available rural, regional and remote medical practitioners and registered nurses;(3) notes the Government's measures to redress this problem; and(4) calls on the Government to continue its commitment and allocation of resources to delivering equity of health services into rural, regional and remote Australia.I stand here today as the member for Riverina to applaud the government, particularly the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Dr Wooldridge, and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon. John Anderson. My electorate of Riverina is one of those rural electorates that has, for too many years, suffered a critical decline in health standards—in the main, as a result of 13 years under Labor rule. However, today is my opportunity to bring to the parliament's attention the very positive results that are now being delivered to my electorate through the dedication of the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, and the commitment of many doctors, specialists and community members. One very effective initiative has been the establishment of the Greater Murray Clinical School at Wagga Wagga. This school is now the catalyst in beginning to deal with the recruitment and retention of medical practitioners to work in rural, regional and remote areas of Australia.The newly appointed director of the clinical school is Dr Mohamed Khadra. The very innovative Professor Khadra has set about developing a curriculum for medical students which is specific to a rural setting but is also equivalent in standard to that of an urban clinical school. Enlisting and educating the local medical community to become teachers of this new curriculum is providing the opportunity for medical specialists and general practitioners alike to become teachers of rural health.The Greater Murray Clinical School is providing a unique learning experience for students in their fourth, fifth and sixth years of the course. There will be a diversity of learning experiences, most of which will be community based. The students will be taken through a number of learning experiences where only a proportion will be hospital based. This hands-on training will give the students a more realistic reflection of rural health care delivery. The students will go to various appointments with each of their patients. These appointments could be with specialists, hospitals, medical investigations and GPs. The students will even do follow-up visits to the patients in their homes. Visits and excursions to small villages, remote farm families and Aboriginal settlements will be undertaken during the training.All of these innovative teaching practices will enable medical students to fully appreciate the differences in delivery of rural medicine and health care. They will learn of the difficulties that rural residents face in accessing medical services, and the students will develop the skills required to adequately equip them to practise in rural areas on completion of their training. The very presence of the clinical school has already influenced the decisions of four doctors in the last few months to relocate to the area to practise. This is at a time when regional provincial cities are having as many difficulties as rural villages and remote areas in attracting general practitioners and specialists, the doctor-patient ratio in Wagga Wagga being 2,700 people for every one doctor.Thanks to the commitment of the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, my electorate of Riverina is set to become home to one of the nation's most popular and advanced clinical schools. The Riverina Radiotherapy Trust and the Riverina Radiotherapy Appeals Committee are today elated and indebted to the minister for health for supporting a community-government joint venture to establish a cancer care centre in Wagga Wagga. This cancer care centre will provide a chemotherapy service and a radiation oncology unit comprising two dual modality linear accelerators for treatment, one simulator for planning and a CT interfacing planning computer system. This cancer care centre will be developed as a satellite centre of the Radiation Oncology Department of St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney. On 18 August 1999, a public meeting was held to gauge support for such a centre. This meeting witnessed in excess of 2,000 people cramming themselves into the Wagga Wagga Leagues Club, and many more who could not fit inside the auditorium positioned themselves at every vantage point in order to pledge their support for the cancer care centre. From this meeting came a motion that the community would raise $3 million to build and establish a cancer care centre in association with Radiation Oncology Associates. Several public meetings were held in cities, towns and villages across the region, and in the eight months since that first public meeting our communities have raised the phenomenal amount of $1.75 million, all from community fundraising. We have seen the political differences of federal and state electorate boundaries erased and community indifferences put aside. The usual parochial paranoia has been swept aside with an avalanche of dedicated volunteers committed to fundraising for a cancer care centre. From Goulburn through to Hay, communities are rallying for the cause, and that cause is to provide our residents with a chance, a chance to live and an opportunity to have the treatment that they deserve when they or their loved ones are struck down with this hideous disease.Some of the fundraising activities have been the `Pass the Hat Around' concert featuring Lee Kernaghan. Out of 1,200 applications to the selection committee for this charity event, the Riverina Radiotherapy Appeal was one of five charities chosen for a concert and was considered by the organisers to be one of the most worthy causes they had ever been involved with. This concert raised around $200,000 and saw approximately 11,000 people in attendance. Another fundraiser is a house and land package to the value of $220,000 to be raffled. All of this was built for just $10,000. We have seen tradesmen battling with each other to be able to do the work free of charge, with the donation of the land coming from Wagga Wagga City Council and Junee Shire Council.I will mention the most significant contributors. Every little community has held functions, with many raising several thousands of dollars from drought ravaged and sometimes decimated landscapes. These people have given everything from wheat from their crops to wool from the sheep's back, with the bequeathing of property now a regular occurrence. The Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, in our discussions on the project rightly cautioned the proponents and the representative committee about the viability of the proposal. However, on recognising that this was a monumental community underwritten project that was not looking to make corporate profits but indeed to provide Riverina and beyond with access to a historical referral base from St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney, the minister for health has given his approval to provide health program grant funding to the Riverina Cancer Care Centre, thus forming a formidable partnership in cancer treatment with the viability of the radiotherapy unit underwritten by our community members.In addition to these very real Riverina success stories, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, together with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, also provided funding in the last budget for Rural Doctors Retention Scheme payments, seven additional departments of rural health, John Flynn scholarship schemes, scholarships for medical students, fly-in fly-out female GPs, the establishment of advanced specialist training posts in rural areas, further training for remote nurses, the Australian Remote and Rural Nursing Scholarship Scheme, supported rural and remote pharmacies and the Rural Health Support Education and Training Program. They have also funded the implementing of key health strategies for indigenous Australians. This minister for health and this government are truly committed to health for all Australians. I urge the government to further its commitment and allocation of resources to deliver equity of health services to all Australian people in order to redress the legacy of a health system in crisis after 13 years of Labor rule. 10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Is the motion seconded?834Lawler, Tony, MPMr Lawler—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:22:0015580Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I am pleased that the member for Riverina has raised this serious issue for debate today. While I share the member's concern for the state of health services in regional and rural Australia—in places like my electorate, Central Queensland and the central west—I do not share the member's satisfaction with the government's response so far to the growing problem of providing health services in the bush. Good health and adequate medical services should be things that we in Australia can take for granted, living as we do in a modern and prosperous country. There is no excuse for the increasing disparity between the health of those living in cities and those living in regional centres or smaller country towns and communities, and there is certainly no room for government complacency on this issue.On every measure, the health of country people is deteriorating in comparison with their city counterparts. Access to health services was the number one issue emerging from the comprehensive research conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in compiling its Bush Talks report into the inequities suffered by people outside Australia's major cities. There have been examples in my own home town of Rockhampton, just in the last couple of weeks, where health services have reached outrageous levels of inaccessibility. In particular, the examples of two young children, aged 9 and 10, waiting up to three years to see ear, nose and throat specialists in a city the size of Rockhampton leave much to be desired in health services.The Howard government stands condemned on the issue of health services in regional and rural Australia for two reasons. The government has played a part in the rural decline responsible for many of the health issues confronting regional Australia. Now, having ripped out many of the supporting services that contributed to the viability of rural communities, the government offers ad hoc measures that are hit and miss in terms of their effectiveness in addressing the core issues of rural health. The physical health of a rural community is directly related to the economic health of that community. This fact was acknowledged in the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services report into regions entitled Time running out when the committee quoted the National Rural Health Alliance on page 320. Over the past four years, the Howard government has been responsible for destroying the economic health of rural and regional communities, and it cannot just turn around and apply a bandaid to the health problems now being experienced.In my electorate, health services are seen by the rural communities as a measure of those towns' stability and future viability. This was again recognised in the Time running out report, and a submission to that inquiry from the member for Riverina's own area stated that a lack of social infrastructure, including less than adequate health facilities, has been recognised as the key driver of urban drift and a major impediment to attracting families and businesses to regional areas. The federal government cannot hide from its responsibility for the damage that regional and rural towns have suffered over the last four years. If the government had not removed post offices, tax offices, social security and CES offices and stood by while banks closed offices, the economic health of rural communities would not be in decline.I see this all the time in my electorate. Once a service in a small town goes, that is an excuse for the people in that town to drive to the next, bigger centre. While they are there, they buy all their other goods and services, and the downward spiral takes hold. It is a self-perpetuating cycle, and the natural flow-on effect is for health services to follow the trend and be downgraded in those smaller centres. The government's answers on rural health ignore this link between the economic viability of a town and the standard of health services. Of course, when doctors and other health professionals look for a place to set up their practice or pursue their career, they are going to look to towns that are sustainable, that have a future and that have other support services for them and their families. The government has a narrow focus on GP numbers as the answer to the health crisis in rural areas, without a commitment to understanding the broader needs of rural communities. The government's incentives for attracting GPs to rural communities have not been working. They are not leading to increased numbers in the bush. The government is trying to hide this by fudging the numbers, but the statistics show that there has been a net increase of 13 over the last two years. This all relates to the need for a more coordinated strategy for attracting doctors and health professionals to the bush. There needs to be a more concerted effort in looking at the role of allied health professionals and nurses in rural communities. The government needs a better strategic approach to regional development as a whole. Health services are just one level of services in a town, and they depend on the other support services being there. The ALP has supported bonded scholarships as a way of increasing doctor numbers in the bush. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr 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.Grievance Debate15581Question proposed:That grievances be noted.1558116:28:0015581Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Parrish Meat Supplies Pty Ltd was an abattoir located at Yallah in my electorate and established in the 1950s by Mr Sid Parrish Sr. Last August, the firm became insolvent. Some 120 workers who had made a fortune for the directors of Parrish Meat Supplies were left high and dry by the directors, particularly Mr Colin Stanley Lord and Mr Sidney Kenneth Parrish. Parrish Meat Supplies established a transport and administrative arm of its operations through another company called South Coast Bulk Carriers Pty Ltd. The current directors include Mr Ken Parrish and previously included Mr Colin Lord, with the latter retaining a substantial shareholding.South Coast Bulk Carriers Pty Ltd is located at the Parrish Meat Supplies site at Yallah and, very interestingly, shared its employees with the related firm. South Coast Bulk Carriers employed a dozen people, mostly transport and some administrative workers. South Coast Bulk Carriers is a firm that is hollow in every sense: it has no assets and went into liquidation at the very time that Parrish Meat Supplies also went down the tube. Naturally enough, in this murky, putrid world of corporate set-ups, another company was established under the name of Obnora Pty Ltd. This company shares the same registered address as both Parrish Meat Supplies and South Coast Bulk Carriers, again at Yallah.Now the directors list becomes more interesting because it includes director Mr David Daley and others from Daley & Co. They are accountants with a presence at Port Kembla and Wollongong. Daley & Co. provided accountancy services and previously audited accounts for both Parrish Meat Supplies and South Coast Bulk Carriers. Another director of Obnora is one Mrs Janice Maree Paton, whose additional responsibility was company secretary for Parrish Meat Supplies. Obnora Pty Ltd was a secured creditor of Parrish Meat Supplies at the time of insolvency. It claimed around $1.8 million. Obnora Pty Ltd assumed the role of secured creditor following the very clever and timely departure of the Westpac Bank. Obnora's directors, including the Daley & Co. accountants, claim to have shovelled into the ailing Parrish Meat Supplies $1.8 million following the departure of the bank. A Mr John Star acted as a receiver for Obnora at the time of Parrish Meat Supplies' liquidation. This man was the chief architect of the deed of company agreement presented to the workers at the end of 1999 proposing that the workers accept as little as 30 cents in the dollar for their statutory entitlements. Mr John Star, coincidentally, also acted as administrator for National Textiles in Maitland. These 30 cents in the dollar deed of company agreements appear to be his specialty. Parrish Meat Supplies, South Coast Bulk Carriers and Obnora Pty Ltd are indeed a cosy family business in every sense of the word. The directors of Parrish Meat Supplies, Mr Colin Lord and Mr Ken Parrish, son of Sidney Parrish, are cousins. Ms Janice Maree Paton, the company secretary and slavish director of Obnora, is the sister of Mr Colin Lord. Mr Lord's and Mr Parrish's offspring are also involved in the family's wider corporate interests, including positions in the trusty family trust arrangement. The Lord and Parrish corporate empire is quite extensive, including publishing with ownership of the South Coast Register, the Bay Advocate, the Yass Tribune and the Leader. Other interests include Direct Acceptance and Direct Credits. There is also involvement in car dealership: Frank Bode Motors and Kinghorn Motors of Nowra. There is also an interest in manufacturing firms Southern Kitchens and High Sierra. In 1993 the Australian Securities and Investment Commission successfully prosecuted the directors of two Lord companies, Direct Acceptance Corporation Ltd and Drum Reconditioners Pty Ltd. The prosecution resulted from the misuse of position by the directors seeking advantage from a firm under liquidation, which was Drum Reconditioners. Mr Raymond Lord, Colin Lord's brother, was jailed as a result of this prosecution. In addition, the Direct Acceptance Corporation Ltd also went bust, owing more than $50 million. Another director of DAC was one Mr Terry Scanlan. The plain picture that builds up from an assessment of the Parrish Meat Supplies' corporate structure and directorships that are held clearly indicate so much conflict of interest, so much paper shuffling, so many hollow, worthless companies and proven past illegal activities. The story now gets even worse, as there is clear evidence that a number of government agencies have refused to dig deep into the corporate sham and expose these murky and putrid dealings, which I remind you have left 120 workers and their families with just a pathetic portion of their statutory entitlements. I start with the Australian Taxation Office. I formally wrote to the ATO seeking an investigation into the whereabouts of superannuation entitlements of the Parrish Meat Supplies workers. On 15 November I received a reply which was worthless. More troubling is that recently the ATO received correspondence from the liquidator of South Coast Bulk Carriers demanding that the $43,000 that had been paid to the ATO immediately prior to the wind-up be returned to the workers in accordance with the Corporations Act's preferential payments clause. In effect, this $43,000 held today by the ATO should be returned to the workers who under the law have the preference of this payment before the ATO. The ATO, in its usual sensitivity, has stated that the commissioner must first be satisfied that the workers are entitled to this $43,000, but in addition that the workers must initiate legal proceedings against the ATO to obtain a court order to secure the $43,000. This is an outrageous demand by the ATO. That money is the property of the workers and must be handed back to them immediately. The ASIC, despite its success in the past, is at present indicating unwillingness to further investigate the circumstances prior to the liquidation of Parrish Meat Supplies and its associated companies. Previous companies directed by Mr Colin Lord and Mr Ken Parrish have a habit of collapsing, leaving a trail of debt behind them, but the ASIC indicates that it does not intend to investigate these events further and that there is no further role for the agency in this particular case. The ASIC need only examine its own records on the current extracts for organisations and the historical personal name extract and it will find a list of companies as long as the Hume Highway with references such as `externally administered' and `deregistered'. How the ASIC, a corporate watchdog, can allow Mr Colin Lord in particular, a serial cracker of corporate structures, to get away with this type of corporate tyranny is simply beyond my understanding. It truly defies logic. Now there are questions for the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to account for. The minister will remember the Parrish meatworkers. After all, he gave them a whole two minutes of his time while at a cabinet meeting in Nowra recently. However, what the minister must explain is a letter forwarded to each of the Parrish Meat Supplies workers by his department dated 13 October 1999. The department correspondence, signed by the director of the department's Employment Assistance Monitoring Unit, asked the employees about a traineeship or apprenticeship under the New Apprenticeships program. In part, the correspondence states: This traineeship or apprenticeship was partly funded by the department ... We would like to know if the traineeship has worked for you and whether you now have a job, are studying or are doing something else. This is not to check up on you personally but to see whether the assistance you received helped you. It was an easy survey for the workers to complete. They need only answer in the negative to each question. I want to read part of a statutory declaration into the record because this traineeship program was a fraud. This declaration is provided by one of the workers and reads: During the month of March 1999 my employer advised me that I was required to sign a form relating to a training program. I was told that unless I signed the form I would not have a job here. I was not told by my employer that by signing this or any other form I would no longer be employed by either Parrish Meats Supplies or South Coast Bulk Carriers. I was unaware that by signing this form I would be employed by FSO Group Employment and Training. I was not aware that I was signing an application for a traineeship as a `new labour market entrant'. The worker's declaration goes on:A few weeks before the termination of my employment at the Parrish site I was again required to sign a form relating to training but was not advised by my employer that this was another Traineeship Application which would change my employer from FSO Group back to my original employer. A few weeks later Parrish Meats Supplies and SCBCC went into liquidation. What happened to this funding by the department? How much funding was provided? Has there been a certification from the company that received this funding that the requirements of the funding have been met? If not, why not?Foods Safety Operation Pty Ltd is a group training and employment company which presented a proposal to the Parrish companies that would effectively shift their entire work force into a traineeship scheme. The traineeship scheme that the workers signed up for was one specifically intended for new labour market entrants—that is, employees who have worked for their current employer for fewer than six months. As I have already indicated, many of the Parrish workers have worked there for over a decade. Therefore, the only way that the traineeship and other subsidies could be accessed was by shifting the existing workers to the FSO group. From March 1999 to the close of June 1999, workers received pay slips and group certificates indicating very clearly their employer to be FSO—not Parrish Meat Supplies or South Coast Bulk Carriers. As the declaration I have just read into the record indicates, workers were then shifted back into the Parrish Meat Supplies operation by the FSO by the signing of a second form. Here we have a clear case of fraud against the Commonwealth. We have correspondence received by employees seeking an evaluation of their training. On the other hand, we have employees signing and swearing that they received no training and that they were threatened with the sack if they did not sign these forms—not once, but twice. We have a case of half-smart shifting of workers from Parrish Meat Supplies into the Foods Safety Operation and from the FSO back into Parrish Meat Supplies. (Time expired)1558316:38:0015583Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—Let me begin by saying that I am proud to be the No. 1 ticket holder of the Shepparton Football and Netball Club. This is a club with more than a century of history of great playing in the Goulburn Valley, a football club which exhorts its members to `be their best', with winning the game a bonus.Australians regard fair play, the sanctity of family life and equality of opportunity for all as some of the most important tenets underpinning our society. The John Howard government insists, rightly, that, if you abuse these principles, you put at risk your claim to be egalitarian. While previous governments aimed to improve the material wellbeing of indigenous people, it is this government that is trying to also address the traumatic legacy of past policy that destroyed indigenous families, a legacy which sustains their disadvantage today. So what are these policies I speak of? In 1940 Ernestine Hill, a journalist, wrote a bestseller about her travels in outback Australia. Her book was reprinted many times, and I will quote her:It was in the Gulf of Carpentaria that I was approached by a beach-comber with a poignant little problem of his own. He was the father of four children. Their mother was a black woman.According to Government decree, these children were now to be taken from him, and placed in an institution in Central Australia for their upbringing and education. The protector had sent a policeman on a pack horse. Must he let these children go, or could he claim the rights of fatherhood? “They're well fed and happy enough”, he said. “They have no clothes, but they don't want them out here. This is their country. They don't want to leave it, and I know they won't be happy. I don't suppose either I or their mother will see them again”.... ... ...“Can I keep them with me? We've always been together ... and the old woman (it) will break her heart”. Sadly enough the answer was no. Dr Cecil Cook, ... Chief Protector of Aborigines in North Australia, ... says no. Hill continues to quote Dr Cook:The problem of these half castes can quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race and the swift submergence of its progeny in the white.The legacy of such policies—now gone for more than 40 years—continues to hurt indigenous communities, from my electorate of Murray to the top of Northern Australia. We see adults searching for family, language and cultures that they lost before they were old enough to remember. It leaves boys and men who never had a role model father, or grandfather, or brother or uncle; daughters whose mothers and grandmothers also saw their children taken away because they were too poor or too sick or because it was official policy.Like most white Australians, I learnt nothing about this shared history at school, but I grew up surrounded by the archaeological evidence of the first peoples. In Northern Victoria, what we called `blackfella's ovens' were thick along the river banks. I wanted to know about these people who left the burnt clay and the ash mounds. After four years studying anthropology, I did indeed understand a little more about traditional Aboriginal cultures. I was in awe of the complex languages, religion and social structures. But the indigenous communities I knew were in Echuca and Swan Hill. These were marginal people confined to the outskirts of town. Each year at the local show, I stared up at the thin, black men in the torn dressing gowns, banging the drum outside Jimmy Sharman's boxing tent. There was no connect for me between these images and the traditional cultures I had learnt to admire.So in 1971 I determined to write a thesis about cultural evolution and the process and outcomes of black-white culture contact in Australia. Like all good students, I raced off to the university library to read the interpretations of the social scientists and historians, but I found nothing. So I went to our great state and national libraries to search out the historic official records for myself. I read the reports of the first governors who were directed to live in `amity and kindness' with `the natives'. There were the House of Commons debates brought on by the reports of massacres in the Australian colonies or tribal remnants reduced to prostitution and begging for food.I read the 1861 Royal Commission into the Queensland Native Police Force report, which detailed how the successful guerilla tactics of the Northern Queensland tribes were overcome using traditional tribal enemies armed with rifles. I read about the `dispersal', the euphemism the white officers were required to use to describe the engagements with the blacks being pursued. It was agreed in cross-examination that it was difficult to tell women and children from the men when firing into a sleeping camp at dawn. I read about the establishment of the protectorate systems and native reserves, the introduction of laws forbidding Aborigines alcohol or opiates, laws against consorting with white men or `Asiatics', laws forbidding blacks from entering towns from sunset to sunrise—so many laws, each designed with benign intent to protect those who had survived their loss of land. I read the missionaries' reports of white men and women who spent isolated, tough lives caring for and trying their best to convert those who were put into their charge. I read endless police reports, including those from people like Mounted Constable Thorpe and his inspector of police in South Australia, Paul Foelch. In 1899 they pleaded with the government to issue elderly black men and women food rations and blankets, since all their children had been taken away to work on the stations and they could no longer fend for themselves; they could no longer carry water and hunt alone over the hot, dry plains.I read the 1904 Western Australian royal commission of inquiry into the indenturing and enslaving of Aboriginal children up to the age of 21. Commissioner Roth complained that it cost more to register a dog than to indenture a native child in Western Australia. Indentured labour received no pay or official protection. If they escaped, the police were required to bring them back. Roth noted that the Chief Protector's preferred age to indenture a native was six years.That same 1904 Western Australian royal commission documented the fact that `the larger the number of Aboriginal prisoners and witnesses, the better pecuniarily for the police'. This accounted for the long, slow columns of men, women and accompanying children, escorted in chains over hundreds of kilometres to courts. For every day on the move, the police officer received between one and sixpence halfpenny and two shillings and five pence for feeding the people on the chain. Needless to say, the unpaid black troopers shot the game along the way, so no expense was in fact incurred. These payments regularly added up to more than the officers' annual salaries. The sums are documented. Commissioner Roth reported that the court cases at the end of the march were often a travesty of justice, with few interpreters and few understanding the trial process. Long prison sentences faced those found guilty, usually of spearing cattle. The witnesses were turned loose at the court, to find their own way home, often to be `rushed' back to another trial as soon as they reached their home country. Only a decade later, government reports from the Department of External Affairs acknowledged that, without the contribution of the skilled bushcraft and stockwork and the domestic labour of Aboriginal peoples, few northern pastoral properties could be viable. Payment was typically in rations and clothing. In the early 20th century, theories of racial purity and social Darwinism helped inform our growing preoccupation with the importance of an exclusively white Australia. The native `black', it was assumed, from the evidence of Tasmania and Victoria, was destined to die out, but their children of mixed descent were to be rescued and admitted, after training, to white society. It was this great 20th century experiment in miscegenation that Ernestine Hill reported in 1940:Gathering in the half-castes of 500,000 square miles, by camel and packhorse from the farthest outposts, a pathetic little freight of misfit humans out of the blacks' camps from Petermann Ranges to Point Pearce, and from the Gulf Islands to the south-western deserts, Dr Cook is herding them all, regardless of circumstance into an institution for vocational training at Alice Springs ... with a number of girls kept at Darwin ...Families were fractured throughout Australia. In 1974, the edited version of my research was published as a documentary history of Australian government policy evolution in relation to Australia's Aborigines. With the support of the Victorian Aboriginal community, I then developed out of this work a secondary school race relations course. Ironically, the greatest demand for the study came from the Victorian Aboriginal prisoners in Melbourne's Pentridge Jail. Many had been separated from their mothers as children. They wanted to learn about traditional Aboriginal society and their mother's people's history since culture contact. For some, this meant learning first to read and write.As part of their literacy training, these men wrote me their life stories. They recounted their memories of being taken away and of discovering that the little fat boy with freckles in the room down the hall at the orphanage was really their brother; but the authorities never told. One man understood he was an orphan of Italian parentage. He loved his foster family, who raised him lovingly and taught him to deprecate the Aboriginal community in neighbouring Fitzroy. One day, an old Aboriginal man approached him in the street and said, `You look like Beryl's boy. You must be Beryl's boy.' He went home angry and confused. His parents directed him back to the boys home. They gave him his records. He went in search of and found his mother, Beryl. He talked of their reunion and what it took to reorientate his thinking about who he was and what he had to live for. The sadness and dislocation in the lives of these men brought me face to face with the full human dimension of the separated children policies. It put flesh and blood on the bones of the thousands of pages of reports which had carefully documented how successive governments had tried to protect or improve the lives of indigenous people. I am proud to be a part of the John Howard government that is determined to see the life chances of all Australians, but in particular our most disadvantaged, measurably improved. I am proud to represent the government on the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, many of the indigenous members of which are themselves separated children or the sons and daughters of men and women who were taken from their families. Like them, I believe learning about our shared history is critical to the healing process. My wonder is that so many great indigenous Australians have experienced so much personal adversity, but continue to hold out their hands, inviting all of us to walk together in the spirit of true equality and reconciliation.1558616:49:0015586Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—In less than six months, Australia will host the Olympic Games. Sydney as a city, and Australia as a nation, will be on display throughout the world. The society we have built as Australians—from our native people to our newest arrivals—will be on show, and we have a great deal to be proud of. Sydney, in this Olympic year, will emerge as one of the great cities of the world. It is a great city not because of its harbour or its beaches, not because of its Opera House, its Harbour Bridge or the magnificent facilities prepared for the Games, but because its people embrace the world. Sydney is a great city because it has developed a set of values which are in tune with the hopes and ambitions of the world. We should be envied not for our scenic beauty but for our inner beauty—our heart and our soul.Nowhere is this heart more visible than in the electorate of Fowler. Fowler, as I have reminded members more than once, is the most multicultural of all electorates in Australia. Fowler can boast the largest proportion of Asian born people as well as the largest proportion of people from many other nations among its population. Fowler, like a number of other electorates in Sydney—and, I should add, in other major cities in Australia—has had the experience of operating as a world city. It has had the unique opportunity of being able to witness the harmonious mixing of people from all over the world. Far from suffering conflict and division, the experience has been one which has enriched the lives of all and resulted in an energetic and prosperous community willing and able to confidently take its place in the world.Instead of looking inward and reflecting on its own problems, Sydney and areas such as Fowler have accepted the challenges of being part of a global economy—confident enough to seek an Australian head of state, confident enough to stand centre stage this September and present our wonderful city to the world. We are confident in our future, but not ignorant of our past. The spirit which has shaped Sydney and much of Australia will, I am sure, be greatly admired by the media of the world. But, I regret to say, much of what is written and spoken about Australia will not reflect this spirit. I fear that much of what is written and spoken of will be the mean spiritedness of our nation's capital, Canberra—that is, our national government—rather than the true spirit of the people of Sydney and Fowler.These past few weeks have provided many examples of the differences between the worldly spirit of Sydney and the narrow-minded view of our national government. We have seen the cowardly actions of the Prime Minister in refusing to take action on mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory. We have seen the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs denying history in his rejection of the stolen generations. We have seen a government rewriting the conclusions of a United Nations body to suit its own view of the world. Is this how we in Australia want to be seen by the world, when we have so much to be proud of? When our Prime Minister engages in the politics of division, when our Prime Minister seeks to set one Australian against another, what image of our nation does this present to the world? Is it one of a nation ready to reconcile its past and look confidently to the future? As Macaulay Culkin put it: `I don't think so.' Let me tell you of the situation in my electorate of Fowler. In the past 10 years we have witnessed many tragedies following the break-up of what was formerly Yugoslavia. Australia is home to many Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians and Macedonians. The electorate of Fowler has one of the largest concentrations of each of these communities in Australia. Despite the horrors and atrocities of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, barely a few minor incidents occurred in Australia. In Fowler, an area where Serbian and Croatian Australians live in the same street, where their children attend the same school, where people work and shop together, there were no signs of hatred—no signs at all. There was little, if any, outward sign of conflict. Last Friday I had the pleasure of dropping in on an informal reception given by the Yadran Hayduk Croatian Club for the Croatian men's swimming team presently in Sydney. The team manager was pleased to point out that one of the team's star performers is from a Serbian community. The spirit of the Olympics has much in common with the spirit of Sydney. That is what being part of the community of Sydney is about. That is what Sydney can show the world. It is a pity the same cannot be said for the whole of Australia. The spirit of Sydney is transformational. It is magical. It performs miracles when you consider that Sydney's first permanent European inhabitants were the dregs of British prisons. Within a generation its citizens were transformed into an industrious and generally honest population, something which still amazes social commentators today. The spirit of hope and a belief in the future has inspired many generations since those days—from the Anglo-Irish immigrants of the early years through waves from central and southern Europe to today's arrivals from the Middle East and Asia. While some would suggest that future new arrivals should be bonded to settle inland, the attraction of major cities is greater than just being near the coast. The open community of cities such as Sydney is as powerful a magnet as any beach or harbour view. But while Sydney lays out the welcome mat to the world for the forthcoming Olympic Games, Canberra cannot resist rolling out the barbed wire. In a case which came to my attention only last week, a constituent told me of his disappointment at the refusal of a visitors visa for his wife's Chinese parents. He had purchased tickets for a number of events, including the table tennis finals, as a surprise for them when they were to arrive in Sydney. You can understand his great disappointment when his adopted country, a country that he loves, a country of which he is so proud, refuses entry to his wife's parents. By any interpretation of the letter informing them of the refusal, it was quite clear that if they were from northern Europe or North America, their visa request would not have been refused. What kind of country have we become, or gone back to being, when we judge people by their race? You can understand how many Australians of Chinese origin are made to feel in this, their own beloved country. How can the many Chinese-Australian residents of Sydney welcome people from all over the world knowing that their own parents are not welcome in this country? How then, you might also ask, should the descendants of indigenous Australians welcome the world in September? This tale of two cities continues here as well. While the government of New South Wales is prepared to acknowledge the mistakes of the past, to say sorry—to say sorry and mean it—in Canberra it is a different story. Instead of reconciliation, there is confrontation. Instead of an apology, there is a denial. Were I to be a visitor from overseas during the Sydney Olympics I might be shocked at the sight of burning cars, but I would be more disturbed if the faces of welcome were turned the other way. We hear a lot about the division in our nation between city and country. We hear a lot about what needs to be done to build communication bridges between the city and the bush. But nothing so divides our nation as the gap between those who look out into the world and see opportunity and those who look out and see only threats. Those same people so often display their insecurity in their denial of what has occurred around them. They can only justify their values by applying the most perverse forms of logic and calling the most Australian of values un-Australian. The Sydney Olympics will be a great success by any measure. The world will come to see that face of Australia that represents the best of the Australian people. If they look down the road to Canberra, they will see the worst. 1558816:58:0015588Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—This year is an Olympic year. It is also a presidential election year in America. I have been quietly observing the American political process, particularly taking an interest in the contest to secure the Republican primary nomination. It struck me that former US President George Bush had taken a relatively hands-off approach to the political point scoring campaign for his son's candidature. It struck me that there has been a lack of obvious attack by Bush Sr against Bill Clinton and his administration. This non-critical approach to the Clinton administration, despite much ammunition, has been a feature of George Bush's ex-presidency. I reflected on this feature of the ex-president and made an analogy of that approach being used in Australia by former prime ministers. The comparison was quite startling. Whilst it is a feature of former presidents to refrain from commenting on current and future administrations in America, we have recently seen in Australia that the same cannot be said of our former prime ministers. In recent weeks, we have seen two of our former prime ministers publicly criticising the Howard government for their stand on certain policy issues. Firstly, Paul Keating criticised the Howard government for Australia's involvement in East Timor and, more recently, Malcolm Fraser publicly criticised Prime Minister Howard over his stance on mandatory sentencing.This has been damaging to Australia's international reputation, and it caused me to ponder what the role of our former prime ministers should be. There are two trains of thought, when it comes to the matter of what role our former prime ministers should play. There are those who think that we do not utilise our former prime ministers as well as we could and if they are still willing and able they should be able to continue an active public role. There are others who believe that, once a prime minister leaves office, they should retire gracefully.As we enter the second century of our nation's Federation, it is appropriate that we reflect on what role we expect from our former prime ministers. It is generally agreed by both camps that, regardless of their role, former prime ministers should be provided with public funding to maintain a dignified life and not be forced to engage in activities that are unseemly or inappropriate for someone who has held such an office. Whilst a former prime minister does not continue to receive a salary once they leave office, they are paid a considerable pension as well as being provided with an office and staff, official transport and travel allowances, and security for them and their family. This is a considerable expense to taxpayers. It is interesting to note that the provision of these services for former prime ministers is done as an act of grace; there is no legislative basis to their provision.In 1996, in answer to a question on notice, we learnt that Sir John Gorton cost taxpayers $104,239; Gough Whitlam, $335,000; Malcolm Fraser, $383,000; Bob Hawke, $221,000; and Paul Keating cost the Australian people $168,000 in less than three months. I firmly believe that this is a justified expense. However, the Australian public are quite within their rights to expect something in return. Former prime ministers, who are being paid by the current government, should not be able to publicly criticise Australia and damage our reputation. Whilst they are encouraged to participate in public debate, there must be some boundaries for what is appropriate for former prime ministers to do once they leave office. However, if we want to engage them more actively, we have to decide how and then provide the funding. In a manner similar to the US, it may be worth while to establish a prime ministerial library to continue generating social policy debate but in a less confrontational and detrimental manner. I thought the best way of approaching what the role of our former prime ministers should be would be to review post-presidential life compared with post-prime ministerial life. At the moment, there are four living ex-American presidents. They are provided with a salary, office and staff, travel and various other benefits at considerable expense to the taxpayer. They use their profile and considerable influence for a number of causes, both domestically and internationally. For example, Gerald Ford, prior to being ill, travelled the lecture circuit, focusing on Congress-White House relations as well as domestic and foreign policy issues; Jimmy Carter has been known to advocate democracy and human rights all over the globe; Ronald Reagan was active on behalf of many charitable and civic organisations before being overtaken by ill health; and George Bush has been known to publicly advocate the increase of civic duties of Americans. Former American presidents are actively encouraged to continue participating in public debate. They have, as I mentioned, a presidential library system where public funding is made available to maintain presidential libraries and museums built by private donations. These are often attached to a university and double as a centre for public policy.It is, therefore, not surprising that former Australian prime ministers should also be encouraged to continue a semi-public life. Prime ministers such as Reid, Fisher, Bruce, Fraser and Whitlam have all had a post-prime ministerial life either in overseas high commission roles or with the United Nations. After leaving parliament, Gough Whitlam was appointed as Ambassador to UNESCO and served on their executive board as well as being appointed Chairman of the Australia-China Council. Malcolm Fraser campaigned against apartheid and French nuclear testing as well as being Chairman of CARE Australia since 1987. In contrast to these examples, both Bob Hawke and Paul Keating have become, as former senator John Button described them this year, `fully privatised former prime ministers'. Bob Hawke has done no public work of a sustained nature, although he was recently appointed to the Growing Together summit in Victoria, and he has also published his memoirs. Paul Keating has recently published a book on Australian foreign relations with Asia as well as being very vocal in his criticism of Xanana Gusmao and Jose Ramos Horta. I welcome the Melbourne Age for criticising the disrepute in which Paul Keating has placed Australia with those comments.Certainty, it is often advantageous having an elder statesman negotiating on behalf of Australians when it is difficult or inappropriate for the government of the day to intervene. This was demonstrated recently when Malcolm Fraser was integral in securing the release of the CARE Australia workers in Serbia in his role as Chairman of CARE Australia. Unfortunately, we are seeing that some former prime ministers feel it necessary not only to take an active interest in contemporary Australian politics but also to comment publicly on the actions of the current administration. These comments are generally benign in effect, but they can have wider international implications from time to time.This is in stark contrast to the US. Like former prime ministers, former presidents are afforded many benefits and are generally revered as elder statesmen. However, whilst former American presidents do not simply disappear from public life at the end of their term, they essentially refrain from criticising the current administration. There is one exception to that, and I will come to that in a moment. It should not be thought that this is because they have simply not had the opportunity or that there has been no issue worthy of comment. There was ample ammunition that Jimmy Carter could have used to criticise Ronald Reagan's handling of the Iran Contra affair. Similarly, as I have already mentioned, George Bush would have been more than justified in criticising Bill Clinton for some of his actions but refrained from doing so. Jimmy Carter however, despite all his good work, did stray at one point when he received criticism from the Left and the Right, chastising him for making concessions to dictatorial regimes in his attempts to mediate peaceful resolutions to violent situations and particularly for telling the Haitian junta that he was ashamed of US policy and for negotiating with Bosnian-Serb leaders who were considered war criminals. Despite that, Jimmy Carter, with his new-found public policy ex-presidency model which he is championing, has shown that the goals of peace, justice, human rights, democratic involvement, disease control and improvements in living conditions have led to his ex-presidency being a mark of pride for Americans—a model which perhaps can be used currently by former prime ministers of this country.However, it would be fair to say that we certainly do not expect our prime ministers to leave office and disappear from public life. They do have a responsibility, nevertheless, to the Australian taxpayers. I say to our former prime ministers that they should remember that they are no longer democratically elected representatives of the Australian public and, accordingly, they should leave the politics of the day to the people of the moment. In this regard they should adopt a more impartial, bipartisan approach to current policy. (Time expired)1559017:08:0015590Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I thought I should respond a little to the honourable member for Deakin. I really thought he was being very precious with his `there should be no criticism of the current government by former prime ministers' approach. Well, former prime ministers are not like that. I thought he was particularly unkind to Prime Minister Hawke and Prime Minister Keating in saying that they had not adopted any public role. It is a matter of record that, under Prime Minister Hawke, notwithstanding that within the Labor Party Prime Minister Fraser was seen as very divisive and very negative, he was supported in his bid to become Secretary-General of the Commonwealth—and would have, I believe, done an excellent job.One thing I do agree with the honourable member for Deakin on is this. We need to better utilise the talents of former prime ministers. It is true that neither Prime Minister Hawke nor Prime Minister Keating has been utilised in this way. I think that is a matter of sadness.In relation to the Prime Minister's comments that a period of 10 years of autonomy for East Timor would have led to a much smoother transition, I have to completely agree. Whilst I do not want to judge for the East Timorese what is best for them, periods of autonomy where we are building up the skills and the public service base of an area or a province are infinitely better than a rapid changeover from one system to another. So I say to the member for Deakin that I thought he was being a little trite in some of his comments—although I am on his side about utilising much better Prime Ministers Fraser, Hawke and indeed Keating, and I am sure that this government will utilise the services of Tim Fischer when he steps down from this House.I might point out that the New South Wales government, in its recent conference on salinity had Ian Sinclair, a former Speaker and Leader of the National Party, actually chairing the seminar. That is what the people of Australia want: putting aside party differences and seeking solutions and answers to the big questions that confront the nation.I want to talk about a meeting that occurred in the electorate of my good friend the member for Greenway on Saturday. This meeting was held at the Riverstone Bowling Club for park residents. I would particularly like to thank Roberta, who was instrumental in doing all the hard yards, and, in particular, Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler, who is our shadow parliamentary secretary and has done such a great job to publicise the needs and concerns of these people. I suppose a courage award should go to the member for Mitchell, who also attended and was completely confused about the implications of the impact on the residents. Needless to say, again I would like to acknowledge the fact that he was there and it was good that a government member came along. What is the problem with long-term residents of caravan parks and residential parks? Well, they are going to be subject to a GST and they are not getting a compensation package. We have the government saying, `Don't worry, Australians, about the impact of the GST. Some little things, as the Prime Minister said, will go up and some little things will go down; but believe what we said at the last election that no-one will be worse off.' These residents are going to be worse off; in fact, they are going to be discriminated against. Let me give you an example. One of the residents who came from Parklea pointed out that $1.5 million in site fees is collected from that park. That is a lot of money—there are a lot of residents. What is going to be the impact on 1 July? The GST is going to be put on half the value of their site fees. That means that those residents are going to contribute to the Commonwealth coffers some $75,000. Now these residents are, I might say, not wealthy residents. They make a lifestyle choice. Often they are pensioners but they choose this form of living basically for a couple of reasons, the first being—and I would not hide the fact—that it is a much cheaper form of accommodation, and the second being that in these parks there is, of course, a real community spirit that is often missing from our residential suburbs. They are going to be subject to a GST.The point that I made at the meeting that we had at the Riverstone bowling club was this. Were I a wealthy owner of units along Luxford Road in my electorate, there is no question that there would be no GST on the rent from those units. For those units I provide not only the land but the building and all the common services—that is, keeping them clean and tidy, mowing the lawn and carrying out any other repairs that need to be done. For people in those units and for that $1.5 million, there is no GST levy. A person who is a long-term resident in a park is hiring a piece of ground. They have the water and electricity connected to it, and they pay the charges for it. If there is any mowing to be done, they do the mowing. If there is a garden around it or in it, they look after the garden. They provide the physical infrastructure, the building—either a mobile home or a caravan. Yet for people in that situation the government is providing a 10 per cent GST on half the value. Isn't that discriminatory? Isn't that disgraceful, particularly when you say, `Well, no-one is going to be worse off with a GST'?I would love some government member to try and explain—as the member for Mitchell valiantly tried to do on Saturday—this absurd and discriminatory situation. As I said earlier, I absolutely congratulate the member for Grayndler because he has been all round Australia talking to these people, listening to what they have to say, and he is publicising this absurd situation. We even hear about it from some members of the government. I think the member for Gilmore, Joanna Gash, is on record as saying it is discriminatory. I agree with her one hundred per cent. It is discriminatory. When is the government going to do something about it? When you discriminate against people, it is really saying that if you are in a like situation you have an unlike outcome. That is exactly the situation. If you rent a home or a unit, you do not pay. But if you live in a caravan or in a mobile home, you pay. That is discriminatory.There can be only two reasons for treating these people as second-class citizens—and this may be the case: a complete lack of understanding by the government of the circumstances of people who are proud to say that they are permanent residents of a caravan park or a mobile home. That is the most charitable explanation. If that is the situation, the government has no reason for not informing itself and for removing this discrimination. The other reason, I suspect, is that it believes that these people do not matter; they do not count and they will not do anything about it. That may be the case, but it is a big risk to take into the next election. I want to congratulate Jim Clark, the coordinator of the Affiliated Park Residents of New South Wales, for coming all the way down from Belmont. Where there have not been units of this organisation established, he is busily setting them up and letting people know just how discriminatory this government is. I ask that, in all fairness, the government remove this discrimination, treat the park residents fairly and change this horrific impact, for which it is not going to compensate them, of having a 10 per cent GST on half the value of the site fees. (Time expired)1559217:19:0015592Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—My grievance today relates to the future of the RAAF Williams Point Cook site in my electorate. This site is marked for disposal by the Commonwealth as part of the Defence Efficiency Review and the Defence Reform Program. Point Cook, as anybody familiar with aviation in Australia would know, is a truly historic site. It is the oldest airfield in the world that is still being operated as an airfield and it has many of its original features, including hangars and heritage listed buildings. It was established in 1913 as the Central Flying School, and the airstrip has been in continuous use ever since.To get some perspective about what that means in terms of aviation history, we need to remember that the first-ever manned flight took place on 17 December 1903. So, a mere 10 years later, Point Cook was operating a flying school, and planes have been flying from there ever since. Apart from having history around that length of aviation service, it is of course the birthplace of the Australian Flying Corp and the Royal Australian Air Force. It was the departure point for the first north-south and the first east-west crossings of the continent by air and the first aerial circumnavigation of the continent. Recognising its historic nature, Point Cook is home to both the RAAF Museum and the RAAF Chapel.One would hope that when a site of this significance is being dealt with by the Commonwealth, particularly when it has been identified as surplus to Commonwealth requirements, there would be a deep consultation strategy engaged in with the aviation community and with the local community as to the future use of the site. Unfortunately, that is not occurring. There has been a great deal of community debate and organisation around the question—not because the government has come and asked the community what its view is but because the community has determined that it will have its view heard, even if the government is not cocking its ear to listen to what the community has to say. The community recognises that the site has terrific potential as a tourist, education and aviation precinct, a place where you could go and learn about the history of flight and the history of our airforce, go and see the planes in the RAAF Museum and take a flight yourself or at least watch a functioning airstrip in operation. Some of these things are already there at Point Cook, and it is a question of whether or not the government acts in a way which facilitates these things to not only continue but develop over time.The proposal to turn the site into a mixed education-aviation tourist precinct is well supported by the local community, and a petition which garnered more than 10,000 signatures has already been presented to this place about this matter. Indeed, the Minister for Defence has before him a credible proposal to develop the site as a tourist, education and aviation precinct, that is, a submission from a not-for-profit company called Point Cook Operations Ltd. To date, the minister has not responded to this proposal. The proposal requires the Commonwealth to grant a lease of the site to Point Cook Operations Ltd at a peppercorn rental. What loss of revenue this could cause the Commonwealth is a matter of speculation as the Point Cook site has not been valued. Factors relevant to the valuation would need to include the following. Even among those who do not accept that the aviation strip needs to be kept for historic reasons there is an acceptance that the museum and a tightly defined heritage precinct needs to be kept, irrespective of who ends up in eventual control of the site. That is obviously something that would affect the site's value. Also affecting the site's value is the fact that significant areas need remediation because they have been used in the past for weapons testing. Also, the site is not only not sewered in terms of having a sewerage grid on the site; it is not in any way connected to the main sewerage system in metropolitan Melbourne and there is considerable cost involved with such connection. Then there is the question of upgrading the necessary infrastructure if the site were to be devoted to housing development. For example, Point Cook Road—the road that links the base with the major freeway, the Princes Freeway—is in no way capable of taking extra traffic and is under standard for the volume of traffic that it currently is required to cater for. In addition, there is the need to consider the effect of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. There are wetlands in the vicinity of this site. The Commonwealth has international obligations in the use of our wetlands, and the pressure of development would need to be considered against those international obligations. And relevant to the debate is the question: how do you price the heritage value of maintaining the oldest functioning aviation strip in the world and the birthplace of the RAAF? How do you value having the RAAF Museum and the RAAF Chapel maintained in a setting which is compatible with their functions? Obviously there is a real debate about this question—a real debate about what the site should be used for, a real debate about the question of costs to the Commonwealth. It is a debate that has to be had, and it has to be managed in such a way that the aviation community, the local community and the stakeholders who currently use the Point Cook site are all consulted and embraced in that debate so we get the clearest possible picture of what should happen with the site.As I have indicated, the consultation simply is not happening. But, almost worse than that, there has been a deliberate attempt by the Defence Estates Organisation—which is currently charged with managing the site with a view to its eventual disposal—a clear strategy emerging from that organisation to discourage those who currently use the site from continuing to use the site, obviously because the Defence Estates Organisation, notwithstanding the community debate about this issue, has as its eventual plan to sell as much of the site as possible for housing. The way in which this has come to my attention is that I have been approached by a number of aircraft owners and operators who were required by the Defence Estates Organisation to sign an `airfield use agreement'. They were required to sign that agreement by 29 February—this year being a leap year—and the threat held over their heads was that if they did not sign that agreement their aircraft would have to be removed from the Point Cook site the next day. When you look at the agreement its terms are indeed outrageous. I will raise three particular issues stemming from the agreement.Firstly, there is the question of the charges being levied to land at Point Cook. The agreement is structured so that if you want to land your aircraft at Point Cook you must enter the agreement. That costs you $260, and then you pay $10 each day that your aircraft is present at Point Cook. So a single landing by a non-commercial, single-engine aircraft would cost a grand total of $270. This compares with a total cost—because they do not require these agreements with $260 fees in them—for landing at Moorabbin, for example, of $7. That is, it is almost 40 times more expensive to land at Point Cook than it is to land at Moorabbin. The comparison gets more and more ridiculous because you can land your non-commercial, single-engine aircraft at Tullamarine airport or Sydney airport, even in peak periods, for $250, and for $100 off-peak; that is, it is cheaper to land your single-engine aircraft at Australia's two major airports, Tullamarine and Sydney, than it is to land at Point Cook. That is the effect of this agreement. They cannot be commercial rates. They are rates which, in my view, it cannot be denied have been struck with a view to discouraging aviators from using Point Cook, to clear the site in preparation for housing.Secondly, these agreements provide that you need to give 48 hours notice if you want to land at Point Cook. We are talking about private aircraft operators, hobby operators, who literally look out the window on a Saturday morning and think to themselves it might be a nice day to go flying. If they want to land at Moorabbin, for example, or at Essendon or at Coolangatta or at Mangalore or any of those places, they merely are required to radio in whilst they are preparing to land to allow the aircraft controllers to make sure that there is not a problem with too many planes landing at once. Thirdly, there is the question of risk management. Initially, the flying club that operates from there was told that each of its directors—this is a non-profit club—would have to sign an unconditional, continuing personal guarantee in order that their members could continue to fly out of Point Cook. Ultimately, that was resolved on the basis that instead of requiring those guarantees they would be asked for an additional $500 security deposit. What sort of rational, contracting structure can it be that asks for unconditional, continuing personal guarantees one day and settles for an extra $500 security deposit the next?What the Minister for Defence needs to do in respect of the Point Cook site is put on hold any future conduct of the Defence Estates Organisation which would prejudice the interests of any of the current users of the Point Cook site and engage in a public consultation strategy about the site's future. (Time expired)1559417:29:0015594Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I rise tonight to speak on probably the most important issue of our time, and that is unemployment. This issue, of course, has been uppermost in the public's minds for many years, as we saw unemployment reach records of 11.1 per cent, over one million Australians unemployed, under the previous Labor government. They had spent $2 billion on training programs, they had done all sorts of weird and wonderful things, but with one net outcome: more people were unemployed. There was less job security. There were more families out there reliant upon social security than ever before, with no hope for the future.Under this government we have obviously seen a major decrease in the number of unemployed and an increase, conversely, of those that are employed, those that have got jobs, those that are able to fend for themselves, to be able to look to the future. Unfortunately, my home state of Queensland under Labor Premier Peter Beattie—who made big in the last election that he was going to reduce unemployment to five per cent—has in fact gone against the national trend. Since March 1999 across the nation we have seen unemployment go from 7.4 per cent, steadily falling through June at 7.3 per cent; August, 7.1 per cent; October, seven per cent; December 1999, 6.9 per cent; down to March of this year at 6.8 per cent. That is the trend.We all know that unemployment figures jump around from one month to another, but what is important with these figures is the trend line. Is it going up, is it going down or is it stable? Are we providing hope to those unemployed people or are we just leaving them there on the dustbin of unemployment? The fact is that nationally the federal government has put in policies which have seen unemployment steadily coming down. It is now 0.6 per cent lower than it was in March 1999—7.4 per cent down to 6.8 per cent. The number of people unemployed has gone from 699,800 down to 651,000 peopleso, basically 700,000 down to about 650,000; 50,000 fewer unemployed people throughout the nation.Let us contrast that with Queensland under the Beattie Labor government. They have been able to enjoy all of the benefits that this federal government has been able to put in place, but they have still managed to go against the national trend. In March 1999, eight per cent of Queenslanders were unemployed, or 142,000 Queenslanders. In March 2000, the latest figures are eight per cent unemployed—exactly the same figure but on an increased population, which means we in fact have more people in raw terms unemployed, now 145,000. So this Beattie government—which is great on dealing with the media, great on rhetoric—is in fact doing absolutely nothing of a positive nature to assist those people that generate jobs, the small business constituency.I would like to point out a couple of reasons behind this. The first and most obvious is the reversal of the Workplace Relations Act in Queensland. One of the first things that Premier Beattie did was to say, `We will repeal the unfair dismissal laws and take away the exemption for small business.' We all know that Queensland depends entirely upon small business to generate jobs, more so than any other state in the Commonwealth. So small business are the one group that most needed to have the protection from unfair dismissal laws. A businessman spoke to me the other day, a 59-year-old man. He had never been in court in his life. He has had numerous businesses. He was confronted with an employee that he had had for three months. He had done absolutely nothing wrong. He was asked to front an unfair dismissal court. He did not lose the case, but it cost him $30,000 to defend a position which he did not even lose. The message it sent to him and all of his colleagues and friends was that this law was working against not only his business but the employment opportunities that he could provide to Queenslanders. It is simply not good enough. But Mr Beattie is not satisfied with knocking small business. Today we have the Queensland government submission on long service leave in front of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. Their position is to make long service leave more generous for Queenslanders than it currently is. What does that—an extra impost, an impost which they can ill afford at a time when Mr Beattie cannot get unemployment down one iota in the state yet we can as a federal government across the board—do for small business?Then we turn to the rural sector. There are another couple of cases before the Industrial Relations Commission revolving around small business contractors in the rural sector. Shearers are obviously the backbone of the wool industry—it would not be able to survive without them—and here we have a case before the commission where the Queensland government would like to see shearers having to be employees, not employers, absolutely pulling at the cornerstone of what has been a traditional Australian industry with people with a bit of entrepreneurial spirit wanting to work harder to achieve greater incomes for their families and, therefore, greater security; and the Beattie Labor government says no.So he turns their attention to the transport industry and attacks them in exactly the same manner and says, `Here in the transport industry we want to drive people back to being employees; we do not want them to be self-employed; maybe they will go and join the Transport Workers Union.' It is more about union membership than about people being able to look after themselves, having the self-respect of being employed. There are two other examples in both the rural and the transport industry, as well as in general small business, where the Labor government has lost the plot and in doing so is really responsible for why we have unemployment stuck at eight per cent in the state, going against the national average.In the dairy industry—which is to be deregulated from 1 July; this hits very much home in my own electorate—the federal government took the responsible role of trying to put together a deregulation package, a measure of $1.7 billion-odd to assist the deregulation of this industry. This was not federal government legislation; this is all state government legislation. The state government benefited. They received national competition policy funding to assist the restructure of these industries. But how much did the Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities, Mr Palaszczuk, or Premier Beattie in the Labor government put into this industry? Did they put in $10 million? Did they match Western Australia, with their $26 million or $28 million? No, they did not give one red cent, not a cent to an industry which is now on its knees and need not be if only the state government took the responsibility of protecting this vital rural sector of the Queensland economy. It is not only the dairy industry but all of the industries that flow on to it like the transport industry. They rely on the dairy industry in my area, yet they are going to lose this element of their income because the dairy industry closes.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—Who deregulated? Who caused the deregulation of the dairy industry? The Liberal Party.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—The member for Dickson sits and interjects. The member for Dickson—who used to be the shadow minister for regional affairs and who doesn't even visit her own regional electorate, let alone regional Australia—would not know what the dairy industry is going through. I would suggest to you quite strongly that you go out to the west of your electorate to Dayboro, talk to the dairy industry and find out why they are struggling. They are struggling because you and your party in the Queensland parliament have no compassion whatsoever for Queensland farmers. XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—I suggest that the member opposite get a bit of a reality check. Check the facts, stop talking rhetoric and go out and meet some of those people in your electorate, Cheryl. They will be pleased to meet you. They will know what is going wrong in the electorate and why they are not being represented.In conclusion, it is clear here that the member for Dickson wants to prattle on loud and long because she knows as well as I do that the people of Dickson and the people of Longman are being disadvantaged by a Labor state government that is bucking the trend. It cannot stick with what is happening nationally, where we are seeing a continual reduction in unemployment. Mr Beattie—Mr Five Per Cent—is locked on to eight per cent unemployment, and has been for 12 months. The cold hard reality is that more Queensland families are reliant on social security, and they do not have a stable future because Queensland is being ignored by its state government. It does not have good policies for small business, but small business is the engine room of job creation in that state. Until Mr Beattie gets off his backside and starts to do something for Queensland's small business community, we will see a further erosion of employment opportunities for people in the electorates of Longman and Dickson and right throughout the Queensland region. Mr Beattie, it is not good enough to be able to put up with eight per cent unemployment for Queensland. (Time expired)1559617:39:0015596Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I rise today to speak about problems confronting the Australian sugar industry. Sugar production could be cut by around half a million tonnes of its potential this year, due mainly to recent flooding and cyclone damage in North Queensland. These problems have been compounded by the slump in world sugar prices, which tumbled to a 14-year low last year, and a range of pest and disease problems. The combination of all these factors is likely to produce the third consecutive year of disastrously low returns.The Australian sugar industry is one of the world's largest and most reliable exporters of high quality sugar and the production of raw sugar is one of Australia's most important rural industries. Each year the sugar industry usually contributes, directly and indirectly, about $4.5 billion to the economy. Sugar is Australia's fourth largest export earning agricultural industry, accounting for 6.8 per cent of the total value of farm exports and 22 per cent of crop product exports. Thus the decline in the world sugar price not only has an impact on the sugar industry's revenue but also affects our nation's trade. Sugar is the most important rural industry in Queensland, which produces 95 per cent of Australia's sugar. It underpins the economic stability of many communities along the Queensland coast, including Bundaberg and Childers in my electorate. The Queensland Sugar Corporation estimates that the state's production in 2000 will be around five million tonnes. The industry's peak grower organisation, the Canegrowers, is less optimistic, expecting a figure somewhat below that.This year is widely regarded in the industry as one of the most atrocious on record. World sugar prices plummeted last year to less than US5c a pound, brought about by the sixth year of global oversupply and a devaluation of the Brazilian real. Returns to Australian cane growers for raw sugar collapsed to an estimated $250 a tonne from $392 a tonne in mid-1998. The expectation is that that could fall even further this year to a new low of around $200 a tonne—a frightening thought for people in my electorate. In a recent press release the General Manager of Canegrowers, Ian Ballantyne, said that a mediocre cane crop last year, combined with the fall in the world sugar price, had cost the Queensland industry more than $500 million in lost income. The total revenue for Queensland sugar producers is likely to be around $1.1 billion this year, a drop of nearly half the revenue of 1997, when the industry experienced a record production of 5.5 million tonnes. The North Queensland sugar industry is facing severe financial hardship following damage from cyclonic winds and flooding. Some growers have experienced four cyclones in four years and others have experienced flooding six times. The physical damage to the crops and the sugar content means that growers between Townsville and Mossman are virtually guaranteed a poor crop this season. There are three factors at play here, as you would well know, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, coming from a sugar area: your crop, the CCS—commercial content of sugar—and the price you get for your sugar. In North Queensland they had the worst of all worlds. Because of the cyclonic conditions, they have a poor crop in volume, a very poor CCS and, on top of that, record low international prices. That is like a triple whammy—the worst of all things—and it does demand government attention.The downturn has not only affected growers along the coast but also had a serious impact on the milling sector through reduced cane supply, wet weather delays to crushing and a substantial fall in income. We have heard that some mills are now in serious financial difficulties. The Australian sugar industry is world competitive and can normally stand on its own feet, but the circumstances facing the industry are now beyond its control. The government has made available $13.5 million over four years for research in the sugar industry. However, I deeply feel that the industry also needs some form of assistance by way of a package to help it deal with the operational and seasonal problems it is now facing. A replanting would be one option, for example.I think we need to look at removing some of the barriers that can limit access to schemes like exceptional circumstance and national disaster assistance. These programs tend to cover drought related problems which can devastate farmers over a long period of time. However, the situation facing North Queensland cane growers has shown that wet weather can be just as problematic as dry weather. Another option that I think the government needs to consider is extending the Farm Family Restart Scheme in not only scope but also time. It delivers improved welfare support to the farm sector. This is a commendable scheme that has assisted many farmers, but perhaps its scope could be widened and its time extended. I make the observation that when you look at the notional values of farms $500 million sounds like a lot of money, but when you have two or three families trying to exit a farm like that perhaps the limit is too small. Perhaps it should be up around $650 million to $750 million.In my electorate, cane growers have not had to face harsh, wet conditions and have been producing excellent crops with high sugar content. That has really assisted the Bundaberg district, albeit they have suffered with the low price of sugar on the international market. However, the low price of sugar on the international market has had an adverse impact on growers, and this can subsequently impact on jobs and investment in the region—something that it can ill afford. In recent weeks, the Bundaberg sugar industry has been experiencing a different problem from that faced in the north, and this is too much dry weather. This raises a potential problem for the Bundaberg region. If drought conditions occurring in the future are combined with the low sugar price, the problems of economic viability now being faced in North Queensland could surface in the Bundaberg-Childers area as well.The critical issue in the Bundaberg region is certainly that of water—not of too much water but of water itself. Cane production varies due to rainfall and available irrigation. We are at the centre of the Bundaberg irrigation scheme, one of the most intensive in Australia. Over the last 10 years, the crop has ranged from 2.35 million tonnes to 3.8 million tonnes last year, with an average of 3.2 million tonnes. Bundaberg cane farmers have not been prolifigate in their use of water—in fact, they lead the state in water efficiency in cane production—but are limited by the unreliable and inadequate irrigation supply. The area of cane irrigated with trickle systems has increased from 1,200 hectares across the district in 1995 to 3,600 in 1999. That is a remarkable growth, as I am sure you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, there are limitations in extending beyond this level. For example, converting to trickle irrigation requires an investment of $155,000 for a 50-hectare farm, and there is no assurance that this investment will provide a return, given particularly the supply of water, which I just talked about, and the low sugar prices. A new dam has been proposed at Paradise, west of my electorate, in the electorate of Wide Bay. A dam costing $150 million would deliver 203,000 megalitres of water. The impact that this could have on the district is very significant. It could create 2.2 million tonnes of cane on existing land and 2.7 on new land—just under five million extra tonnes of cane. That translates into 711,000 tonnes of sugar. The return could be around $177 million, even on the low prices we are experiencing at present, which comes down to about $150 million worth of exports. In times of better world sugar prices, these figures could be $50 million or $60 million higher. You can see the impact it could have on the region.The urgent need for the new dam was highlighted recently by the announcement of a feasibility study into a billion dollar integrated industrial development in the Bundaberg region. Multiplex, Bundaberg Sugar and Contact Energy are investigating the feasibility of establishing a bagasse pulp plant, power plant and a synthetic rutile plant adjacent to an existing Bundaberg sugar mill. This project would not only improve the productivity and profitability of the sugar cane industry but give a substantial boost to the region's economy, creating up to 600 jobs. I understand that all sectors of the industry are worried by this, and I urge federal government ministers, who will meet representatives of the various sectors of the industry next week, to give their case every consideration. (Time expired)10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Order! I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills15598Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills:Customs Legislation Amendment (Criminal Sanctions and Other Measures) Bill 2000Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999Timor Gap Treaty (Transitional Arrangements) Bill 2000Gladstone Power Station Agreement (Repeal) Bill 1999Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000Dairy Adjustment Levy (Customs) Bill 2000Dairy Adjustment Levy (Excise) Bill 2000Dairy Adjustment Levy (General) Bill 2000Dairy Industry Adjustment Bill 2000Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999Miscellaneous1559815598Message received from the Senate requesting the House to consider immediately the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999.Business15598Motion (by Mr Abbott) agreed to:That consideration of government business order of the day No. 2, Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999, be postponed to the next day of sitting.Bills15598R100015598Debate resumed from 15 March, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.17:51:0015598Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—This is an adjourned debate on the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000 from 15 March. At that time the House was addressed by the member for Curtin, Ms Julie Bishop. She engaged in what has now become a favourite pastime of the Liberal Party—the total rewriting of the history of health policy in this country. The member for Curtin strikes me as one of those pompous, born to rule types who are shoehorned into the parliament by the tory party in this country, and part of their mandate, born to rule, is to rewrite political history and policy making history as they see it. She cannot be allowed to get away with that. The House needs to bring these people to account and get the history right before we can move on to sound solutions in health policy. This is what the member for Curtin said on 15 March: ... our public health system needs a viable private health system to survive.Then she went on to talk about the fundamental principle of Medicare:Its long-term viability was predicated on the basis of a strong and viable private health insurance component as part of the overall health landscape.The first question to ask is: how would she know? She was never one of the people doing the hard policy work in the 1960s to devise Medibank and then Medicare. She was never in the public policy laboratory developing a public health insurance system for this country. She was one of those tories trying to blow up the lab. She was one of those tories outside protesting with placards, one of those tories voting time and again against the introduction of public health insurance for all Australians. So how would she know about the principles upon which Medibank and Medicare have been based?She is arguing from a position of ignorance, she is arguing without information and the facts, and she is totally wrong. I am going to use the source that is the definitive account of the development of Medibank. You go to the maker. Don't mess around with these phoney, born to rule tories. Go to the maker of Medibank, and it is Dick Scotton, along with John Deeble. To his great credit, Scotton has produced this wonderful book, The Making of Medibank. This is what he has to say about private health insurance on page 63, talking about the period of the Whitlam government:The hospital services working party also worked on proposals relating to private hospitals and on the private insurance arrangements which would apply after the introduction of Medibank. Deeble and Scotton argued—on equity and practical grounds—for private hospital subsidies at levels comparable to the per diem value of the payments for private patients in public hospitals. Under the universal program the main function of private insurance would be the provision of benefits to reimburse the (substantially reduced) fees charged to private patients.Given that the private health funds would no longer be handling any public money—unlike today—Scotton and Deeble believed that the regulatory framework should be substantially dismantled, subject only to requirements for solvency and minimum coverage standards. They also believed that their reserves should be run down before the implementation of the public program to levels commensurate with the diminished scale of their operations.There is no doubt that the makers of Medibank and Medicare envisaged private health insurance as a residual system, as totally and fundamentally residual to public health care in this country. There was none of this nonsense we have heard from the member for Curtin and her colleagues about the success of the public system being based on the long-term viability of private health insurance. Private health insurance under Medibank and Medicare was always envisaged as a residual system. The first task for government was to put the money where it was needed most, into public hospitals and public services, and then to allow private health insurance to find its own equilibrium, to find its own balance without a great deal of government regulation—no community rating, for instance—and certainly without huge public subsidies. There was never any plan for the massive public subsidisation of private health insurance.The member for Curtin is thoroughly wrong. She should climb down from her born to rule pedestal and give the House the facts instead of absolutely fabricated nonsense. How can we conduct an important debate about the future of the Australian health system if we do not deal with the facts? The member for Curtin reminds me of Senator Payne: an idiot in search of a village—another Liberal fabricating information, totally without the facts. The House should deal with the proper information. The truth of the matter is that private health insurance should be a residual system operating like any other market. It should be returned to its residual role, like any other market. It should not have these enormous public subsidies. The money should be sent to the point of greatest need, and that is the public system. It is a test of commonsense. Where do you get the best value for money—subsidising private insurance, which many young and healthy Australians may never use, or putting the public money into quality public hospitals where sick people desperately need the services and where many Australians need a reduction in public hospital waiting lists? The pattern of pumping up the private sector at the expense of the public sector defies not only commonsense but international experience. In no part of the world is there any sort of equilibrium between public and private health shares. The golden rule of good policy making is to get the core services right, and those core services are in public hospitals and other parts of the public system. Then, policy makers can worry about private insurance.Public money should not be going into optional insurance. It should be going into the basic services. The legislation now before the House continues this government's failed approach to health policy. It continues to try and pump up the viability of the private sector at the expense of public sector services. The bill continues a failed pattern of health reform under the Howard government. This legislation tries to make private insurance more attractive by covering the gaps. But the question needs to be asked: at what cost? Gap insurance takes the brakes off medical expenses. It adds to the inflationary impact of the private sector. It continues the government's pattern of trying to boost the finances of the private sector at the expense of public health outlays. It continues the pattern in Australia where private medical expenses are far outstripping the CPI whereas public costs and outlays are well below the rate of inflation.It is difficult to see how the bill can be amended to contain medical costs. In fact, this is one of the constitutional limits with which policy makers in this country need to live. Unfortunately, in 1949 the Chifley government had its legislation struck down where it was trying to apply the principle of a limit on medical costs. The High Court, in a remarkable decision, found that it would be civil conscription—outlawed under the Constitution—to prohibit a doctor from prescribing medicines specified in a formula otherwise than on a prescription form supplied by the Commonwealth, even though the prohibition did not apply when the patient requested the doctor not to write the prescription on the form. That was the case of British Medical Association v. the Commonwealth in 1949.There is a constitutional prohibition as interpreted by the High Court on the capacity of this parliament to limit private medical expenses. But, as I pointed out in another context, the Constitution should not be used as an alibi for inaction but rather an invitation for innovation. Unfortunately, however, we do not see a great deal of innovation in Australian health policy. There is a constant pattern of cost shifting between levels of government and, with that, blame shifting as federal and state administrations try to convince the public that someone else is to blame for the inadequacies of this system. There is a pattern of incremental reform, just tinkering at the edges, not getting to the structural problems in the Australian health system. We have, prompted by this government, a tug of war between public and private resource shares. We need to face the fact that the Australian health system is fundamentally broken. It is characterised by overlapping programs and responsibilities. It is characterised by a great deal of federal-state inefficiency in the way in which basic services have been organised. It is characterised by the underutilisation of the enormous technological possibilities of the information age as applied to health care. It is characterised by terribly inequitable regional imbalances in the allocation of health resources. This is part of a broader malaise in our political system. Often we hear members in this place asked: why does the public have so little faith in parliament? Why was it once an honoured profession to be a public representative and now it has all the public status of a used car salesman? You do not need a PhD to work out the answer to that question. The parliament is obsessed with the minutiae of process while the public is only interested in the depth of solutions. This place has overdosed on process—the process of blaming each other for problems old and new, the process of perpetual short-termism, responding to the daily news agenda, the process of avoiding risk and putting solutions off to yet another day. This charade is played out in full in the development of health policy. We have the charade of federal and state governments blaming each other for structural problems in the system. We have posturing designed only to please the daily news media. All this tinkering at the edges means that policy making rarely gets to the heart of structural problems and structural solutions. So, against that background, it is not surprising that the health system lurches from one crisis to another and that the average Australian has very little confidence in the capacity of this parliament to get sustainable answers. But I believe some answers are available. I referred earlier to the work of Dick Scotton, the co-maker of Medibank and Medicare. He has a plan for strengthening Medicare—he calls it Medicare Plus. This breaks the insoluble dilemma in Australian health policy, to try to simultaneously achieve three outcomes: first, to maintain universal health insurance and health care; secondly, to ensure a fair distribution of health resources between social groups and also locations; and, finally, to limit the outrageous growth of medical expenses. It is true that Medicare has been a fine system, but even with its fine design it is not able to achieve that third goal of limiting the growth of medical expenses. While Medicare has been a good way of financing health insurance, the organisation of health services around it has become second rate. The federal government alone runs 60 separate health programs, each with its own rules and funding arrangements. On top of this, the states and territories have their own array of programs and funding rules. The system resembles a dog's breakfast. While public services such as nursing homes and public hospitals have been capped in their budgets and face a shortage of funds, private services such as GP and pharmaceuticals have unlimited access to the federal budget. You would not organise any other part of the public sector, and certainly not the corporate sector, in this fashion. This has caused the problem of cost shifting, where the states try to close down services in public hospitals and push their costs onto the federal government. As with most fights between government, it is only the public which suffers. Even worse, health funding has been slow to follow shifts in population, leaving areas like the south-west of Sydney, including my electorate, hopelessly underresourced. Too much money is being soaked up by private health costs and the anticompetitive practices of medical specialists. It is my fear that this legislation, the Gap Cover Scheme, will add to that particular problem. Each of these issues has weakened the success of Medicare. Health reform in Australia has become essential, not to replace Medicare but to save it from slow and steady decline, such as the last four years under the Howard government. This is where Dick Scotton's modern thinking comes in. He has developed a way of keeping the strengths of Medicare-free public hospitals, bulk-billing GPs and cheap pharmaceuticals, while also creating greater choice for consumers and improved efficiency. The concept is quite simple. Every Australian resident would be allocated government funds to cover their basic health insurance, weighted to reflect their exposure to health risks. The elderly and chronically ill, for instance, would receive much more due to their greater use of health services. It is a weighted capitation amount to meet the health insurance needs of every Australian resident. People would then be able to choose from a range of insurance options. They could either stay with a government insurer and their current Medicare coverage or choose a non-government insurer, topping up their public allocation with their own money to secure a wider insurance coverage. All public and private insurers would be brought into the one system. These competing health insurers would contract with private and public care providers to guarantee the best service for their members. Scotton's proposals end the problem of cost shifting by pooling health resources under the federal government. The states would be responsible for the management of public insurance plans and public health services. Private services would be fully integrated into the national health program. This fulfils the original vision of Medibank, for these private services to play a residual role, in this case integrated into the national health program. This is the best way of controlling private costs and at long last ensuring that doctors are fully accountable to their patients. This is where the Scotton plan has so many advantages over this particular piece of legislation. It achieves the third leg, what hitherto has been the unattainable third leg, in Australian health policy—that is, to limit the outrageous growth of private medical expenses. Scotton has developed a system where at long last doctors would work for the community, instead of the current system where the public purse is put to work by the doctors. Under the Scotton plan, health consumers would have a major say in the way services are run, particularly at a local level. The plan makes this possible by getting them involved in the governance of health insurance and community health schemes. It also ensures that government funding follows consumers and their needs, rather than the medical profession and its needs. This approach would give underresourced regions their fair share of the health dollar.I commend this particular plan to the House. As I pointed out earlier, we have too much incremental reform and short-term analysis of health issues in this country. We need to take a longer view. We need to be optimistic about our chances, notwithstanding the constitutional restriction, of realising those three health goals—universal health insurance, the fair distribution of health resources in different parts of the country and the placement of some sort of reasonable cap in the growth of private medical expenses.These things are achievable, but just as Medibank and Medicare were not introduced through incremental policy making so too now we require a bold approach. Tinkering around with the public and private shares, reforming the Medicare levy and pursuing greater regulation of different parts of the health system are all incremental measures, patch-up jobs, which do a disservice to the health needs of the Australian public. Some of them, of course, have merit, but the greatest merit for this parliament is to take the longer view in health policy.This is an Australian health system in crisis. It is an Australian health system with chronic problems that require big, structural solutions. In this particular debate, we do not find those solutions. It is another incremental piece of policy making to introduce the gap cover, another attempt by this government to tinker at the edges and try to patch up its favoured part of the health system, private health insurance.I return to my first point: the last thing we need in these debates is a rewriting of history. We need a factual analysis, not the sort of nonsense that was presented to the parliament by the member for Curtin and, I am sure, earlier in the debate by her colleagues. We need the longer view. Dick Scotton is a health economist who takes that view of policy making—a big, structural solution to the chronic problems in the Australian health system. I certainly commend his plan to the parliament.18:10:0015602Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise tonight to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000. I am very happy to be speaking on yet another forward initiative of this government in the area of private health insurance.I seem to follow the member for Latham quite a lot. I do not disagree with a lot of what he says: there is cost shifting, there are problems in the system, there are areas that are duplicated at a federal and state level and it is a health system that perhaps does not match its resources in the best possible way. These are problems that have existed for many, many years, and many governments have grappled with them on many occasions, including the member for Latham's government.There are crazy situations that arise in health—for example, in Queensland, where major hospitals are opened and there are no patients. It is like something out of a Yes, Minister serial. A major teaching hospital in my electorate, the Prince Charles Hospital, is the leading cardiac hospital in the Southern Hemisphere but it does not have an MRI machine. Currently, the administration of that hospital is talking to the state Minister for Health, Wendy Edmond, about that situation, and I will continue to lobby for an MRI machine in that hospital. The situation is that we do have the best health system for the most affordable price. I know the member for Latham is a well-known economist and he quoted the work of Scotton, who has dealt extensively in this area, but the system is supply driven. There is nothing that we can do that can stop the supply. People still go to their GP for a variety of ailments. I thought I understood health until I became involved with someone in the medical profession a few years ago. There are people out there in the community who will go to a GP just to get a bandaid for a cut on a finger, so to not look at supply and demand is clearly a mistake when we encounter this debate.The bill tonight looks at a number of consumer and health industry issues, and I will touch on those in a moment. I would like to point out that this government has done much and achieved more for average Australians in terms of accessibility of private health insurance than has been achieved in the history of the health insurance industry in this country. The bill complements a lot of other good measures undertaken by this government in the area of private health insurance, and the 30 per cent rebate and the move to Lifetime Health Cover are examples of this government's commitment to better value health insurance for consumers and a strong and viable private health insurance system.The bill is particularly significant in that it vastly increases the choices and options available to private health consumers. This is the first time that legislation has been introduced to formally enable a non-contractual agreement between doctors and health funds on pricing and payment strategies for dealing with the gap. The most common health issue that my constituents come to see me about is the gap. The fact is that they go in to have a major operation and do not know how much gap is involved, and then they get a multitude of bills from the hospital and receive a huge shock after they have had their operation. I think this bill goes a long way to deal with a lot of those uncertainties and a lot of those fears that people face at the end of an operation.Indeed, valuable contributions towards addressing the gap cover issue have come from a number of private health insurers, hospitals and the AMA. It is a great example of what really can be achieved when industries get together and work with the government to facilitate and improve delivery of services to the consumer.The bill also provides for an extensive range of health funds to develop their own gap cover schemes as well as to tailor gap cover schemes to suit individuals—a measure which vastly increases the choice to each private health cover consumer. The gap schemes are voluntary and ensure no inflationary impact—that is, they do not provide for open-ended reimbursement of medical fees, nor do they increase the total cost for consumers. Most importantly, the interests and the welfare of consumers are completely safeguarded. In fact, all gap cover schemes will need to be approved by the Minister for Health and Aged Care before they can be implemented, and that ensures that they will remain fair and genuine in their benefits to consumers. Other ways in which the aims and intentions of the gap cover bill are safeguarded are in the balance and the fairness to the consumer, the industry and the medical profession. They will generally deliver no gaps or, if chosen, known gaps to consumers, and that is very important.The member who spoke previously spoke about the role of the GP in this. I think the GP has a very valuable role to play in ensuring that patients know what costs are incurred when they are admitted to hospital and that they have full financial consent and full financial information relating to those costs. It is not uncommon to hear in my electorate about someone with the top level of cover in private health insurance going in for heart surgery and having to pay a bill of $30,000. In fact, I was speaking to the Mayor of Redcliffe some months back when he told me how much his heart surgery cost him. Those situations will no longer occur under this legislation. People will have financial consent. They will be able to make a decision to go to those particular doctors who have no-gap products, and they will have greater choice available to them. The provisions contained within this scheme will ensure that, in the event that the scheme is revoked by the minister, the consumers are in no way disadvantaged. Also, the scheme requires medical practitioners to inform private health insurance consumers of any amount that they will be liable to pay for a professional procedure. That is a very important part of the doctor-patient relationship and should never be compromised as well. Patients should be informed of how much their operation or procedure is going to cost them. Doctors currently do that. They currently advise patients of specialists who do charge the prescribed amount and no more. It already exists, but I think this bill will provide greater scope for that to occur.The scheme also provides for simple billing arrangements and streamlining of an individual's claim procedure by providing one bill for all-in-one hospital cost. It is not unusual for people to go into hospital and be presented with 50 bills. It is pretty horrifying. Even when you go into hospital for a minor operation, you can have something like 10 or 15 bills by the time pathology, X-rays, pharmaceuticals, et cetera are sent to you. It can be daunting. Just when you think you are over one hurdle—paying one amount to the radiologist—another bill will come in and set you on that sort of horror train of more financial imposts. Perhaps most importantly the schemes will be reviewed at regular intervals to absolutely ensure that the above criteria are adhered to, and the minister has the power to revoke any scheme that is not delivering a better method and better outcomes to patients. The bill will also provide the best deal for average Australians who have, or would like to take out, private health insurance, and the bill is good for medical practitioners as well. The issue of gap cover has been, to date, a problematic one, and it has been a problematic one for a number of sectors, including the medical profession. However, this bill ensures that all gap cover schemes maintain and guarantee the professional freedom of medical practitioners, and that freedom should never be compromised. Indeed, since we made amendments back in 1997 whereby doctors could come to contractual arrangements on hospital based gap cover, the number of patients being covered by gap products and the number of hospital admissions being covered by gap products has increased by approximately 25 per cent in the December quarter of 1999 alone. This bill is a further improvement on these existing arrangements.The gap has long proved to be a thorn in the side of the private health insurance industry and is the single most important factor in the public perception of private health insurance as not value for money. Quite often, members of parliament deal with constituents who question that value for money, and I think that this legislation goes a long way to addressing some of those particular problems. Consumers essentially want no gap, or at least they want a known gap, in return for their insurance premiums. The continued existence of the gap is the major cause of complaint about private health insurance, and it has been the major cause of complaint of my constituents over the last four years. It particularly occurs when there is a requirement to pay and it is not realised by the patient prior to the receipt of the bill for services. This difficulty has obviously impacted on the participation by the general population in private health insurance. National private health insurance coverage has fallen from 61.5 per cent of the Australian population in 1983 to just over 30 per cent in December 1999. That was an alarming drop and it needed to be addressed because the increasing number of people who drop off from private health insurance places a greater demand and a greater stress and strain on the public system. We need to address those issues.Each year, private health insurance contributes around $3 billion in hospital benefits, and the private sector cares for about one-third of all hospital patients annually. It is clear that private health insurance plays a crucial role in funding the hospital system in this country. It is not an area that we can allow to fall behind, and the Labor Party let it fall behind with disastrous results. Any fall in the proportion of people covered in the private health system—a fall such as we experienced under Labor—has far-reaching implications for the Australian health system as a whole. The Howard government has sought to turn this tide around with significant results; the participation rate has begun to rise again, and that is a good thing. With the introduction of the initiatives of the 30 per cent rebate and Lifetime Health Cover, the government has put private health cover back on track. The bill seeks to enhance and improve upon that record. It is also designed to make private health insurance good value for money again. It makes it transparent, streamlined and up front, and it represents the government's hard work and absolute commitment to a robust, fair and efficient health insurance industry. There are problems in the health system; there are problems of resources and there have been from time immemorial. There are problems with federal and state governments. There are problems of cost shifting, as we spoke about earlier, and they need to be addressed in time. There are a number of programs that are duplicated. But there are times when federal and state governments can and do work together well. I had an opportunity recently to launch a domestic violence initiative that came under this particular portfolio area where the federal government provided the funding and the state government was able to implement the program, which dealt particularly with young children and the effects of domestic violence on them.The health system is the best health system when one compares it to those in many other countries in the world and their difficulties and lack of resources. One of the things that people do not realise or perhaps are not informed about is the cost of pharmaceuticals. They feel it is a free health care system and that pharmaceuticals, for example, are free as well. A number of my constituents are quite amazed when I speak to them about the cost of pharmaceuticals, the fact that the government picks up the tab for pharmaceuticals and that they are not solely costed at $2.60—for example, some heart and high blood pressure tablets can cost up to $100 and the government picks up the tab for that under the best pharmaceutical benefits scheme in the world. Our drugs are 30 per cent to 40 per cent cheaper than anywhere else in the world. One should not lose sight of the great health system that we do have. We have an affordable health care system. Anyone today can go to a GP and take advantage of the bulk-billing system. Sure, it is abused. There are cases where people do doctor shop. They do abuse medications. I know that before the prescribed minimum amount of pharmaceuticals was brought in there were members of the community—and this occurred largely in the aged population—who would go to the chemist for their free pharmaceuticals and stockpile them. The pharmaceuticals would run past their use-by date and there was a tremendous waste of resources in stockpiling pharmaceuticals that were never ever used. It was a problem. We have a good health care system. We have a health care system that is available for all people—the Medicare system and bulk-billing. We have a great pharmaceutical system and integrity of GPs. I must also commend the minister for the training initiatives, particularly in the GP area. The profession asked for those particular initiatives and we delivered them, and the quality of training of our GPs is one of the highest in the world and we are recognised as leaders in the medical profession universally. This bill represents the government's hard work and absolute commitment to having that robust, fair and efficient private health insurance industry. It will mean that the private health industry and people who have private health insurance do get value for money. It will make sure that they have a known-gap product, that they know what they are going to pay when they go into hospital. The GP also has a valuable role in this in providing informed consent and providing assistance in letting patients know just what that gap or what those medical expenses will be, and that will mean that there will be greater peace of mind. I know that this private health insurance bill that I speak to tonight will provide a fair and more efficient system. I commend the bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 6.26 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0015606Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—The House is considering the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000. This bill is obviously concerned with fixing up a problem which is prevalent in most health schemes around the world and which is the kind of problem you have when you are trying, in a health system, to bring together the concerns of both the private sector and the public sector. We have a situation in Australia, especially in private hospitals, where doctors are able to charge a lot of money—sometimes an excessive amount of money. We have a problem that people find that, even after they have paid the Medicare levy and their private health insurance, when they go to a private hospital, they are hit with a very big bill. This is the so-called gap which exists in the system and can be very significant—thousands of dollars in certain cases. Obviously this is a factor that has been of concern to the system for a long time. Many people have refused to take out private health insurance over a number of years because they felt that this gap problem meant that, effectively, it was hardly worth it: you took out private insurance, you went to a private hospital and then you ended up being hit with a very significant bill, on top of what the private insurance company was going to pay.This problem was recognised some years ago, especially by a former minister for health, Graham Richardson. I remember this quite well because, at that time, I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister for health. Then Senator Richardson was concerned to see whether there was a way of resolving this issue of the gap. There were discussions about ways in which this might be done. After Senator Richardson left the health portfolio, and left politics in fact, and was replaced by the Hon. Carmen Lawrence as the minister for health, the situation was put forward that we might be able to deal with this issue by having some arrangements between certain particular medical specialists working with particular hospitals, and by having agreed schedules of fees, so that people would be aware of the sort of cost that they would incur when they went to a private hospital on the basis of those doctors' arrangements with that particular hospital. These kinds of schemes were starting to have an impact and were starting to work.The government and the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, did attempt to do something in this area but, unfortunately, the problem was that the Australian Medical Association did not want to participate too much in this program. The reason for that was that they felt that to require doctors to have specific arrangements with specific hospitals was somehow an intervention in the doctor-patient relationship. We will explore this in a minute but, essentially, they were saying that, if you limit the doctors to particular hospitals and particular schedules in particular hospitals, then you limit the medical choices of doctors. I think this would be the case in only a very small number of cases.We really need to get to the heart of this. The reason the Australian Medical Association was opposed to that particular arrangement, with those sorts of agreements taking place between private hospitals and doctors, was not so much the interference in the doctor-patient relationship, but rather what it saw as interference in the freedom of doctors in private hospitals to charge whatever they liked. It simply did not want doctors, especially specialists, to be limited in any way in what they charged in a private hospital. Because of that, it asked the government, `Is there another way in which you can deal with this issue? Is there another way in which you can deal with the problem of the gap without limiting doctors' fees?' This legislation attempts to deal with that issue. It attempts to deal with the issue by saying that it is not necessary to have an agreement between the doctor and the private hospital but, nevertheless, it may still be possible to fill the gap, and so have an insurance scheme which, in a sense, fills the gap between the schedule fee and the doctor's charges for that particular operation or medical procedure.All this may show good intentions, but the question is how is this going to actually work—especially if we look at what the AMA's concern was, namely that doctors should be able to charge whatever they liked in relation to that extra cost on top of the schedule fee. If that is going to be the situation, this is where the opposition have concerns, and we have concerns about this particular program. Let me say that no-one is infallible in trying to resolve this issue. This is a very hard question. When you have a health scheme which, on the one hand, is based on a kind of free enterprise principle that people should be able to pay as much as they like and doctors should be able to charge as much as they like in the private system but where, on the other hand, the public has to pay—especially through the private health insurance rebate system, which has been introduced by the government—we have a situation where there is a public factor, namely the payment of the private health insurance rebate through the public purse, through the taxation system. So, on the one hand, there is the principle of private enterprise and charging whatever you like and, on the other hand, there is the fact that we have the 30 per cent rebate issue. Because of that, there is obviously public concern about the costs, but there is another factor as well. If doctors are able in private hospitals to keep putting up their charges, this inevitably has an impact and puts pressure on the public hospital system: if the gap between what the doctors are being paid in the private hospitals and what they are being paid in the public hospitals becomes huge and unsustainable, there will be pressure on the public hospital system as well. So we do have these problems.As I said before, the parliament needs ideas in this matter. I do not think this is an issue which should be party political. This is an issue which requires solutions to be thought out via creative ideas, wherever they may come from. As I say, governments—the previous Labor government and the current government—have struggled with this issue. But where are we to go if we are to try to get a solution? Can we actually have a situation where doctors are able to put up fees as they wish, even in the private sector? If we do, then I do not see how we are going to get a resolution of this issue of the gap.The bill itself recognises this matter. It talks about the inflation factor and says that there can be a problem of inflation here, such that if the government says, `All right, we will give health insurance companies the capacity to insure for the gap,' it recognises that some doctors may take advantage of this situation and simply put up their fees even more, so that the size of the gap gets bigger. In that situation, all you will have achieved is simply to have helped the doctors, especially specialists, increase their fees and their incomes for no net benefit whatever, either to the public health system or to the private health system. That whole inflation factor is a serious concern.The minister has the capacity under this legislation to reject schemes where, in his opinion, there has been excessive charging and not enough account taken of this inflationary factor. Unfortunately, however, we are not given any precise criteria as to how this is to be assessed or monitored. The minister is, I think, supposed to provide a set of regulations in relation to this issue but even there, from what I understand, we are still not given a precise understanding as to how this is to proceed. This is why I support the call of the shadow minister that we should try to get this bill before a Senate committee, to look at the details of how it is supposed to work and at whether the protections which are claimed to be in the bill are actually present. I am not convinced that they are.Look, for example, at the idea that the scheme must not have an inflationary effect. How are you going to determine whether, when a particular doctor puts up their fees, there are in fact reasonable grounds for doing so or whether what has happened is simply an inflationary effect? There are specific instances already in existent gap schemes where the putting into place of a gap scheme simply resulted in an increase in the gap. One of the areas is obstetrics and gynaecology, but I am not entirely sure what other areas have been affected. Certainly though, we have had cases of individual doctors and hospitals putting up their fees in response to the gap cover scheme.One of the concepts introduced here—and I repeat that these concepts are pretty difficult—is one called the known gap. Presumably, the doctor will have to inform the patient, in advance, of the known gap involved in relation to the specific operation or procedure that is going to be taking place. But again, there are no actual provisions in the legislation, as far as I can see, which show what sorts of requirements are going to be put in place in terms of regulations, forms that need to be filled in, or procedures that doctors are to follow with respect to informing their patients about the known gap in particular instances. The issue at the heart of this is that doctors have to recognise that, although society intends to recompense them for their training, their education, their years of study and their experience, nevertheless they also have a responsibility for the health of the community and for keeping the costs of health at reasonable levels. This responsibility is something which they and we as a society have to face up to because, if the medical profession is going to take advantage of this gap cover scheme, put up costs and inflate the costs of the health system in general, then this scheme will backfire and we will be in a lot of trouble with it. Already, the costs of the rebate are expected to be in excess of $2.2 billion. That is a lot of money to support the private insurance system. If, as a result of this cover scheme, we have an even bigger blow-out in private insurance costs and the support of them by the government, the whole thing will become unsustainable. We are not saying that doctors should not be compensated according to their professional achievements but the idea that fees can continue increasing in the private hospital area to the point where they become exorbitant, to the point where you are looking at 160 per cent of the schedule fee—we are not talking about 110 per cent or 120 per cent but up to 160 per cent or 170 per cent of the schedule fee—would mean that we are looking at a serious situation.Perhaps one way out of this—and maybe the Senate committee will ponder on this—would be for the medical profession to accept a voluntary limit above the schedule fee, at least while we trial this program of meeting the gap. Perhaps something like an upper limit of 30 per cent on the schedule fee could be agreed to so that doctors would be able to say okay and patients would be able to have that expectation that they will know roughly what they are up for. With the current arrangement, the danger of the whole system exploding in an inflationary way is very serious, and I do not believe the bill has dealt with that issue. As I said, we still have to find a way of dealing with this private-public problem with respect to health. We have to do it without ending up with the dreaded American type of situation where, essentially, you have two classes of health care: people who are insured—it costs a lot of money to be insured in the United States and, even then, they have to pay money on top of their insurance—or you have people who cannot afford private insurance and are then put into a second-rate medical system. Often, even with that second-rate system they have to pay exorbitant amounts. We have all heard the horror stories of people going into hospital, having to pay bills of $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 and losing their houses and things like that in order just to pay for an operation. I support the idea of finding a solution to this problem. I support the general spirit of this legislation, but I would like to see the Senate study ways and means of ensuring that it can be successful and that it can deal with this issue of costs.20:20:0015608Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—In speaking on the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000 I can understand some of the concerns of my colleague the member for Calwell on this issue. The gap medical insurance cover has clearly been one of the most persistent inquiries to my office in my electorate in the seven years I have been in parliament. Over this period I have made numerous representations to ministers asking for something to be done to allow my constituents to take out insurance to cover the gap. Inability to cover the gap is frequently stated as one of the main reasons why many people have stopped taking out private insurance. Even the architect of this scheme, Neal Blewett, maintained that once the level of private insurance fell below a particular level the whole system was in danger of collapsing. So doing something about this is absolutely critical to continuing to deliver high quality medical care to Australian citizens. To many of my constituents—some of whom are pensioners—the most disturbing aspect is that they struggle to pay private health insurance out of a modest income and that, when they require surgery, they may well find themselves in a public hospital next to a patient without private insurance who perhaps earns a higher income than they do but is receiving the same kind of treatment—which is fair enough. The difference is that the privately insured person—that is, some of the pensioners who have complained to my office—received a bill for several thousand dollars for items not covered by insurance. This is known as the gap, and it is the difference between the total cost of the treatment and the amount that the private health insurance does not cover.It is equally unpalatable for families, particularly families with young children for whom medical costs often are high. They pay Medicare levies out of their modest salaries, plus private insurance, and often after having medical treatment still have to find several thousand dollars to cover the gap. In fact, when the member for Fremantle spoke on this earlier in this debate she suggested there is something elitist about people wanting private insurance. That has not been my experience. My experience in my electorate has shown that these people who are privately ensured come from many walks of life. Many of them are pensioners on limited income, and young families, also on limited income. These are the ones who come to complain to me about the inability to cover the gap by taking out gap insurance. Being able to take out insurance for the gap gives people a choice, and it is very important that people do have that choice. By electing to pay to stay in the system people can make a choice about going into a private hospital and also having a choice of doctors. It takes the pressure off the waiting lists in the public hospitals and provides services to people who most meet them.When there is no choice and people are paying a high price for not being able to insure it is hardly surprising that so many of them have, until recent times, been leaving the private health insurance schemes in very large numbers, threatening the viability of the whole scheme. This has had a major impact on the cost of private insurance as the more people who withdraw from the system the higher the premiums to cover the cost of those remaining in the system until it is not viable for most families to take up private health insurance and they withdraw from the system. There is no doubt that it has been a downward spiral. Many of my constituents will be very pleased that the minister has brought this legislation forward to provide greater scope to cover the gap. This measure will ensure that those already in private health insurance remain there.The introduction of Lifetime Health Cover, a scheme that lowers premiums for those who take out private health insurance early in their lives, and the measure of a 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance premiums have already increased the number of people taking out private health insurance. So we can see that the downward spiral of people drifting out of private health insurance has indeed been stemmed. It is an important measure. It will stabilise the drift out of private health insurance and, at the same time, it will take considerable pressure off the public hospital system. It is ironic that in my electorate there are modern, private hospitals that are under-utilised, largely due to the difficulty of covering the gap. I am sure this is a situation repeated in many parts of Australia. With the public hospital system bursting at the seams it makes sense to ensure that our modern, well-equipped private hospitals are fully utilised. As there is a history of disagreement on the method of dealing with the gap, this is a very significant achievement on behalf of the minister and this government.Under the legislation, gap cover schemes will be entirely voluntary arrangements between the health funds, doctors and hospitals. These agreements will provide a way to cover the gap additional to, and completely separate from, the existing medical purchaser-provider agreement and practitioner agreement. Health funds will have the scope to tailor schemes to meet the particular needs of contributors, subject to ministerial approval. This is another very important feature of this bill. Ministerial approval will be guided by specific criteria in regulations attached to the bill, and the regulations have been the subject of wide consultation with health funds, medical professionals, consumer groups and industry representatives. The requirements for ministerial approval are that the scheme should not be inflationary. I notice that my colleague the member for Calwell touched on this issue and said that it was something of concern. But one of the requirements of the scheme is that it should not be inflationary and that it should not be characterised by open-ended reimbursement of medical fees or increased total costs borne by the contributor. It must genuinely deliver no or known gaps to consumers. The medical practitioner must inform fund contributors of any amount they may be liable to pay for a professional service and, in appropriate circumstances, provide for simplified billing arrangements. This involves the aggregation of patients' bills for in-hospital care and a streamlining of claims procedures. Also, consumers must not be disadvantaged in the event that the scheme is revoked by the minister. The scheme must ensure the professional freedom of medical practitioners, another important hallmark in this scheme. Regular reviews of the scheme by the minister will be required on an annual basis, and schemes will be independently monitored by the private health insurance administration. There is no doubt that this level of scrutiny will demonstrate whether the schemes genuinely reduce or eliminate the cap payments by consumers, and the minister will have the power to revoke schemes that do not meet the requirements for better patient outcomes. It will be necessary to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 to allow automatic assignment of a Medicare benefit from a contributor to a fund, approved billing agent or hospital or day hospital facility or other prescribed person when the benefit relates to a service performed by a medical practitioner under an approved scheme. This will simplify billing arrangements for both the fund and its members. The perception that health funds do not offer value for money is one of the most serious deficiencies in the current system. People requiring medical treatment want to understand what they are covered for and the possible out-of-pocket expenses. Getting a very large additional bill and worrying how to meet this added expense is a very unwelcome burden when someone is recovering from treatment or when the family are dealing with that recovery phase. On many occasions the additional bill comes completely unexpectedly. This often is a great shock to the patient or the family, and it certainly has been a common cause of complaint about the deficiencies in the current private health insurance regime.My constituents simply want the option of gap cover, to take the worry out of medical treatment. As I said earlier, the withdrawal rate from the funds since 1983 has been alarming. In fact, since its inception in 1983, when 61.5 per cent of the population was covered by private health insurance, it has fallen to 30.1 per cent. As I said, even the architect of the scheme warned that if it fell below this then the scheme would be in grave danger of not doing the job it was intended to do. But I am pleased to say, for the reasons that I outlined before—that is, the Lifetime Health Cover and the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance payments; and this measure will add to that—the participation began to rise. In fact, in 1999 almost 300,000 more people took out cover. So there are encouraging signs that the free-fall from private health insurance has been stemmed, and we can now look forward to a future where private health insurance will do what the public want it to do.Private health insurance plays a pivotal role in funding the hospital system, as each year it contributes $3 billion, caring for about one-third of all hospital patients. Although current legislation allows gap cover in some circumstances, this legislation widens the scope and allows a non-contract approach to the gap. This measure is very important and has been welcomed by medical practitioners. It has been necessitated due to the great reluctance by some doctors to enter into agreements with funds and hospitals. That is why the current arrangements have not been taken up as readily as they might otherwise have been. This reluctance was despite legislation in 1998 to ensure clinical freedom, one of the important issues raised by medical practitioners as a reason for not wanting to become involved in agreements with funds and hospitals. A great challenge for Australia is to ensure that people have the choices they require and that medical care is affordable for all families. We have moved into an era of the most amazing medical interventions and we have very sophisticated medicine today, like nuclear medicine, and very sophisticated and expensive life-saving equipment which improves the quality of life and prolongs life—and it is very welcome. We must ensure that every citizen has the ability to take advantage of the best medical care available. But, clearly, while these measures save lives and improve the quality of life for many people in the community, it comes at a cost, and the principle of ensuring that everyone has access to high quality care is critical to any decent medical care system.Managed care contracts were introduced into this House by the former Labor Minister for Human Services and Health, the member for Fremantle. I recall speaking on that bill at the time. After speaking to a number of people in the medical field, including private hospital owners, I outlined some of the concerns that managed care contracts would bring. Many believed that it would fail to stem the flow of people out of private health insurance, and of course we have witnessed that outflow, and people in the community have felt the effects of the pressure on the public hospital system as a result.The medical profession was never convinced of the benefits of managed care, for some of the reasons I outlined in that earlier speech. I recall that, in that speech, I outlined for this House how sometimes it is a false economy. Particularly for the elderly, who often go in for a hip replacement, it is not that simple. They may have other clinical conditions that have to be managed and cannot just be managed in a neat package. This is where attention to individual needs is so important. We cannot just lump everybody into the same category. Sure, there are areas of practice where there are clearly procedures to be followed, but for each individual the way those procedures are done and the after-effects of those procedures will be different. That was one of the enduring failings of taking an approach solely of managed care.It is a credit to our minister that he has worked with the medical profession to bring about the changes that are widely accepted as workable within the medical profession. Through service delivery schemes without contracts the best results are achieved for the medical profession and the public. Patients will know exactly what a procedure costs, and it will allow health professionals to determine the very best treatments. The hospital casemix protocol data from 1997-98 indicated that an average medical gap for an episode in a private hospital was $151. However, many patients are faced with a bill not covered by insurance of several thousand dollars. Owners of private hospitals have told me that it is not usually due to the cost of the hospital stay but a result of specialists determining their own fees based on a view of what the market can bear. So there is no certainty for anyone about the cost of procedures. That is not a particularly satisfactory arrangement for the public.According to the explanatory memorandum to this bill, it is not uncommon for specialists to charge different amounts for the same service depending on the circumstances of the patient. Again, I would suggest to this House that that is a fairly unsatisfactory arrangement. Patients, the medical profession, insurers and hospitals, both private and public, will universally welcome this bill. As an elected representative, I have made, as I said earlier, many representations on behalf of the constituents of Pearce on this matter, and they will certainly welcome this legislation.I was very interested to read in one of the editions of Australian Medicine that the AMA president, Dr David Brand, welcomed this scheme. He was reported as saying, `There is light at the end of the tunnel.' The article continued:Meanwhile, following an increase in health fund membership in the December quarter, from 30.9% of Australians to 31.2%, Dr Brand claimed the tide was beginning to turn.And indeed it is. As I said, we have stemmed that downward spiral of people withdrawing from private health insurance and the pressures that were brought to bear on the public system because of this. This is indeed a very important measure. The Department of Health and Aged Care has put out some useful brochures as well. Any members of the public out there who are unsure of this matter can take advantage of the excellent brochure, Medical fees: know your rights. It clearly outlines what sort of advice they might need if they are going in for a medical procedure. It is a very useful publication. The brochure also tells them how to get in touch with the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman and sets out what they should do if they think they are being unfairly treated by their doctor or health fund regarding fees or payment. So these are very important public health brochures being made available to the public on these new measures. We hope that people will take advantage of this very important legislation to ensure choice and a better health system for all Australians. 20:40:0015612Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak this evening on the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000 now before the House. This legislation relates to the health and wellbeing of the community and I am sure that all members of this chamber would agree that the health needs of their constituents is one of their major priorities. The residential aged care crisis over the last few weeks, which the Labor Party has been scrutinising, is also overwhelming proof that all Australians share a deep concern about health matters, either for themselves or for their loved ones.In my large electorate of Canberra—one of the largest in the country, with a 1998 enrolment of 105,359 voters—I also represent a total population, based on the 1996 census, of 153,551. Of the total population, 34.3 per cent of people are aged from nought to 15 years and 14.9 per cent are aged 65 years or over. Hospital and medical data have shown that the largest demographic groups most frequently requiring hospital and other medical treatments are the very young, the frail and the elderly. Given these striking statistics, just under half of my constituents are in these demographic groups. It is very little wonder that one of my main interests is public policy as it relates to health and family issues. I am committed to ensuring that all Australians, including my constituents—individuals, youths, couples, families, self-funded retirees and pensioners—have access to affordable and adequate health care services and qualified health practitioners and are treated in well-managed and caring facilities at prices within community expectations.I am concerned, however, that the standards my Labor parliamentary colleagues and I have been working towards—namely, to provide a health care system to the community based on the fundamental principles of access, fairness, equity and need—has been eroded over the last few years. Contemporary public health policies have not been thoroughly worked through and nor are they based on sound judgment. Their social impacts have not been assessed against community standards and expectations and nor has the cost of such policies been measured against solid business plan principles. A good example of this is the government's 30 per cent rebate for people who take out private health insurance. This scheme has been in existence now for some time and is costing the taxpayer anything from $1.7 billion to $2.2 billion. Whatever the final figure is, it is still a huge blow-out on government estimates. The calamity for the community is that they are seeing very little return in percentage uptake on private health insurance. Hence the move to contain health costs is short-changing them.Even more troubling and distressing is that those people with private health insurance are now seeing their premiums rise months after the introduction of the 30 per cent rebate and all the other rescue measures, such as loyalty bonuses and the like. The government is deluding itself in believing that the spiralling cost of the 30 per cent rebate is the right medicine for an ailing privatised health care sector. In fact, there has been a very marginal increase in the proportion of people taking up private health insurance. Very few people have joined, with the proportion of the population covered by private health insurance edging up from 30.1 per cent to 30.9 per cent. This is saying a lot about the Prime Minister's own target of 33 per cent, which was announced in the parliament and used by the Department of Health and Aged Care in their original estimates. The real cost of the blow-out was recently admitted by the health minister's own department, which blamed the use of old figures, a failure to take into account rapid rises in premiums and overlooking the move by more economically well-off people using the 30 per cent rebate to upgrade their insurance. The government's claims that this failed scheme represents taxpayers' money being returned to taxpayers is a little bit of a fantasy. The community is not buying it. In reality, taxpayers' money is going to only a small part of the community. The rebate, as it is currently designed, increases the differential between the winners and the losers in the government's privatised health system.I acknowledge that we are living in a rapidly and ever changing world, but I am concerned that what we are seeing so starkly is a widening divide between those who can afford and those who want to afford but just cannot because of their social or economic circumstances. I have said repeatedly in this parliament that we as a decision making body representing the community have a responsibility to provide adequate services. It is sad that over the last few years we have seen the government make a rapid retreat from those responsibilities, particularly from providing adequate funding to our public hospital system. The need to address the state and territory public hospital funding crisis and the long waiting lists for treatment is now well overdue. My example of the blow-out of public money propping up the 30 per cent rebate scheme is a good indicator of failed government attempts to address public health issues. I would like to add that this blow-out could have met the funding requirements of 16 new fully staffed public hospitals. It also could be strongly argued that that blow-out, although largely responsible for attracting some 294,000 new private health insurance members, could have paid the entire cost of health insurance for 1.8 million people.Even as far back as November 1999, my colleague the shadow minister for health, the member for Jagajaga, brought it to the government's attention that an independent arbiter determined that the states and territories were entitled to more than four times what the Commonwealth had originally offered to meet rising costs. It was also recommended by the independent arbiter that the states and territories should get an increase in Commonwealth funds of one per cent above inflation to reflect the real increase in health costs due to technology and other factors and that an inquiry into the impact of the GST on the cost of public hospital services be undertaken. To date the government has ignored these warnings from the health sector in addition to the warnings that the GST will hit hard the public hospital system's ability to deliver adequate services.I will turn to gap payments, which is basically what this bill is about. I welcome the health funds' attempts to introduce no-gap or known-gap policies as part of their product range. Gap payments are a scourge on people who have private health insurance and a disincentive for people taking it out. But what concerns my constituents and me is that gap payments have risen to their highest level ever. Worryingly, the introduction of gap-free policies is being cited as the reason that these increases will be so large. The elimination of insurance gap payments should occur without medical fees going up, and premiums should be within inflation. I would like reassurance that the inflationary impact on medical fees is checked.At the outset of my speech here tonight I mentioned that just under half of my constituents are in the age categories that are more likely to seek hospital or medical treatment. I would like the parliament to consider very carefully the impact that this legislation may have on the community and in particular whether the legislation will be fair, equitable and just.20:48:0015613Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—May I assure the previous speaker, the member for Canberra, that the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000 will be equitable and fair. The coalition government have a very proud record of encouraging people to take out private health insurance. The flow-on benefits of that—not only to the persons who are insured but also to the whole nation, as private health insurance contributes some $3 billion a year to the cost of health care in Australia—are easily seen. It is perhaps unnerving to see members from the opposite benches supporting this legislation, but I guess anyone can learn the error of their ways. Under Labor, we saw a disastrous fall in the number of people who were insured. It has taken this coalition government to start to turn that trend around. Health insurance is of particular importance in my electorate of Groom. Groom, whose centre is Toowoomba, is of course very ably blessed by a large number of private health beds. In fact, private health beds in Toowoomba and the surrounding areas actually outnumber public health provided beds. We have two wonderful hospitals, St Andrew's with 129 private beds and St Vincent's with 206 private beds. As well as that, we have two very small but very well-run private hospitals in Pittsworth and Clifton, providing a further 30 beds for a total of 365 private beds in an electorate of about 130,000 people.Of course, Groom services far more than just its immediate area. People from Northern New South Wales, Western Queensland, Northern Queensland and even the Northern Territory travel to Toowoomba to receive the excellent care which is provided there. Having all these private beds take the pressure off the public system, which has a little over 200 beds in that region. The private hospital system in Toowoomba also has much to be proud of. It leads regional Australia and certainly regional Queensland in a number of areas, and it has the well-earned reputation of delivering professional health care with plenty of compassion. Of course, the private health system is reliant on private health insurance. The aim of this bill is to enhance the attractiveness of private health cover, and therefore to ease the burden on patients when they admit themselves to private health establishments, and to underpin the private health system that many Australians have grown to rely on.Under the proposed legislation, funds can provide known-gap or no-gap health insurance. As the previous speaker said, it is well and truly needed in the health system. It is an issue which my office has had raised with it by constituents. If they take out health insurance and are unfortunate enough to have an illness or require an operation, they need to know that their health insurance will pick up the entire account.This legislation will also provide better value for members of health insurance funds, particularly those on tight budgets. Consumers are safeguarded under this legislation through the minister having to approve each scheme as it is presented. It will give the consumers of health insurance a great deal of comfort to know we have a minister of the capabilities of Michael Wooldridge and a government so heavily committed to not only private health insurance but also health in general. When the health funds do come to us, we will not only provide great encouragement to them to provide a no-gap system but also ensure that those policies will stand up to the rigours of time and the various pressures that are put on any health insurance scheme as it meets the needs of its members.One of the areas of this bill the medical fraternity applauds is the fact that no-gap insurance in most cases, if not all cases, avoids the need for contracts. Whilst this government have no particular aversion to contracts, we always like to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, and that extends to the medical profession. In the case of this legislation, to be able to present an opportunity to members of health funds to take out health insurance that avoids the need for contracts is a plus. Schemes will be individually tailored, and the legislation offers the health funds the opportunity to be far more flexible in their approach. As is the case with most things in this day and age, consumers' demands in health insurance need to be met.We have arrived at this legislation after quite extensive consultation. Through the federal Minister for Health and Aged Care, the federal government has over time shown that it is prepared to listen, prepared to sit and work the issues through and prepared to make amendments and adjustments where necessary. This bill is no exception. I heard the member for Canberra seek an assurance that the bill would not see an inflationary effect on health costs. Can I assure the member that one of our clear goals in framing the legislation was to ensure that it was not inflationary. We are confident we have achieved that. Under this proposal, doctors must warn patients of costs. One of the advantages of known gap in particular—and also of no gap—is that the doctor must explain to the patient why such a gap will exist. This is obviously an advantage for the patient, but there is a secondary and probably more important advantage. Where overcharging may occur—rare though we would hope that would be—the legislation provides the opportunity for that overcharging to be exposed. Therefore, a would-be patient is given the added assurance of knowing exactly what sort of expenses are about to be levied and that the charges the doctor is going to present to them are within the agreed schedule. This will be a less stressful experience for people who are suffering illness or injury or preparing for surgery to rectify some existing ailment. Too often nowadays patients load themselves with all the concerns that they face in not only the medical and physical implications of their oncoming operation but also how they are ever going to afford to pay the bill. The legislation will offer a great deal of comfort and surety in that area and will only further improve the understanding of health insurance.Not requiring contracts does allow for the professional freedom of the doctors involved, and that is important. Under any system, particularly the private health system, we need to ensure that freedom is maintained. I see the strength of this legislation, though, being another brick in the wall of rebuilding private health insurance in Australia. Under the previous Labor government, the rate of participation in private health insurance fell from 62 per cent in 1983 to 30 per cent in the early years of our current term. We have started to reverse that trend. I have here a graph from the private health insurance organisations which shows that were it not for the incentives provided by the federal government—were it not for the many planks that we have laid down to support not only private health but also private health insurance—a further million people would not have been insured. That is the net effect of all we have been doing to date with incentives for private health.Let me just remind those who want to argue the finer points of whether the government should support private health insurance of one clear, unassailable fact: private health insurance pays $3 billion a year towards the cost of health expenses in Australia. That is $3 billion that the individuals who choose to take out private health insurance have agreed they will pay and that the government is excused from paying. By excusing the government from paying that $3 billion, we are giving the government the option of ensuring both that our budgets are balanced at the end of the year and, more importantly, that money is freed up to put into the public health sector to ensure that those people who are unable or unwilling to take out health insurance can also receive an adequate measure of care.The government has worked very hard in the past to introduce planks to health insurance to make it more user friendly and more enticing for people to join. Lifetime cover, which rewards loyalty and will in the long run provide cheaper health insurance and greater stability to the funds, is another plank in its strategy. I think it only fair that those people, such as me and I hope many in this chamber, who have been subscribing to health funds since their early 20s—that may not be as long ago for some as for others—or those people who have been subscribing to health funds all their life, are not faced with premium rises when health funds get loaded down by people who opt in and opt out whether it is because they are young and are expecting a child in their family, because they have got some foreseeable medical exercise that has to be carried out or they are just simply getting old and decide to take on health insurance in the latter part of their lives when they are a higher risk. I think it is only fair that those people who have been insured for 20, 30 or 40 years are not faced with premium rises in health insurance because of that. Lifetime cover comes in on 1 July. It is a way of rewarding the loyalty of those people who have made the decision to join health insurance funds and to stay in health insurance funds. It rewards them by guaranteeing them a starting point in their premium. Those people who choose to join later, particularly in their older years, will pay a penalty. Again that will encourage more people to join the health funds. Probably the most significant thing this government has done, and certainly the thing that I hear the most praise for this government on, is the 30 per cent rebate. The 30 per cent rebate on health insurance is a very significant financial incentive for people to join private health insurance. It equates to more than total tax deductibility for 80 per cent of our taxpayers who are in what we term the battlers group. For them the 30 per cent rebate is even better than total tax deductibility for their health insurance. You do not have to be Einstein to work that out. Many of our constituents are paying less than 30 cents in the dollar in tax and when the new tax system starts on 1 July we will see 80 per cent of Australians paying less than 30 cents in the dollar. That means the people in that bracket who take out private health insurance will be better off with a 30 per cent rebate than with total tax deductibility for health insurance. So again it is an added incentive.As I have spoken, the third plank in our strategy on private health insurance is the known-gap or no-gap legislation. I spoke earlier about the importance of health insurance in my electorate, but let me revisit that area. If we look at the figures—and of course these figures are only going to improve from here—in my electorate some 45,000 people were covered by health insurance in 1998. I well remember asking the Prime Minister a question about the importance of health insurance, particularly in my electorate, when I first came into this House. With 45,000 people in an electorate of over 100,000 people covered, you can see that the people of Groom already rely heavily on private health insurance. They already accept their responsibility by taking care of themselves and by relieving the burden of health costs placed on taxpayers around Australia each year.For the people of Groom this no-gap insurance is an added incentive. They will welcome it. They will welcome the stability it provides to their health funds. Along with the other planks that we are have put there, they will welcome the confidence that is being restored in private health insurance and private health in Australia. This government continues to send a steady unambiguous message to all Australians that not only do we support good health services in Australia but just as importantly we support people who want to support themselves in funding their own health costs. I think that is important. Whilst we acknowledge that there are always those in our community who are unable to take out health insurance for financial reasons or whatever, this government must continue to do whatever we can to encourage people to take out private health insurance. When I return to Groom at the end of this week—and I always look forward to going back to Toowoomba, the most beautiful inland city in Australia; dare I say the most beautiful city in Australia—I know the residents there will welcome this latest legislation this government is proposing.21:06:0015616Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—It is a pleasure to speak this evening on the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000 because it does afford me the opportunity to say one or two things specifically about the bill but also to speak about the hospital system, the effect of gap cover and so on in my electorate, as other members have spoken about aspects of their electorates. I shall pursue those issues. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis—and I am very pleased to see you in the chair—that some of the comments I make about the great Illawarra will be of interest to you, as one of the two members who proudly represent our region in this House.The bill that we are debating tonight has the intention of amending the National Health Act 1953 and also the Health Insurance Act 1973 to provide for gap cover schemes. As is pointed out in the explanatory memorandum:The purpose of these schemes is to enable registered health benefits organisations to provide no gap and/or known gap private health insurance without the need for contracts. The Medicare rebate covers 75% of the Schedule fee for in-hospital medical expenses while private health insurance covers the remaining 25%. The “gap” is the difference, paid by the policy holder, between fees charged by doctors for in-hospital medical services and the combined health insurance benefit and Medicare benefit. Current legislation allows the gap to be covered in circumstances where the service is rendered by or on behalf of a medical practitioner:with whom the registered health fund has a medical purchaser-provider agreement; or who has a practitioner agreement that applies to the professional service provided, with the hospital where treatment occurred, and that hospital has a hospital purchaser-provider agreement with the registered fund. This Bill provides a third mechanism through which the medical gap may be covered by funds. The operation of the gap cover schemes provided for in these amendments—according to the explanatory memorandum at least—is in no way intended to affect the operation of any medical purchaser-provider agreements, hospital purchaser-provider agreements or practitioner agreement. The explanatory memorandum continues by saying that the legislation itself has come forward and has been presented by the government because:Research has found that consumers essentially want no gap or known gap insurance. This Bill will provide the framework to allow funds to design schemes that satisfy this market demand.The honourable member for Groom and others from the government who have participated in the debate this afternoon and tonight have touched on a couple of fundamental issues associated with the provision of private health insurance. Equally, members of the opposition during their contributions have raised different concerns about the operation of private health insurance. The honourable member for Groom, for example, used words to the effect that `the coalition has a proud record of encouraging private insurance'. That may well be true. He made some comments also that, during the last Labor government, the number of people covered by private health insurance fell from something like 60 per cent to about 30 per cent, but he did not go on to explain why that was the case. I think it is important that people do understand something of the history of health insurance in this nation, which goes back in fact to the early and middle 1970s. If people do have those long memories, they will recall that one of the great achievements of the Whitlam government was the introduction of Medibank. It was a health insurance scheme funded by government to cover people in the Australian environment. It was a scheme which the then opposition—and a couple of people from that opposition still sit in this place, including indeed the Prime Minister of this nation—proposed should be changed, because philosophically they had a problem with a government providing health insurance.It is history that the Fraser government saw fit to eliminate Medibank, notwithstanding that government's promise not to—but it was probably a `non-core promise' in the jargon of the present government. Accordingly, what it ended up doing was assuring that something like two million Australians were denied access to the most basic medical coverage. As a consequence of Medibank being wiped out and the government of the day led by Prime Minister Fraser encouraging people to take out private health insurance, we saw a growth in that area from those people who had the capacity to pay, because they recognised that the sorts of services that were covered by health insurance were more than simply hospital benefits or visits to doctors. Any of us who have had private health insurance—and I am certainly one of those, for a whole variety of reasons, which I will touch on in a moment—understand that there were procedures and other forms of treatment that are now covered by private health insurance companies which perhaps were not on offer and not covered at the time.I took out health insurance with a health insurance company for me and my family many, many years ago. I agree with the honourable member for Groom: many of us did take out private health insurance when we were in our early 20s. Certainly, in my case that is true, because when my wife and I got married and then, subsequently, had children, it became clear to us that some of the medical benefits being offered by private health insurers were the sorts of benefits that with the combined income from our jobs—mine as a schoolteacher, then a university lecturer, then a town planner, before I came into this place; and my wife's as a nurse—and, certainly in our case, with our four children, were going to be appropriate. So we did pay into a medical benefits fund and we continue to do so. I suppose the economics of that would be interesting if you actually sat down and worked out how much you have paid into those funds over a period of time and just how much you have been reimbursed for services received. These days you can get coverage for general physiotherapy, orthodontic work, eye doctors and physiotherapy for sporting injuries; you can indeed get coverage for some of the equipment that you purchase for pursuing your quest to turn a 50-year-old body into a 20-year-old body. It says something, I guess, of the way in which lifestyle changes these days dictate that people want to live a healthier life. As a consequence, part of that occasionally involves the need to get some form of medical assistance, and that can be an expensive proposition unless one is covered by private health insurance. So the reason why the number of benefits on offer has grown relates quite often to those private health insurance companies trying to compete against each other and also trying to survive. They have tried to survive by offering greater ranges of benefits to people to encourage them. I think it is rightly so, as is said in the explanatory memorandum, that this bill has come about to provide an opportunity for private health insurance companies to `design schemes that satisfy this market demand'. This really is a market demand, market driven operation.As I said, in terms of some of the history associated with this, during the Labor years of the Hawke-Keating governments, when more money from the public sector was put in to health insurance, or at least to provide services in hospitals, and under a revamped Medicare—of course it was a Labor government that brought that back and then subsequently covered all Australians—we found that the number of people in private health insurance indeed did drop. I think that was the point that the honourable member for Groom was making—that there was a drop—but he did not go on to explain why that was the case. Now, with a change in government and a change in philosophy and support for private health insurance companies, we again have seen a number of ways in which this government has been trying to encourage people to once again get back into private health insurance.But I do find the logic offered by members of government in this place for sustaining the argument about putting government money into encouraging people to go into private health insurance a little at odds with where that money could have been directed to bring about a similar sort of result. The honourable member for Groom talked about a figure of $3 billion. We tend to talk about $2.5 billion that the government has invested in encouraging people to go into private health insurance. I have heard it said by people on our side, and I have heard it said by people in the profession, that that $2.5 billion would have been a very handy amount of money to be injected into the public health system of Australia.Even $1 billion over the period in which this government has been trying to encourage people to go into private health insurance would have certainly eliminated most of the problems that we hear about from time to time associated with the queues of people waiting for elective surgery. It would have eliminated the pressure that is brought to bear on area health service boards in New South Wales, with which I am most familiar—or indeed in most other states—to try to rein in budgets, to keep on budget. It would have eliminated many of those hospital bed closures that have occurred right around Australia as area health services have struggled with trying to ensure that the best quality care is made available to patients while at the same time recognising that there has been a dwindling amount of money coming from Canberra, from the public purse.2K6Brough, Mal, MP8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—Whilst the parliamentary secretary might point his finger and say that is not true, I say to my honourable friend: have a look at the first couple of budgets that your government introduced and you will see that there was a decrease in funds from the government to the hospital systems around the states under the various agreements—funds that could have met the needs of many of those public hospitals. That does also raise a few of the issues associated with specific areas, and I was interested to note that, according to the explanatory memorandum and the comments made by government members during this debate, there has been applause for this proposal from the doctors union—that is, the Australian Medical Association. The doctors union believe this is good in the main because the contractual arrangements that previously existed will no longer be required. Additionally, though, there is very much a salient point associated with this—that is, the doctors now have to warn patients of the costs and explain why a gap will exist after the consultation process has taken place as they explain procedures and so on. That is a vast improvement on present circumstances. Even the honourable member for Groom made passing reference to the fact that there are some doctors who charge well above what are reasonable fees in the circumstances. Some private hospitals also do that—charging day fees, fees for anaesthetists and fees for this, that and the other, having people check in the night before and so on. These are all matters that can be addressed through this particular new arrangement, and I welcome that.Again, this highlights something of a need for change in the way that people approach the question of hospitalisation and the need for care. For example, if somebody is going in for a reasonably simple procedure, is it entirely necessary to go in the night before? Would it not be satisfactory if that person was told by his or her doctor to fast the night before, particularly if they are going under anaesthesia, and to present themselves at the hospital the morning of the operation for the procedure to be carried out? That eliminates one night in the hospital system, as well as the costs associated with having people in hospital when they are perfectly well. Maybe the Australian population need to accept that it is not always necessary to be lying around occupying a hospital bed, with the costs associated with being there. That is not to say that people are going to get a lower quality of care but that, with the procedures that have been adopted now and with the advances that are being made in modern medicine, it is not necessary for people to be in a hospital for the amount of time and have access to the sort of care that might have been necessary in the past. That, of course, presupposes that there are things like home visits available through nursing services or through the Home and Community Care program and so on. Again, I guess there are some trade-offs that governments have to give some thought to.Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, I did say that I would make a couple of comments about our own region in respect of this. From time to time—and I know you find it just as amazing as I do—people raise questions about the sincerity of Labor governments, whether it be at the national or state level, to invest in our own region's health system. Yet within our own region there are a number of hospitals that have benefited from Labor governments, particularly state Labor governments. Under the Greiner-Fahey governments, for example, Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the hospitals, which at that stage was in your electorate at Kiama, was physically closed down. But Mr Carr, on coming to government, reopened it. Again, I have to say to those people in the Illawarra who ask what Labor does for a region like theirs that that is a case in point: a hospital reopened by a Labor government as a commitment to the local community of Kiama. We have seen multimillions of dollars invested in the Wollongong campus of the Illawarra Area Health Service. We have seen a brand new children's ward, and, yes, the local community contributed to that, as I think is appropriate—but, nevertheless, we still had considerable state government funds invested there and a first-rate facility has been constructed. We are seeing the replacement of a number of other major pieces of infrastructure at Wollongong campus taking place at the present moment.We had a purpose-built hospital at Shellharbour supplemented with the psychiatric unit that was developed there and in fact commissioned by my wife—again, a great piece of infrastructure in the local Illawarra. We also had—and I well remember this as it was in my electorate—Coledale Hospital and Bulli Hospital kept open when the previous Liberal government had decided they were two hospitals that were marked for closure. The local community, a number of community activists and the trade union movement—despite the way in which the minister for industrial relations talks about them in this place from time to time—rose to the challenge. The community voice spoke up and those two hospitals continue to exist. This was achieved by the government, the area health service board and the community getting together and asking, `What do we need at each of those hospitals?' And, rather than every service being offered at every hospital, they proceeded with this campus program whereby Wollongong hospital was developed and continues to be developed as the major regional campus for the Illawarra Area Health Service. We had Coledale Hospital turned into a hospital for geriatric care and rehabilitation care. We had Bulli Hospital specifically designed for some oncology work and one or two other specialist procedures. We have had some difficulty at the Port Kembla hospital recently—Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you are most familiar with this as it is in the middle of your electorate—with the casualty section being downgraded in favour of a day surgery; frankly, a position which I certainly supported in view of the usage of that facility and, given that Wollongong is just up the road, I thought it an appropriate response. And of course we have an ongoing dilemma with the Shellharbour Hospital—again, in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I lend my support to your endeavours to ensure that the state government rethinks the decision to eliminate from that particular hospital maternity care and the delivery of children and suggest that expectant mothers could go through to Wollongong. I think this neglects the growth that is occurring in the southern suburbs of both the city of Wollongong and the city of Shellharbour. I suspect that is an issue that needs to be revisited. At the same time, it also requires anaesthetists, who put on a bit of a blue about whether or not they would be there, to get themselves involved a little more appropriately. Again, it comes back to the sorts of issues we are talking about in this legislation tonight. It is all well and good for a number of people in the medical fraternity to talk about adequate payment, the need for gap insurance and no more contracts and so on; but there is a reciprocal obligation—that famous phrase that this government likes to use—on many of those people to give good quality care to those people who need it through the hospital system. I think it is appropriate that this sort of measure be debated tonight. Again, however, I think there are some philosophical problems as to whether or not it is the most appropriate way to spend money. Nevertheless, the opposition has determined that it will support the legislation. I am sure it will pass through both houses unimpeded, although I understand a Senate inquiry might throw up some of the other issues associated with it. 21:26:0015620Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I have certainly learnt a lot about health in the Illawarra and Wollongong and not so much about the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000. All the same, the measures contained in this bill will enhance the attractiveness of private health insurance by providing the health insurance industry with an additional means by which to offer known-gap or no-gap policies. As the previous speaker said, the gap is the difference between the Medicare benefits schedule, 75 per cent of the schedule fee, the health insurance benefit, 25 per cent of the schedule fee, and the medical practitioners' fees. The issue of gaps is the most difficult problem that is still facing the health insurance industry. Previously the problem was rising premiums and high premiums. That has been addressed through the government's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. Another problem is when the patient is not informed about the cost of the service. Gaps are a major contribution to people thinking that health insurance is not value for money. Consumers want no gap or a known gap. One of the major complaint areas for the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman is the failure of health insurance funds to be able to provide gap insurance for in-hospital episodes. Issue 13 of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman's Quarterly bulletin states: Although there has been legislative backing to enable gap payments, the vociferous campaign waged by the medical profession against any form of third party contract has not allowed contracting to advance. The 1999 annual report of the ombudsman detailed that 30 per cent of all complaints received by the ombudsman concerned benefits. Benefit subissues include the extent of cover, the amount of benefit, the excess and gaps. Most of the complaints about medical practitioners concerned informed financial consent. Consumers expect that when they pay their health insurance premiums this will cover the cost of their health treatment. After they have had hospital treatment, the last thing they want are out-of-pocket expenses from their medical practitioner. The current legislation, the Lawrence legislation, allows gaps to be covered where there is a contract between the medical practitioner and the health fund or where there is a contract between the hospital and the health fund and a contract between the medical practitioner and the hospital. Medical practitioners over the last five years have continually expressed opposition to agreements with funds and hospitals. They believe it will lead to US style managed care. Medical practitioners also believe that they will lose their clinical independence, even though there is legislation to entrench clinical freedom. Despite the opposition of medical practitioners, the number of in-hospital medical services covered by a gap scheme has increased in the last couple of years. Less than one per cent of hospital claims in 1998 involved a no-gap or a known-gap scheme. Presently no-gap or known-gap billing schemes account for 16 per cent of hospital claims. So we have already seen improvement in that area. What we are also seeing at the same time is simplified billing. Sports Medicine South Australia, Melbourne Private Hospital and the National Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are all pushing schemes which will have no gap and also simplified billing.Due to the opposition to contractual arrangements, an additional approach, which will further speed up these no-gap products acceptable to everyone, is required. This legislation does allow for a non-contract approach. The purpose of the schemes is to enable registered health benefit organisations to provide no-gap, or known-gap, private health insurance without the need for contracts. Operation of gap cover schemes is in no way intended to affect the operation of the present arrangements. In order to safeguard consumer interests, gap cover schemes will need to be approved by the minister before they become operative. Gap cover schemes will be entirely voluntary between health insurance funds, medical practitioners and hospitals. The gap cover schemes will be subject to ministerial review and approval. The ministerial approval will be by reference to criteria specified in the regulations. The regulations have been determined after extensive consultation with health insurance funds, the medical profession, consumer groups and industry representatives.One of the problems that have always been raised with gap insurance in the past is that it is said to be inflationary. One of the key criteria for this scheme is that it will not have an inflationary impact. We do not want to return to the days where the medical profession increased their fees after the schedule fee was increased. Medical practitioner fee inflation would further entrench the gaps. The other criteria are the adoption of informed financial consent and simplified billing. The medical profession must inform patients of the amount; both the government and the AMA believe that all medical practitioners should discuss fees with their patients. The criteria also ensure that the professional freedom of medical practitioners is maintained. To safeguard the interests of consumers, schemes will be evaluated. These evaluations will be based on reports from the funds which will be provided to the minister on an annual basis. The Private Health Insurance Administration Council will also evaluate the extent to which schemes are genuinely reducing or eliminating the cost to patients. The minister will have the power to revoke schemes that are not delivering better outcomes to patients.This bill also amends the Health Insurance Act to provide for the assignment of a contributor's Medicare benefit to a registered organisation when the benefit relates to a service performed by a medical practitioner under an approved scheme. This simplifies the billing and payment arrangements for members. This is the first time that health insurance funds and medical practitioners have been able to agree on strategies for dealing with gaps. The legislation will entrench informed financial consent. Informed financial consent will create a true market for patients in terms of the medical practitioner: by medical practitioners providing a quote for their service, patients will be able to shop around. Patients will thereby be empowered. These reforms are long overdue. As usual, it is the government working cooperatively with the industry to resolve longstanding issues. For the first time, there is general agreement on a strategy for dealing with gaps. This needs to be seen in the context of the government's improvements to the health system to make it better and more sustainable. These include things like increasing public hospital funding by over 20 per cent from the ALP's last Medicare agreements. We have also introduced evidence based medicine—a very significant reform. We have increased the number of medical practitioners in rural and remote areas. We doubled the health and medical research funding in last year's budget. We are also tackling the health problems of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations, although I would be the first to admit that we have a long way to go and have not gone nearly as far as similar countries like Canada, New Zealand and the United States. We have made health insurance better value for money by introducing the 30 per cent rebate. Three hundred thousand new members joined a health insurance fund in 1999. The Labor Party have said that the policy is so bad that, if they are elected, they are going to keep it. We have also increased the long-term sustainability of health insurance by introducing Lifetime Health Cover, and now we are tackling gaps. I commend the bill to the House.21:34:0015622Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I am speaking tonight in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000. However, this support is conditional on the issues of concern, which I will go into shortly, being investigated by a Senate legislation committee inquiry. The primary purpose of this bill is to allow the introduction of private health insurance policies which constrain the out-of-pocket costs faced by people who contribute and which do not entail formal contracts between health insurance funds and doctors.The bill will amend two acts in an attempt to solve some of the more complex problems faced by consumers of health care: (1) the National Health Act 1953, which will allow the incorporation of broad heads of power to enable gap cover schemes to be developed by funds, and (2) the Health Insurance Act 1973, which will permit the automatic assignment of a contributor's Medicare benefit to a registered organisation or body to enable simplified billing and payment arrangements to be built into the gap cover scheme. The bill will also work to ensure that the Private Health Insurance Administration Council will be able to obtain information from funds about the operation of gap cover schemes.These amendments are designed to tackle, legislatively, the concern felt by many consumers with regard to the gap between fees charged by medical practitioners for in-hospital procedures and the combined Medicare rebate and refunds from private health insurance. The cost of such gaps was estimated to be approximately $200 million in 1997-98 for contributors to private health insurance. The present arrangements see private health insurance cover 25 per cent of the schedule fee for in-hospital costs and the Medicare rebate cover 75 per cent of the medical expenses.The problem with the gap lies where doctors charge a higher amount than the schedule fee. While I agree that medical practitioners are entitled to reasonable and consistent remuneration for their high level of skills, expertise and training, we know there are a number of money-hungry doctors giving their profession a bad name by refusing to have limits imposed on how much they charge patients above the schedule fees under purchaser-provider agreements. Some greedy doctors are charging astronomically high fees above the Medicare schedule fees. People who are on an average Australian wage, who can barely afford private health cover and who are faced with rising costs because of the GST will be further disadvantaged by the inflationary costs of health care in our country. The Health Legislation (Private Health Insurance Reform) Amendment Act 1994 currently enables private health funds to cover the gaps caused by medical charges above the Medicare Benefits Schedule fee by paying more than the 25 per cent ceiling where a purchaser-provider agreement exists with the doctor or hospital concerned. The act also permits such agreements to be made between hospitals and private health insurance funds—hospital purchaser-provider agreements—and hospitals and doctors under practitioner agreements.For the benefit of the other members in this House tonight, I would like to discuss for a moment the increased cost to health care consumers who have to pay the gap. Gap fees are steadily increasing. The worst thing is that this government is much more concerned about the cost of rebates to the budget than about doctors passing on these enormous costs directly to patients. For example, the costs of obstetrics care have increased gap fees through a complicated delivery rebate. In September 1998, 54 per cent of bills for childbirth were charged above the Medicare schedule fee. In fact, the average gap payment last June for complex childbirths was $218. This is scandalous! As my colleague the shadow health minister and member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, has consistently said, gap charges are the main hindrance in encouraging people to take out private health insurance when it only partially covers the costs incurred by in-hospital procedures. I note that one of the problems with this bill is that the schemes it permits will be designed by doctors or medical practitioners and private health funds and approved by the Minister for Health and Aged Care in order to resolve a problem faced by health consumers. It is my view that those faced with making a choice about obtaining insurance with different gap cover schemes, although they will have greater choice in options, will continue to pay out-of-pocket medical expenses.There are other issues that health insurance consumers will have to face including: whether a role for the private health ombudsman would be envisaged; what, if any, penalties would apply to deter medical practitioners from acting in a manner which would be likely to disadvantage health consumers; and will consumers face significant increases in their premiums to access no-gap or known-gap schemes under the new legislation? I would also like to raise these further concerns: firstly, given the Australian Medical Association's antagonism to the present agreement system on the basis that it undermines medical practitioners' professional independence and their support for this bill, the question must be raised whether the legislation would inhibit the no-gap schemes which are already in existence. The real agenda of doctor groups may be to force out no-gap schemes in favour of known-gap schemes. The new arrangements are similar to the current schemes with an additional component of ministerial approval for the schemes.Secondly, will the new schemes cause medical fees to escalate and bring about higher health insurance premiums? The new regulations provide that one of the criteria of a gap cover scheme includes that there is no inflationary effect. However, this is not clearly defined, and no sanctions are provided in the event that the scheme results in higher fees. Having heard previous assurances from the Prime Minister about increases in private health insurance, it is very hard for anyone to believe that there are no inflationary effects, especially when in 1998 the average gap grew by 6.5 per cent, three times the rate of inflation. Doctors are clearly pocketing money while most Australian wages remain stagnant.Thirdly, will the proposed form of `informed financial consent' be effective in ensuring patients are aware in advance of any gap charges the doctor proposes to make? This change has my full support. I believe that patients must be informed well in advance—and I mean long before any surgery takes place—of the gap fee that will be incurred in dollar terms and as a percentage of the total fee. However, I remain to be convinced as to whether this will actually occur. The added problem is that patients may receive bills from a number of doctors—for example, surgeons, radiologists, anaesthetists and other assorted doctors—and each may have their own separate gap fees. This issue, as we know, is yet to be defined in this legislation and therefore raises some very serious issues if some unscrupulous practitioners abuse the way in which they obtain informed consent. It is unthinkable—indeed, it is unacceptable—that a patient could learn what gap fees are payable only at the time of admission to hospital. It is also unthinkable that a patient could learn the bad news as he or she lies on a trolley waiting for that final call to be wheeled into the operating theatre. The scenario would be an ambush that would even make Ned Kelly blush. Such action would tarnish the reputations of all those honest medical practitioners who do serve their communities and do not charge exorbitant fees. Many of my constituents in Lowe will clearly be affected by the changes in this legislation, and the government must ensure that consumers are well informed and, on that basis, are able to make decisions about what sort of private health insurance to obtain and what the gap fees are which will be charged. The fact that this bill does not define `informed financial consent' nor place any onus on doctors to let patients know in advance how much they will be slugged makes it mandatory for the Senate to alleviate these concerns when the bill finally arrives in the other chamber after it has had the scrutiny of a Senate legislation committee inquiry.I turn now to one of the most important issues for my constituents in the Lowe electorate: the maintenance of a highly effective Medicare system. Labor has always believed that the provision of health care to all Australians is a priority. Just because you cannot afford private care does not mean you should be penalised. I believe that the amendments made to the Health Insurance Act 1973 to allow automatic assignment of a contributor's Medicare benefit to a registered organisation to facilitate simplified billing and payment arrangements to be built into the gap cover scheme will mean yet one more way in which bulk-billing will be undermined—something that the Liberal Party has always wished to accomplish. Bulk-billing is something that those who sit on this side of the House will defend to the death.I also wish to talk tonight about the wasted billions spent on propping up the private health insurance sector. The Prime Minister and his government have funded an entire failing sector when they are not even prepared to ensure that workers receive their entitlements. They have propped up their rich mates, the doctors. They have done this because they are ideologically committed to helping those who can afford to help themselves. Let us look at the figures. The 30 per cent health insurance rebate was supposed to only cost $1.2 billion a year. However, what we actually saw, instead of the forecast 550,000 new members that would be attracted to private health insurance by the rebate, was a minuscule increase in the percentage of those taking out private health insurancejust over two per cent of the total population. This led to a blow-out of $800 million, taking the total cost to the taxpayer up to $2.2 billion. The taxpayer is footing the government's health insurance bills for a two per cent rise. And the companies continue to increase their premiums. There is something fundamentally wrong with this. The ordinary Australian understands the difficulties in trying to meet their bills—for example, meeting the mortgage payments, especially when interest rates are on the increase, the rising costs of petrol and food, the expenses associated with raising children and ensuring they get a good education and of course, after 1 July 2000, meeting the costs of the goods and services tax. All these are going to mean that not a lot of battlers—or, in fact, almost 70 per cent of the population—will be able to afford to take out private health insurance. The idea put forward by members on the government side that it will be of assistance if the government continues pouring money into a failing system is a fallacy.I noted the member for Moreton's comments when he spoke on this bill and talked about members of the Labor Party having an `absolute hatred of freedom of choice'. They were his words. The member also said it is dreadful that Australians should conform to `one encompassing socialistic medical scheme'. Well, I have some news for the member for Moreton. What I think is dreadful is this government's ideological commitment to ensuring that 70 per cent of Australians have no health cover at all. What I think is disgusting is that, under the Liberal Party's ideal health system, if you do not have any money you do not have access to any health care, just like the American system. What I think the member for Moreton has is an absolute hatred of those people in society who do not have any money and are therefore incapable of self-help. The member for Moreton should have a bit more compassion, stop spouting Liberal propaganda and start to look in detail at the model of Medicare. In government in the 1970s and 1980s, the Labor Party did the right thing by ordinary Australians by setting up a health care system which everyone had a right to access. The progressive levy which exists on Medicare ensures that every person contributes to the system. It does not matter whether you are wealthy or poor; you are still afforded a quality level of health care in this country. That is the way it should be. The Medicare system has even managed to keep aggregate costs below those of other nations. It is a great system, which many other countries envy. The private markets in places such as the United States of America cannot control costs. They are inflating at a much higher and faster rate than Australian costs. It is not about having a socialistic system; it is about delivering value for money for all Australians and ensuring that every person—rich or poor—has the right to the same level of health care. The government is upset with Medicare because it is a system that has worked and they are unable to cope because they cannot pull it apart by cutting funds to hospitals and introducing rebates. We know that a proper study of no-gap schemes operating under existing legislation is yet to be done. My concern with this bill we are debating in this chamber tonight is that it does not allow for the push by the doctors to increase their fees. Moreover, the AMA, the servile agent of the doctors, the doctors' union, will do its level best to secure increases in doctors' fees. You never hear the minister for workplace relations or the health minister bagging the AMA like they bag the workers' unions day in and day out in this chamber.9V5Pyne, Chris, MP83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—No, because they are friends, and all their friends obviously make substantial donations to the Liberal and National parties.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—You'll never prove that.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—For the benefit of the member for Sturt, make no mistake—the AMA is a union. I would like to hear the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Prime Minister acknowledge that in this chamber. But every day they come in here bagging the unions, and we have to suffer it as if there is something dreadful about being associated with a union.9V5Pyne, Chris, MP83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—The unions are on the way back, don't you worry about that—in the words of that immortal leader in Queensland. Imagine if a small group of doctors were able to get high returns from the health funds so they could bolster their already inflated incomes. This will no doubt spill over and put greater pressure on the health insurance premiums and the public health system.In conclusion, we support the bill but with some grave reservations which clearly have to be ironed out in the Senate, because plainly the proponents of this bill are interested in looking after themselves and not looking after the battlers. This health system that we have should be fair to everyone and not favour the rich over the poor.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr Brough—You supported the bill.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—We have already foreshadowed that some of the concerns that we have expressed here, and the ones I have expressed, will be ironed out when it gets to the Senate. I have been talking about those matters in relation to the doctors' fees and the AMA. I say to those on the other side of the House: your friends the AMA, who look after your interests, are a union—make no mistake about it. They are only about inflating the doctors' salaries; they are not about looking after the beneficiaries. (Time expired)21:54:0015626Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—It is a tenet of the social contract that operates in Australia that every person enjoys access to a publicly funded health care system that delivers high quality service. But this fundamental right was put at risk by the former Labor government's deliberate and almost successful attempt to dismantle the private health sector. The coalition government recognises that Australia needs a strong, vibrant health sector to complement the public system. The private health sector not only provides Australians with the freedom to choose their own doctor and hospital but also alleviates the demand on the public system.Since coming to office in 1996, the coalition government has adopted several initiatives, such as the private health insurance rebate, to reinvigorate the private health system. The bill presently before the House, the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000 builds on this progress by removing some of the gap payments that the present system allows. The legislation as it currently operates allows the gap to be covered in circumstances where a hospital or fund based agreement exists with the practitioner providing the service. This bill will extend the operation of the gap scheme to enable the gap to be covered without the need for formal contractual arrangements between practitioners and funds. The provisions of this bill also require health insurance funds to demonstrate that the operation of any proposed gap cover scheme will not have an inflationary impact. Furthermore, the Minister for Health and Aged Care will have a discretionary power to ensure the gap cover schemes will not have an inflationary impact over and above that associated with gap products already developed under existing arrangements. The minister for health has indicated in this House that the government will not accept an open-ended scheme that allows medical fee inflation.The measures put forward in this bill will improve the market appeal, and therefore the demand, of the private health insurance product by giving the industry an additional means by which it can offer known insurance policies. Consumers have consistently demanded no or known gaps in return for their health insurance premiums. This bill delivers the framework within which this policy may be offered and our existing successes expanded. Throughout the course of 1999, Medibank Private, HCF, AXA and the Australian Health Service Alliance all announced no-gap cover. By the end of last year the number of patients benefiting from no-gap policies was more than 10 per cent of hospital stayers compared with only about one per cent at the beginning of 1999. But despite the rapidly increasing coverage of gap products available to consumers of private health insurance, there is still potential for greater coverage. This bill provides the framework for the industry to start working together to achieve outcomes for consumers. Already, for the first time, health funds and doctors have been able to agree on strategies for dealing with gaps. This reform is a key feature of the coalition government's long-term strategy to make private health insurance better value for consumers.Since 1996, the government has introduced a number of complementary measures to ensure private health insurance is more affordable for all Australians. One of the government's initiatives that has been widely welcomed in my electorate of Sturt is the introduction of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate which came into effect on 1 January 1999. Since the introduction of this initiative private health insurance membership in Australia increased by 0.2 per cent in each of the March, June and September quarters in 1999. In the September 1999 quarter, approximately 100,000 more Australians took out private health insurance cover. This is the first time since 1989 when data was first published that private health insurance membership has risen in three successive quarters.Lifetime Health Cover is another initiative in the private health insurance sector that rewards membership loyalty and early membership. Australians who take out private cover early in their lives will pay lower premiums than those who elect to take out private insurance later in life. This is a significant measure that will have a twofold effect. Firstly, it will make the private health insurance system fairer for everyone and, in particular, reward Australians for long-term membership. Secondly, it will reduce and discourage the consumer practice of hit-and-run membership of health funds. The spin-offs will be reduced premiums over time and the stabilising of the private health insurance industry, therefore taking direct pressure off other hospital waiting lists. Australians over 30 years of age have until 1 July 2000 to make a choice about joining a private health fund. Those who are already protected by private health insurance, regardless of their age, will always pay the lowest premium, as long as they do not leave their private hospital cover for more than two years. Australians who are taking out private hospital cover for the first time will pay a loading of two per cent on their premium for each year they are over the age of 30, up to a maximum of 70 per cent. For example, a person taking out hospital cover at age 40 will pay the base premium plus 20 per cent—10 years times two per cent. So the honourable member at the table should of course take out private health insurance sooner rather than later, as he is no doubt nearing the age of 80—I mean the age of 40. That is what I meant to say.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—You were right the first time.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Maybe you feel 80. The government also recognises that there needs to be a degree of flexibility in any measures designed to promote this sort of initiative in the community. Grandfathering provisions have been introduced that allow anyone born before 1 July 1934 to only pay the base premium, irrespective of when they join a private health fund. I was particularly happy to support this measure. It is one which has pleased many of my constituents, who have discussed these sorts of measures with me in my office.The coalition government's commitment to improving the health care system extends beyond making private health insurance more attractive to consumers. The government is also committed to the health and care of older Australians. Some of the coalition government's other health initiatives for older Australians include: the Commonwealth seniors health card, which makes pharmaceuticals more affordable for card holders; the national influenza vaccine program, which offers Australians aged 65 and over free flu vaccines; and the Staying at Home package, which allows older Australians to remain living independently in the comfort and security of their own homes; the `eat well for life' program, which provides dietary guidelines for older Australians and encourages our senior citizens to maintain a nutritious diet so they can continue to enjoy the best of health into their mature years.The 1999-2000 budget provided $110 million to help family doctors provide more integrated care for older Australians with the provision for voluntary annual health checks for people aged 75 years and over. There is the Carelink program, which allows people easy access to information about health services. A single phone call can put an older Australians in touch with services in their local community. There is recognition of the special problems of full time carers of the elderly, the sick and people with disabilities through an $82 million election commitment, honoured in the 1999 budget. And there is the provision of the gold card to an additional 50,000 veterans with World War II service, which entitles recipients to comprehensive health care benefits, including private hospital care, physiotherapy, optical care, podiatry and optometry services for all health conditions—a very popular move in my electorate. In addition to reinvigorating the private health sector—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—You don't believe this.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—the coalition government has also boosted expenditure on the public health system. Of course the gold card is a popular measure in my electorate. It is very popular in your electorate, I imagine, putting great pressure on you electorally. The 1998-2003 Australian health care agreement with the states and territories delivers a funding total of $31 billion over the five years to public hospitals. This represents a real increase of over 20 per cent on the previous health care agreement that was hastily cobbled together by the former Labor government just prior to the 1993 election. In December 1999 the coalition government announced a further increase in funding to the states and territories of $655 million over the remaining period of the health care agreement, bringing the total increase in federal funding to public hospitals to more than 25 per cent since 1998. It is now up to the states and territories to match the federal government's increased public hospital funding. The budget papers indicate that this financial year, 1999-2000, the states and territories on average intend to increase their own hospital expenditure by only 0.3 per cent, compared to the federal government's 7.1 per cent. It is extraordinary to see the states complaining about federal government funding in the health area when we are increasing ours by 7.1 per cent and they are increasing theirs by 0.3 per cent. The federal government is more than meeting its fair share of public hospital expenditure. Combined with the private health incentives, the coalition is restoring accessibility, equality and balance to the Australian health system. This increase in funding will also reduce waiting lists and improve the quality of care offered in Australian hospitals. This initiative is complemented by further government measures to restore balance to our health system by encouraging membership in private health insurance. The coalition will continue to improve Australia's health system by continuing to reform federal-state relations and by emphasising physical care, quality care and preventative treatment. It is also worth noting that the health sector will be one of the major beneficiaries under the new tax system which will commence operation on 1 July 2000.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—I knew that was coming.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—You knew it was coming, of course, because you know it is true. You were just waiting for this truth to be outpouring.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The chair was not waiting at all. The honourable member for Sturt will address his remarks through the chair, and the honourable member for Rankin will be silent.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. By removing Labor's outdated and broken 1930s tax system, the health sector will enjoy a reduction in the cost of services by an estimated $820 million. The community services sector will also benefit from a reduction in the cost of services by around $280 million in the community services sector. Specifically, hospital services will be GST free, except in the most limited cases, such as elective cosmetic surgery. Food served to hospital patients will also be GST free. Essential pharmaceuticals will be GST free, including prescription only pharmaceuticals. Prescriptions listed on the PBS and those which can be bought only on the advice of a pharmacist, including ventolin and insulin, will also be GST free.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—Bandages?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! You will have your turn in a moment.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—The coalition government has also given strong support to GPs as providers of family medicine. Specifically, the government has announced a number of measures worth $171 million aimed at enhancing primary health care. The introduction of new Medicare benefit schedule items will expand the role of GPs in preventative and coordinated care. The Medicare benefit schedule includes rebates to enable GPs to carry out free annual health assessments for older Australians aged 75 and over. The Medicare benefit schedule has also been extended to enable junior doctors and overseas trained doctors to receive a rebate for providing after-hours home visits. The government has also increased the number of student places in Australian medical schools. Indeed, my colleague the member for Herbert, Mr Lindsay, worked very hard to help achieve funding of $10 million for the establishment of the James Cook University Medical School in Townsville. The coalition government has also allocated funding of $13.2 million for the University of New South Wales Clinical School in Wagga Wagga.The coalition government's health sector outcomes are in stark contrast to the policy failings of the former Labor government. The former Labor government's poor management of the health system left it badly in need of repair. The cost of Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme were increasing at unsustainable rates. From 1984 to 1996 the cost of the Medicare benefits schedule increased from $2.3 billion to over $6 billion. In Labor's last term the cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme doubled. This was despite the fact that Labor introduced Medicare in 1984 to help meet the costs of the health system. Although Labor vowed not to increase the Medicare levy, they hiked it up in December 1985, again in July 1993 and once again in 1995. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Is it any wonder that the Australian public is so sceptical of the Labor Party when they claim that they can roll back the GST without raising taxes or reducing spending programs? In fact, to respond to the member for Hunter, we introduced only two levies in addition to the Medicare levy: the gun levy was abolished after its year of implementation and the levy for East Timor will also be abolished after its year of implementation.The explosion in public health system costs can be attributed partly to the declining participation rates of Australians in private health insurance. In 1983, at the commencement of Labor's 13 long years in government, approximately 65 per cent of Australians were covered by private health insurance. At the end of Labor's 13 years in March 1996, only 34 per cent of Australians were protected by private health insurance. Well may the member for Hunter hang his head in shame, as he is doing at the table. As a consequence, private health insurance premiums were ratcheted up by an average of 12 per cent per year over this period. The exodus from private health insurance produced unsustainable pressures on the public system. Had this been left to continue when the coalition came to government, we would have been required to build two large hospitals every year just to keep up with the increase in public demand. Indeed, Labor's former health minister Graham Richardson warned his Labor colleagues in 1993 that, if private health insurance coverage fell below 40 per cent, the entire health system would collapse.By encouraging Australians back into the private health sector, the pressures on the public system are relieved. The combination of the private health insurance rebate and the reduction in gap payments will help to achieve this outcome. It has been estimated that, since the introduction of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate, almost half a million Australians have joined a private health fund or kept their private cover who would otherwise have had to rely on the public hospital system in 1999. I am sure that even members on the other side of the House can understand that 500,000 more Australians relying on the public system would have placed intolerable and unsustainable pressures on our hospitals. In September 1999, 31.4 per cent of Australians were covered by private health insurance. During 1999 nearly a quarter of a million people took up private health insurance who otherwise would have been relying on the public system to treat them if they had become sick. Under the former Labor government, Australians were dropping out of private health insurance at the rate of two per cent a year.One of the reasons why so many Australians were withdrawing from private health insurance was that the former Labor government neglected Australian families and those people on low incomes. In Labor's last year of government 700,000 Australians earning less than $20,000 held private health insurance. Now, thanks to the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate, these low income Australians enjoy a 30 per cent rebate on their private health insurance premiums. For a family on an average income, this equates to a very significant saving of around $700 a year, and yet Labor does not believe in helping low income Australians who want the freedom of choice and security that private health insurance offers. The Labor Party voted against the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate and did not support the Lifetime Health Cover initiatives that we introduced. Labor consistently failed to acknowledge those Australians who had retained private health insurance over a long period of time. With the private health insurance reforms introduced by the coalition over the last few years, the government is ensuring that the health system remains viable, fairer and more affordable for all Australians. I commend the bill to the House. 22:12:0015630Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000 amends the National Health Act 1953 to allow a new type of arrangement between health insurers and doctors to eliminate or make known gaps between medical expenses and what patients get back from insurers. Labor's view is that gap charges remain a major disincentive for people to take out private health insurance. Gap charges are an unacceptable burden to many people coming on top of their health insurance premiums, often negating the benefit of having insurance in the first place. Labor supports measures that will widen the availability of gap-free policies, but the most important point I want to make tonight is that this must not come at the expense of starting a new round of medical fee inflation. That is Labor's major concern about this bill.The new schemes may cause a rise in medical fees, and rising medical fees in the private sector would put pressure on public hospitals to give large pay rises to retain the specialists, feeding an upward spiral in health costs across the board. There do not seem to be adequate controls in the legislation to prevent this upwards spiral in medical costs and specialist fees. I know it is the government's stated intention that these be controlled, but there are not sufficient provisions in this bill, in our view, to guarantee that that will be the case. That is why we are not opposing this legislation in the House, but we want the Senate to have a very good look at it to find out whether the controls in this legislation are in fact adequate.If we do get increased pressure on specialist fees and the public hospital system has to pay higher fees to retain specialists in the public hospital system, naturally that will put a lot of pressure on funding for the public hospital system and make it relatively less attractive compared to the private system. If there is an increase in specialist fees associated with this legislation, I think it is important to consider the serious flow-on cost to the government because of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. Given that there is a 30 per cent private health insurance rebate, the government would effectively be picking up 30 per cent of the cost of any increased specialist fees.Already the private health insurance rebate is costing $1.7 billion. It is an expenditure of $1.7 billion to induce just 300,000 extra people into private health insurance. That works out at a cost of more than $5,600 per person to achieve that very meagre outcome; yet, compared with the $1.7 billion being spent this year on the private health insurance rebate, for just $750 million, the government could have given the states all they wanted and all they asked for in relation to the funding of public hospitals. It chose not to do that, I think very substantially, for ideological reasons. The 30 per cent private insurance health rebate is at least partly motivated by a desire to disguise some of the income tax cuts to higher income earners. Already half of the tax cuts that will come into place from 1 July are going to the top 20 per cent of income earners, and through the private health insurance rebate those high income earners are already enjoying a 30 per cent refund of their private health insurance costs.I believe the private health insurance rebate is also motivated by a desire on the part of the Prime Minister of Australia to dismantle Medicare by stealth. I believe our Prime Minister has always lacked vision. Since he came into this parliament, he has had just three items on his agenda. Number one is about changes to the industrial relations system, whereby he wants to rip away the awards system and sack the independent umpire. The second is the GST. He has been pursuing this since 1981. It has been a long time coming, 19 years, but he will get the GST from 1 July. The third item on his agenda is the dismantling of Medicare. I can cite very compelling evidence of that. Back on 1 June 1987, just before the 1987 election campaign, the now Prime Minister said:There will be many major reductions in health, the Medicare system is a total disaster, we will be proposing changes to Medicare that amount to its de facto dismantling. We will pull it right apart.On 27 May 1987, he told the Alan Jones program:What I'm going to do is take a scalpel, without punning too much, to Medicare.After losing the 1987 election, the then opposition worked out that they could no longer sustain an open, public policy of dismantling Medicare. That was acknowledged by the opposition health spokesman in July 1989 when he told a private seminar: The political strategy is to recognise, regrettably, that the constituents whom we have to win are wider than this room and Medicare does have substantial support.The Prime Minister has shifted from a stated, public position of dismantling Medicare to one of dismantling Medicare by stealth. My concern is that this legislation may be a further step in that process if there is no control on specialists' fees. The main reason there are waiting lists in public hospitals is that specialists get more money in the private system. The specialists exist, but they find it less attractive financially to work in the public hospital system, so they work in the private hospital system. If this legislation makes it even more attractive for them to work in the private system and not in the public system, there will be lengthening waiting lists and the formerly good reputation of Medicare will be in peril because the waiting lists will increase due to the unavailability of specialists as they gravitate even further towards the private system.That is my main concern about this legislation. We are not against gap insurance. In fact, we think it is a very important measure. But we want the Senate to have a good look at the adequacy of controls. A further step in the dismantling of Medicare could well come under the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states in relation to the tied grants to the states. At present, around $6.6 billion of Commonwealth tied grants is provided to the states for health. But, in the financial arrangements that the Commonwealth insisted upon in relation to the GST, it said that it will maintain those tied grants for a while, a so-called transition period, but it is not giving any guarantees after that. Unfortunately, we have already seen some evidence of the paring away of these tied grants, despite promises by the Prime Minister that that would not happen, at least in the so-called transition period. The Prime Minister was asked in an interview on radio 3AW on 11 February this year whether the government was providing less funding for health and other things. He said:No we're, well we're providing, we're providing less dollars, but because the costs of operating will fall, the real financial position will be the same.It is quite open to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of the country to effectively withdraw resources by allowing inflation to erode them over time and allowing per capita grants to fall over time by not increasing grants per person. That is what is going to happen to all those vital services under the tied grants to the states in the new financial arrangements.We do have long waiting lists as a result of the decisions and policies of this government. I am very concerned that this legislation may take us further down that path. With that caution, I will close simply by pointing out that we support the legislation here in the House and that the adequacy of those controls is very much in question. That is why it is important that a Senate process be put in place to look at the adequacy of controls over the prospect of rising medical costs, which will do further damage to the reputation of Medicare—damage that I think the Prime Minister would be quite content with because it has been, and remains, his policy to dismantle Medicare by stealth. I seek leave to continue my remarks upon the resumption of this debate.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees15631156311563122:22:0015631Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—On behalf of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, I present the committee's advisory report incorporating dissenting reports on the Corporations Law Amendment (Employee Entitlements) Bill 2000 together with evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—by leave—The purpose of the Corporations Law Amendment (Employee Entitlements) Bill 2000 is to amend the Corporations Law to increase protection for employee entitlements. In the second reading speech and the arguments the government has presented for the bill, it has claimed that it does this by extending the existing duty on directors not to engage in insolvent trading and by introducing a new a criminal offence which targets agreements and transactions entered into for the purpose of avoiding payment of employee entitlements. A breach of this provision may also lead to a court ordered payment of compensation by those involved. The subject matter of the bill is quite complex. In a short statement, I do not intend to canvass the issues particularly heavily this evening. The committee did receive at very short notice—and the committee's inquiry was a very short inquiry, given the government's timetable on the matter—evidence from a very wide and diverse cross-section of opinion: the trade union movement, the business community, the legal profession and others. The summary of the evidence in the committee's report makes clear that in most instances there were criticisms of provisions of the legislation in terms of its adequacy. That came particularly from the trade union movement, but there was also significant criticism from elements of the business community and the legal profession with respect to the way the government presented this particular legislation and its adequacy.In the majority recommendations and conclusions of the report, it is noted that a wide and diverse set of views were presented. Somewhat oddly, given that diversity of views and not a great deal of analysis on the committee's part in the document, the majority came to the conclusion that the provisions are appropriate and timely and that the bill should be passed. The major dissenting report from the opposition came to a similar conclusion—that is, that the legislation ought to be supported by the House—but the opposition members of the committee in the dissenting report made quite a strenuous argument that the provisions of the bill were not adequate in terms of the objectives that the bill was setting itself and that the matter ought to be reviewed 12 months after the passage of the bill in order to ascertain what action should be taken to address the deficiencies identified in the legislation at this stage. Senator Murray of the Australian Democrats produced an additional dissenting report, where he indicates that the Democrats will draft amendments to the bill to meet some of the deficiencies. The bill has quite a complex set of provisions in an area that is attracting fairly considerable public interest because of a number of high profile corporate insolvencies over recent times, but I would commend the report to the House in the spirit in which the dissenting report from the opposition presents itself within the document.Bills15632The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 2000Committees15632156321563210000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr K.J. Thomson to be a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in place of Ms Plibersek.Motion (by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—agreed to:That Ms Plibersek be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and that, in her place, Mr K.J. Thomson be appointed a member of the committee.Adjournment15632Motion (by Miss Jackie Kelly) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1563222:28:0015632McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I would like to raise some concerns I have with the new Sports Medal which has been announced by the Minister for Sport and Tourism, who I am glad to see is at the table. This medal is far from being the people's medal that the government claims it is. For those unfamiliar with the procedures, those outlined by the government allow only for approved sporting bodies and state, territory and federal MPs to nominate candidates for this medal. This is in direct contrast to our established system of honours, which allows any citizen to nominate a worthy recipient and that their nomination be determined independently by the Council of the Order of Australia, not by politicians. If the Sports Medal is added to our honours list as indicated in recent media reports, it will see our honours recipients picked by politicians, not by the community. I believe the addition of this medal to our honours list system in this form will undermine the independent, democratic Australian system established in 1975. This is perhaps the most cynically contrived photo opportunity yet engineered by the government. However, the really slick cynical twist was added to this saga recently when the government sought approval from the Queen to include this medal in the honours list. I am not sure why there was a need to involve the Queen so publicly and directly in such an overtly political exercise. I remind members that, when the Australian honours were enacted in 1975, it was specifically done to ensure a community based nomination process and an independent selection process. Most specifically, the intention was to establish an Australian system which reflected our fair-go society.The government of the day wanted to—and it was adopted and agreed to by both sides of parliament—do away with the old boys club tradition of the previous system. The old saying was: `If you got an OBE, that was another bugger's effort and, if you got a MBE, it was my bloody effort.' The Australian honours were about the community deciding that someone was deserving of some award. It was not politicians making that decision. I quote from the official Australian honours guidelines:The most important difference between the Order of Australia and the British honours system (imperial awards) was the method of selecting recipients. Imperial awards were made on the recommendation of heads of governments ie politicians. While awards in the Order of Australia are made only on the recommendation of the Council of the Order of Australia. What this means is, although a politician in Australia can sponsor or nominate someone for an award in the Order of Australia—no politician decides that an award should be given—the independence of the council is paramount.These new awards have to get a tick from the Prime Minister before the decision is finally made. According to the public statements and documents released by the government, nominations for this Sports Medal can be made only by sporting bodies and/or state, territory and federal MPs. The man or woman down the street cannot say that they think the great coach or great tennis player from their area should get a go. It is only if your local member of parliament says you are okay do you get a go. This is in direct contravention to the existing procedures under our Australian honours system, which allows an individual to nominate any worthy citizen and it is independently overseen by the Council of the Order of Australia.By including this medal in our honours list, the government has deliberately or mischievously ignored the existing legislation enshrining our impartial process and returned to the old system where the politicians make the choice. That may suit the government, but I am sure it does not suit the Australian people. We should ensure in this year when young Australians are going for gold on their own hard work that any Australian can nominate a person for an Australian sports award—not some third-rate politician or some local councillor—and they should not have to get the tick from the Prime Minister to do it. If in this Olympic year ordinary Australians who have made the grade can get gold, the government should not be providing dross nominated by politicians. It is a disgrace and we should not be doing it. 1563322:33:0015633Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise this evening to bring the attention of the House to indigenous schooling in my electorate. Members would all be aware that to find examples of high attendance at Aboriginal schools in remote areas is most difficult and when found most refreshing. I bring it to the attention of the House because such an occasion took place in the mid-part of last year when I visited Wiluna school in my electorate. It is an extremely remote school and something like 98 per cent of the children attending that school are Aboriginal.The single factor that I found that was most instrumental and influential in having high attendance at the school was an innovative program in manual arts. It started out as a result of a happy coincidence of recruiting a teacher to the school who had a professional background in ceramicware. It just so happened that the Wiluna school some years previously purchased an electric kiln. The situation came together quite naturally. The manual arts teacher was soon resurrecting old moulds and purchasing materials. He created a situation where every one of the students through the 10 grades was at some time during the school week attending ceramic classes. I have not experienced such a willingness to attend school in schools predominantly made up of Aboriginal students. It was indeed refreshing. So impressed was I that I put it to the principal of the school, Mr Peter Flavel, that the children needed some recognition. With the help of an outstanding staff member of mine, Ms Jodie Richardson, we put together a competition to recognise the efforts of these children in their ceramic work. We organised a display of the material in Kalgoorlie and that involved the school, the manual arts teacher and teaching aides making a round trip of almost 1,000 kilometres. They came down. We set up a display, an exhibition of their wares, and awarded prizes in five separate categories. I awarded substantial cash prizes to each of the first and second placegetters in each category. The school, from some funds they had scraped together, awarded a television set to the outstanding entry in this competition. It was rewarding to see the looks of satisfaction and achievement on the faces of these children. I have committed myself already to doing the same thing again next year because it is difficult to get a sense of continuity going in these schools. As members would well know, if children do not regularly attend school, they do not get the education they so desperately need. This is never more so than in the remote areas of Western Australia and this is certainly never more so than in the case of predominantly Aboriginal student schools.The outcome of this interest in ceramics is that children are attending all of their other classes almost by accident, and the education that they are getting as a result of regular attendance is going to serve them well in years to come. We look forward to an increasing attendance at secondary education as a result of a good grounding in primary education. I believe that it is through great leadership in the role of the principal that a situation is created where primary education is attended to, absorbed and recognised for its worth. All of that encourages attendance at secondary education. We as a government commend that, because it is only through good education that our children will go on to better things. (Time expired)1563422:38:0015634Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I wish to refer to the recent broadcasting legislation that received bipartisan support in this parliament and enables the Australian Broadcasting Authority to regulate to provide direct to home reception of remote area satellite broadcasting services in areas with inadequate reception. This measure is a practical means for residents and communities to receive free-to-air broadcasting services in lieu of further roll out of terrestrial services and/or a fill-in for deficient terrestrial broadcast reception. Realistically, the chance of improving the situation in my topographically diverse area is fairly remote when we talk of terrestrial transmission. I believe the imperative for out of area reception because of black spot status is not merely an issue of equity of access to current commercial and public broadcasting services enjoyed by the majority of Australians. It is my understanding that inferior reception areas will not—I repeat: will not—receive standard or high definition digital TV signals in the future, as a certain threshold of signal reception quality is a technical necessity for this to occur. The satellite option will facilitate this without recourse to rolling out further terrestrial services. I would ask this government then to consider limited and appropriate assistance for successful applicants for direct to home reception of remote area satellite services in areas with inadequate to very poor terrestrial reception. Clearly, most black spot areas exist in rural, remote and regional Australia. I am not sure whether members are aware of this, but people must apply through the ABA to access this service. Fundamentally, the process clearly identifies and verifies legitimate applicants from black spot areas. Requests are approved for the nominated receiver equipment at the stated location. The decoder box and the enabling smart card cannot be transferred to another location. If sold to another person, a new application will be necessary for the new location. However, there is a considerable financial cost involved for each applicant which can vary between $1,200 and $2,000 per application. The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services entitled Time running out: Shaping regional Australia's future cited a precedent for government assistance to overcome communication deficiencies—namely, the 50 per cent discount off the purchase price for broadband satellite Internet service delivery.Mr Speaker, you would be aware of the Commonwealth's $120 million to establish a television fund to extend SBS television to transmission areas with more than 10,000 people and to eradicate up to 250 television black spots. While this may assist some communities in receiving more equitable services, it will not help communities that fall below the population threshold, it will not help those who do not currently operate self-help retransmission facilities and it will not help those who will not benefit from the future rollout of terrestrial TV services to overcome black spots.Satellite reception is almost certainly the most practical way to assist these people, but for many the costs are prohibitive. Commonwealth assistance perhaps in the form of tax relief would greatly reduce this disincentive. I therefore put it to the Treasurer and the relevant minister: given that the recent legislation will greatly extend the eligibility criteria to householders wishing or needing to access satellite broadcasting services, will the Commonwealth consider assisting householders to purchase the relevant reception equipment as it has with access to broadband services? For example, a tax deduction for eligible households for verifiable expenditure on equipment and installation costs for satellite receivers may be one approach to this. The legislation is a practical way to assist people to access TV services, while financial assistance as I have outlined is a practical way to help overcome the inequities involved.1563522:42:0015635Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the House the plight of the sugar industry. It is an industry that dominates the economies of the eastern seaboard of Australia, stretching from Ballina in New South Wales, arguably as far south as Grafton, all the way up to well north of Cairns to Port Douglas. The price that will be paid to farmers this year will be around $16 a tonne. Recent work done by the accountant Wayne Halpin under the direction of Alan Cole, the President of the Cane Growers Council for Innisfail, indicates that a breakeven point will be around $21 or $22 a tonne—most certainly between $20 and $22 a tonne. So these people are working well below the cost of production.Whilst that is true of the whole of the sugar industry, unfortunately, the Far North Queensland farmers—and a little over a third of the Australian sugar industry is located north of Townsville—have as a result of a protracted wet season, two cyclones and three very bad flooding seasons got very low sugar content in their cane. Instead of the usual 12 or 13 CCS units, they are down to around 10 to 11 CCS units. As well as that, the average farm production in most cases would be down some 20 per cent, maybe in some cases 30 per cent. So they have lower production and less sugar in the cane that they produce and, since the mill takes the first four units, of course the farmer is left swinging in the breeze very, very badly. That is not to say that the mills are not in terrible trouble as well. This is the first time in 100 years of this industry that the industry has been asked to face a downturn in world prices. It is a very cyclical industry. We face this problem regularly, because we do not have a development bank to look after the industry. The concept of a development bank is that the government can borrow money, and at present the interest rate is around five per cent. I was informed recently that the government borrowed money to rescue All Souls, the big boarding school in Northern Australia, at around four per cent. If they can borrow at five per cent, they can put that out to the farmers at five per cent. If on a loan of, for example, $300 million, the government—state or federal—thought of adding a tiny subsidy of $7 million a year, we could deliver that $300 million to the farmers at an interest rate of around 2½ per cent, and that would see most of our farmers succeed in coming through this downturn. No country in the world steps aside when a whole huge farming sector such as this industry is about to fall over.The production levels in a number of the mills now are so low that it would be very hard for those mills to stay open. If they close, the farmers have nowhere to sell their sugar because it is a very cheap product—you cannot carry it any distance, you cannot carry it up the road to the next mill—they will just have to let their cane rot in the field. That looks like a very likely scenario, if not this year then next year, if the government does not step in. We are watching the domino effect, which will take down the whole of this industry, which produces continuously over a thousand million dollars a year of export earnings for this country. The decision as to whether this money is to be used to restructure their debt so their loans are at 2½ per cent instead of around the 10 per cent that the serious banks are charging at the moment, whether this money is to be used to help them with replanting programs because their cane is in such a dreadful state, or whether this money is to be used to take the price from $16 a tonne up to $20 a tonne, is yet to be made. But a decision has to be made or this industry will be left in terrible peril.Brazil is now selling their sugar cane ethanol produced petrol at 25c a litre. The current price being charged by the oil companies to Australian retailers—those that are left—is around 42c a litre. Even the ethanol plant in Sarina in North Queensland is producing it at around 22c a litre at the moment. If they were to provide $350 a tonne instead of the current price for raw sugar of $250 a tonne, that would be a very reasonable price for our petrol. It would still come in well below what the oil companies are charging us. We have the Kyoto protocols coming in but even without them—and with the replacement for lead in petrol and all the nasties that have to be put in to replace it—it would be far more admirable if we used ethanol. (Time expired)1563622:47:0015636Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—Tonight I raise an important matter relating to aged care funding in Traralgon, which is an important town at the eastern end of my electorate. In December 1995, the then Labor government committed in the order of $753,900, I am advised, for an upgrade of the Dalkeith Hostel in Marie Street, Traralgon. The hostel is operated by the Grace Bruce and J.L. MacMillan Memorial Home Inc. committee of management. Since then, the committee has set out on a new direction and has moved to establish a new facility in Traralgon at a site which is now known as Dalkeith Park, which is in Hazelwood Road, Traralgon. I think this is a great initiative, and I support the direction of the committee in striving to provide first-class aged care facilities to the people of Traralgon.The committee of that hostel set out in some detail in a letter to the department the reasons why they were moving in this direction. For the benefit of members in the chamber, I will quote some parts of that letter. They state in their letter of 6 October:It is now intended to transfer the Dalkeith operations from the present site at Marie Street to Hobsons Park which will offer the opportunity to significantly improve the quality of life of residents and ensure the ongoing viability of the hostel. The move has the universal support of federal, state and local government representatives, residents, their families and the community in general.And they ask of the department:We are seeking your approval to transfer the provisional funding which will be expended in providing facilities at the new site. Estimates indicate that the Dalkeith project of around $2.1 million will provide capital savings of approximately $250,000. These are all great initiatives and all great ideas which have been put forward by this not-for-profit committee of management, which I think most members of this House would agree are well worth supporting. The committee then goes on to list a number of reasons as to why this would be a positive move. They say:The transfer of these funds will ensure that Commonwealth moneys are more suitably utilised in the provision of age care services.They say that some of the advantages are:... more suitable terrain for elderly persons due to less undulation; opportunity to develop activities currently restricted by space and terrain; availability of land for future development of aged facilities and a retirement village community meeting place; possibility of increasing other income generating activities, thereby reducing the level of reliance on government subsidies; bringing in community activities for integration and interaction with the elderly, thus enhancing their quality of life; and helping to remove the stigma attached to age facilities.They list in some detail a lot of the very good things which will result from moving the Dalkeith Hostel, presently in Marie Street, to a new facility proposed to be established in Hazelwood Road at the proposed Dalkeith site. I wrote on behalf of the committee of management and the local community to the Minister for Aged Care on 13 October 1999 in support of this proposal. I got a letter back not from the minister but from the people who run the Dalkeith Hostel, unfortunately advising me that they had heard back from the department that the request for the transfer of that amount of money which had been provided by the previous Labor government would not be approved. They state in their letter to me:Further to previous correspondence, unfortunately it would appear that the transfer of funds from the current Dalkeith Hostel to the new Hazelwood Road site will not be approved. As you would appreciate, if this is the decision, it will have dire consequences on the financing of the future development plans for the new site.Should this happen not only will the residents of Dalkeith Hostel suffer a major disadvantage, but also the community as a whole.They have got it right: the community as a whole will suffer because of the intransigence of this government. The government will not approve the allocation of that $750,000, which was approved by the previous Labor government, for use by the elderly in Traralgon. It is only intransigence and nitpicking on behalf of the federal government which will not allow this money to be kept in the local community and to be used for the good care of the elderly living in Traralgon. I call on the government to act promptly to overcome this situation. That money was promised to the people of Traralgon. That promise should be honoured. This should not be a situation where more is taken away from the good hardworking people of Traralgon. (Time expired)1563722:52:0015637Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—Mandatory sentencing is the result of community frustration that existing judicial penalties do not eradicate crime at a level that is satisfactory relative to community perceptions of crime. In particular, people in the Northern Territory believe that the punishment for property crimes—the offences most likely to be committed against themselves, their families or their friends—is too lenient in terms of deterrence. While I oppose the rigid and intrusive nature of the Territory's governing apparatus imposing its will over the courts, I nonetheless recognise that communities have the right to create their own solutions for their particular problems. It concerns me greatly, however, that we are focusing on the symptom and not on the problem. What concerns me is that I believe that, in fighting property crime, the crackdown inevitably affects the most disadvantaged, as evidenced by the large proportion of impoverished Aboriginal people, and children, caught in this current war on theft. That people so severely disadvantaged exist in this wealthy nation reflects poorly on the huge amount of time, money and effort that has been invested by all governments to try to eliminate the most extreme of these deprivations. This current administration, and to some degree previous governments, has implemented numerous programs designed to enhance job opportunities, alongside health and education initiatives that have clearly benefited many people. But a combination of the cycle of poverty and the disproportionately high number of Aboriginal people in the most isolated underserviced area of the Northern Territory, Western Australia and my electorate in western New South Wales, has undermined the overall success of such programs. I strongly support this government's effort to restore a work routine into the lives of the longer-term unemployed through Work for the Dole. But in some geographic areas this is simply not enough. Job training programs and work experience only succeed where job vacancies exist or where they complement the limited skill pool provided by such initiatives. In the small far flung towns of the Northern Territory and the far west and north-west of western New South Wales, too often that is not the case—there are no jobs and there is precious little of anything else constructive to do. What is needed in these communities is a circuit-breaker for this cycle of aimlessness and temptation and the mainstream backlash it creates against those people adrift in an otherwise comfortable society. I believe the federal government should fund jobs where no jobs are being created by the public or private sector—a situation commonplace for Aboriginal people in numerous communities but one which may be difficult for someone with an urban existence to imagine. Inventing jobs, for want of a better description, has paid rich dividends in the past in at least one town in my electorate where optimum circumstances prevailed—that is, a chronic scarcity of employment and a large Aboriginal community whose social problems were raising frustration in both the indigenous and the non-indigenous communities. Contrary to the views of some ministers and some metropolitan backbench colleagues, the omnipotent cost evaluation of this federal spending would be favourable in terms of the measurable savings made in reduced court appearances, hospital visits, DOCS cases, police time and welfare support. If we are prepared to offer the Northern Territory funding to defuse a national outcry, could that commitment in cooperation with the state governments also extend to paying for jobs elsewhere because the aforementioned savings would go to the state government? We need a system where the benefits to the community and all levels of government are considered and political differences are set aside to create positive outcomes for the people whom we are all here trying to help. If our efforts to provide purpose and at least minimal prosperity to Aboriginal communities in remote areas had been at all successful, the chances are that mandatory sentencing would never have become a reality. 1563822:56:0015638Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—Mr Speaker, as you are probably well aware, horse racing is very much an underestimated industry in this country. It is a huge employer and the subject of huge investment by many people in terms of horse breeding, facilities of tracks and training and also the not insignificant sums of money that go into the coffers of state governments. South Australia has had a very proud history of horse racing. The leading trainers in Australia in Sydney and Melbourne have all learnt their trade in Adelaide—I think of Peter Hayes, John Hawkes, Bart Cummings, Russell Cameron and David Hall. The horse breeding industry in this country owes a lot to the pioneering work that occurred in South Australia. Yet South Australian horse racing is headed in a very dangerous direction. As you would be aware, Mr Speaker, there are three metropolitan courses in Adelaide: headquarters at Morphettville—a great, open, fair-weather track and a very poor wet track; Cheltenham Park—the best wet track in the Southern Hemisphere; and an absolute dog of a course called Victoria Park where the facilities are appalling—you cannot see, the horses run at you, the course is up and down. It is absolutely a dog of a course; that is in the words of one of the leading trainers. It seems that there are some people in the Olsen Liberal government in South Australia—only a few—and a few in the South Australian Jockey Club, of which I am a member, who seem to be plotting behind the scenes to sell the Cheltenham Park Racecourse. This would just be stupidity at its most significant. Cheltenham is the most popular race track in South Australia. It is the best wet-weather track. It has had millions of dollars spent on it in recent years and it has the support of local owners and trainers. Yet there is a view in South Australia that you can corporatise horse racing. That would have to be a direction that would cause a great deal of harm. I think if the state government were interested in its investment in horse racing, it would be very, very concerned. In other places in the world—and I have noticed this on visits overseas—you can go to some racecourses and there are no horses, there are no people; there are phantom meetings going on and there are huge facilities just wasted. In terms of the corporatisation of horse racing in South Australia, what is required is consolidation: Perth and Brisbane have only two tracks, so Adelaide needs only two tracks. Victoria Park has been the venue of a very successful Clipsal 500 V8 race in the last couple of days. That is about all it is good for. I hope that the Olsen government and the South Australian Jockey Club do not bypass the membership in the sale of the Cheltenham Park Racecourse.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:0015639House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices15639The following notices were given:9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—to move:That the House:(1) recognises that easing restrictions on parallel importing will result in cheaper prices for Australian consumers;(2) acknowledges that easing restrictions on parallel importing will allow Australian consumers to enjoy a greater range of products; and(3) confirms that easing restrictions on parallel importing improves product innovation and development.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—to move:That the House:(1) endorses the Government's progressive immigration policy and its emphasis on skilled immigrants which creates additional demand for goods and services and community infrastructure and the consequent employment opportunities that comes with it;(2) recognises that regional Australia and Australia's smaller States and Territories can enjoy economic, budgetary and employment benefits by skilled immigrants living and working in those regions;(3) supports the Government in building community confidence in an immigration program that reflects the needs of the Australian economy while also recognising a need for the family reunion stream of immigration; and(4) approves the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' recent decision for a 5000 place increase in the Skill Stream of immigration. Answers to Questions in Writing15640The following answers to questions were circulated:15640(Question No. 1005)100515640Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 December 1999:(1) What is the policy of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) with respect to billing taxpayers for overdue payments.(2) Does the ATO have discretion to charge or not charge fines or interest depending on the sum and associated administration costs, if so, what are the guidelines: if not, why not.15640Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1)If taxpayers or others have tax debts outstanding, they are issued with statements advising them of their liability, including liability for the general interest charge. If running balance account is in debit, a person receives monthly notification if there is outstanding debt. While the new system was, on the whole, working as it was designed, improvements have been made based on feedback received after the issue of the first statements. These changes include the application of a threshold in certain cases to ensure that statements are not generated if the current balance is $20 or less.The threshold arrangement on the second and subsequent issues will prevent statements issuing to clients who have relatively small debts. However, GIC will continue to accrue on these amounts and a statement will issue when the current balance exceeds the $20 threshold.These arrangements are currently being reviewed by the ATO.(2) The effect of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 is that a general interest charge or GIC is automatically imposed when specified amounts become overdue. The GIC is a penalty for late payment, imposed at the relevant 13 week Treasury Note Rate plus 8 percentage points (for the period 1 January to 31 March 2000 it is 13.08% per annum) and calculated daily on a compounding basis. It also applies to running account balances.If the GIC arises because an amount remains unpaid after the time when it was due to be paid, under section 8AAG of the Act, the Commissioner has a discretion to remit all or part of a charge in the following situations:. the circumstances which led to the delay in payment were not caused by the person, and the person took reasonable steps to mitigate the effect of those circumstances;. the person did contribute to the circumstances which gave rise to the delay in payment, but also took reasonable steps to mitigate the effect of those circumstances, and having regard to the nature of the circumstances, it would be fair and reasonable to remit some or all of the GIC;. there are special circumstances because of which it would be fair and reasonable to remit some or all of the GIC. The Commissioner may decide to write off or not pursue the recovery of taxation debts, including GIC, under section 47 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1998, if the conditions set out in that section are satisfied.15640(Question No. 1129)112915640Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:(1) Will the Government close the Cannington, WA Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and redeploy staff to the Northbridge Office.(2) How many persons will lose their jobs through the redeployment.(3) Has his Department consulted with staff of the Cannington ATO or the Community and Public Sector Union regarding the redeployment.(4) Are there difficulties with the sub leasing arrangements with the Department of Defence that would hinder the relocation of the ATO staff to Northbridge.(5) Have investigations been made as to whether sufficient office space exists in Northbridge to accommodate the more than 600 staff who would need to be relocated; if so, what were the results. 15641Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) As part of the ATO's rationalisation of its accommodation holdings it will consolidate all of its Perth-based operations in the Northbridge site from May 2002.(2) No staff reductions are envisaged in Perth. Current projections indicate an additional 300 staff being engaged on a range of functions in Perth over the next two years, including a new Call Centre being established at the Northbridge site.(3) Staff of both Cannington and Northbridge offices, and the Community and Public Sector Union were consulted prior to the decision to consolidate into Northbridge being taken.(4) A program addressing all the issues associated with the collocation of ATO staff in Perth is being developed. This process will include the timing of when the Department of Defence will vacate their sub-tenancy. Preliminary discussions have been held with the Department and the ATO will continue to consult in line with normal commercial practice.(5) While revised layouts in Northbridge are yet to be finalised, preliminary work indicates that all current Perth-based ATO staff can be accommodated within the building. All relevant Occupational Health and Safety standards and requirements will be complied with.15641(Question No. 1135)113515641Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:(1) How many women in the electoral division of Prospect claimed the Medicare rebate for ultrasound screening during 1999.(2) What was the average sum of the rebate. (3) What was the average age of the women.(4) Will the money saved by cutting the Medicare rebate be used to cover the expenses of magnetic resonance imaging scanning equipment.(5) Will pregnant women need to pay up to $85 more for ultrasound screenings; if not, what will be the extra cost for ultrasound screenings.15641Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 2372 women in the electoral division of Prospect claimed the Medicare rebate for obstetric ultrasound, 4385 women claimed gynaecological ultrasound items and 8770 women received other ultrasound services. (2) The average rebates were $84.81 for referred obstetric ultrasound, $29.42 for non referred obstetric ultrasound, $86.35 for referred gynaecological ultrasound, $29.87 for non referred gynaecological ultrasound, and $110.37 for all other ultrasound.(3) The average ages of women receiving obstetric ultrasound was 29 years, the average age for gynaecological ultrasound was 36 for referred scans and 37 for non referred, and 48 for all women receiving other ultrasound scans.(4) No.(5) No. (6) No. Women with concerns about the cost of ultrasound services should consider attending diagnostic imaging facilities where bulk billing is available. In the year to date, approximately 65% of diagnostic imaging services were bulk billed. Further, poorer women will actually benefit by the promotion of quality ultrasound, that the changes promote.15641(Question No. 1158)115815641Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:(1) Has the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) expenditure on market research risen from $556 099 in 1996-97 to $1 317 375 in 1998-99, as revealed in the appendix 6 of the Commissioner of Taxation annual report for 1998-99. (2) Have the topic or topics of market research been removed since the 1996-97 annual report; if so, why.(3) What topic or topics of market research, on a company by company basis similar to that contained in the 1996-97 annual report, were undertaken in (a) 1997-98 and (b) 1998-99.(4) Is either the increase in market research, or the reduction of information provided in annual reports, linked to the Government's directive to have all public communication from the ATO vetted by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications.15642Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) ATO records show that in 1996-97 the expenditure on market research was $556,099. For 1998-99 the amount reported was overstated by $292,466. This represented a payment made to Toll Logisitics for outsourced work that was misreported as market research. The market research for 1998-99 should read $1,024,909.(2) The topics for market research have been removed from the 1997-98 and 1998-99 annual reports. The Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) guidelines for the production of annual reports did not require the inclusion of market research topics in 1996-97 or later years. From 1997-98 onwards a concerted effort was undertaken by the ATO to more closely follow the PM&C guidelines. (3) 1998-99 market research topics by company: COMPANYPURPOSEAMOUNT $Toll LogisticsCGT Rollover and relief2,781Made to MeasureSales Tax Public notice2,860AC Nielsen ResearchFamily Tax Initiative & Client use of ATO counter facilitiesCommunity perception survey29,100115,945Chant Link & AssocHECS information productsMarket testing ETP publicationsMarket testing Key Feature StatementsSelf managed superannuation fund studySuperannuation client profilesEmployer compliance Super GuaranteeSelf managed superannuation fund studyMulti-dimensional measure of compliance23,92835,41324,66738,000161,251175,00038,0004,000Juliet London ResearchSFSS 1999 brochure29,200Donovan ResearchProfessionalism survey194,379Roy Morgan ResearchStrategic Alignment process - Internal staff survey5,685Eureka Strategic ResearchProblem Resolution Service - Concept testing14,733Details of the market research topics for 1997-98 are not readily available and may take some time to compile.(4) There is no link in either the increase in spending on market research, or in the reduction in information provided in the ATO annual report, to the government directive to have all public communication from the ATO vetted by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications.Market research spending will fluctuate markedly from year to year as the ATO seeks to implement new initiatives and keep in touch with taxpayer needs and behaviour. 15643(Question No. 1167)116715643McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:To what extent has inflation been taken into account for Commonwealth Legal Aid funding since 1 July 1996.15643Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In relation to the 1996-97 financial year, funding for legal aid commissions was adjusted by an average of 4.3% as a result of movements in the AWE and CPI.From 1997-98 to 1999-2000, funding for the legal aid program was adjusted by a composite index of 60% Safety Net Adjustment (SNA) and 40% Treasury Measure of Underlying Inflation (TMUI) from 1 July 1997. The adjustments in each year were as follows:- 1997/98 - 1.3%; 1998/99 - 1.8%; 1999/00 - 1.9%.15643(Question No. 1216)121615643Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 March 2000:(1) Is it stated on page 38 of Taxation Statistics 1997-98 that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) conducted about 80 reviews of the activities of selected taxpayers to determine whether their activities constituted a business or hobby, and that as a result of these reviews, tax and penalties of approximately $750,000 was raised, and more than 30/0 of these taxpayers agreed to cease claiming losses in filirure returns(2) How many of the 80 reviews led to additional tax or penalties raised.(3) Will the ATO increase the number of reviews of taxpayers claiming business losses in filture; if so, by how many. 15643Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes.(2) 32(3) The recommendation arising from the Ralph Review of Business Taxation regarding losses from non-commercial activities is intended to address a large part of the compliance risk associated with hobby activities. Legislation implementing this measure will be introduced soon, and will take effect firom 1 July 2000.15643(Question No. 1226)122615643Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 7 March 2000:(1) What goods and services to be purchased for The Lodge and Kirribilli House will be subject to the GST from 1 July 2000.(2) What sum of GST will be paid on those goods and services.(3) Are goods and services purchased by his Department for The Lodge and Kirribilli House exempt from GST.(4) If not, is his Department entitled to a rebate on the GST paid on goods and services used in The Lodge and Kirribilli House; if so, what sum is the rebate as a percentage of the total GST paid on goods and services for The Lodge and Kirribilli House.15643Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)From 1 July 2000, the GST will apply to any goods and services purchased by the department for The Lodge and Kirribilli House that are subject to the GST in accordance with the relevant legislation. (2) The sum of the GST for those goods and services will be equivalent to 1/11th of the price paid for those goods and services.(3) No. Purchases by the department of goods and services subject to the GST in accordance with the relevant legislation will be taxable. (4) The department will be entitled to an input tax credit equivalent to 1/11th of the price paid for goods and services for The Lodge and Kirribilli House that are subject to the GST.15644(Question No. 1241)124115644McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 2000:Does his Department require a statement to confirm a parent's residency status if they were not born in Australia, in order to allow their child to apply for an Australian passport; if so, does his Department charge a fee for issuing the statement; if so, (a) what sum is charged and (b) will he provide a breakdown of the components of the fee.15644Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Evidence that one parent was either an Australian citizen or permanent resident of Australia at the time of a child's birth is necessary if a child, born on or after 20 August 1986, is applying for an Australian passport. Children born in Australia prior to this date became Australian citizens unless they were;. born between 22 November 1984 and 19 August 1986 and one parent was entitled to diplomatic privileges and immunities or was a consular officer of a foreign country and, neither parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident; or. born between 6 May 1966 and 21 November 1984 and their father was entitled to diplomatic privileges and immunities or was a consular officer of a foreign country and, was not an Australian citizen or permanent resident.If the child's parents are unable to provide evidence of citizenship or permanent residence at the time of the child's birth, they will be referred to Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to obtain evidence. That Department does levy a charge of $55 for issuing a Certificate of Evidence of Australian Citizenship and $65 for issuing a certificate evidencing permanent residence status. These fees broadly represent the production costs for each certificate.15644(Question No. 1245)124515644Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 2000:(1) Is it a fact that to date 137 countries have signed the Ottawa Treaty and 91 countries have ratified it; if so, is he able to say which countries.(2) Is he also able to say which countries in the Asia Pacific region are yet to sign or ratify the treaty.(3) What steps has he taken, or will he take, to encourage those countries to sign and ratify the treaty.(4) Did Australia promise $100 million to rid the world of landmines; if so, what are the details.15644Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answers to the honourable member's question are as follows:(1) As of 23 March 2000, 137 countries had signed or acceded to the Ottawa Convention. Of these, 94 had ratified or acceded to the convention. Following the convention's entry into force on 1 March 1999, states can no longer sign it. Instead, they become bound to the convention, without signature, through a one-step process called accession. Those states which signed but have not yet ratified the convention may still ratify it. A list of countries which have signed, ratified or acceded to the convention is attached. (2) The following countries from the Asia-Pacific region have signed but not ratified the Ottawa Convention: Bangladesh, Brunei, Cook Islands, Indonesia, Maldives, Marshall Islands and Vanuatu. The following countries from the Asia Pacific region have neither signed nor acceded to the Ottawa Convention: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burma, China, India, Kiribati, North Korea, South Korea, Laos, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, Nepal, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vietnam.(3) Through our diplomatic missions in South Pacific countries, in 1999 the Australian Government made representations to South Pacific countries which had not signed or ratified the Ottawa Convention to encourage them to ratify or accede to it. Most countries responded by expressing support for the convention and an interest in becoming a party to it. However, other bureaucratic and legislative priorities may preclude many of them from taking early action. Through a number of regular bilateral dialogues at Ministerial and officials' level, the Government has encouraged relevant countries to join the convention. For example, at the March 2000 Ministerial Forum with Papua New Guinea, Mr Downer encouraged PNG's accession during his meeting with Foreign Minister Kaputin. In a meeting on 21 February with representatives of the Australian network of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), Mr Downer agreed that representatives of the ICBL and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should discuss means for the Government and NGOs to take on an advocacy role in encouraging regional countries to accede to the convention. (4) The Government has allocated $100 million to mine clearance, mine awareness and victim assistance activities in the decade up to 2005. So far, almost $77 million of these funds have been spent or committed, the majority to mine-affected countries in Australia's region. The principal recipients have been Cambodia and Laos, although funds have also been allocated to Thailand, Sri Lanka, Mozambique, Angola and Afghanistan. Details of the allocations made so far under Australia's support for international mine action programs are attached.CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE, STOCKPILING, PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES AND ON THEIR DESTRUCTION (THE OTTAWA CONVENTION). This version current at 23 March 2000. Opened for signature 3/12/97. Signed by Australia 3/12/97. Ratified by Australia 14.1.99. Entry into force generally 1.3.99. Entry into force for Australia 1.7.99STATES WHICH HAVE SIGNED/RATIFIED OR ACCEDED TO THE OTTAWA CONVENTION(a) indicates has acceded Total: Signatories/accessions - 137 Ratifications/accessions - 94 COUNTRYDATE SIGNED DATE RATIFIEDAlbania8/9/9829/02/00Algeria3/12/97Andorra3/12/9729/6/98Angola4/12/97Antigua/Barb3/12/973/5/99Argentina4/12/9714/9/99Australia3/12/9714/1/98Austria3/12/9729/6/98Bahamas 3/12/9731/7/98Bangladesh7/5/98Barbados3/12/9726/1/99Belgium 3/12/974/9/98Belize 27/2/9823/4/98Benin 3/12/9725/9/98Bolivia3/12/979/6/98Bosnia/Herz 3/12/978/9/98Botswana3/12/971/3/00Brazil3/12/9730/4/99Brunei4/12/97Bulgaria 3/12/974/9/98Burkina Faso 3/12/9716/9/98Burundi3/12/97Cambodia3/12/9728/7/99Cameroon3/12/97Canada3/12/973/12/97Cape Verde4/12/97 Chad 6/7/98 6/5/99Chile3/12/97Colombia3/12/97Cook Isles3/12/97Costa Rica3/12/9717/3/99Cote d'Iviore3/12/97Croatia 4/12/9720/5/98Cyprus4/12/97Czech Rep3/12/9726/10/99Denmark 4/12/978/6/98Djibouti 3/12/9718/5/98Dominica3/12/9726/3/99Dominican R3/12/97Ecuador4/12/9729/4/99El Salvador4/12/9727/1/99Eq Guinea acceded16/9/98 aEthiopia3/12/97Fiji 3/12/9710/6/98France 3/12/9723/7/98Gabon3/12/97Gambia4/12/97Germany 3/12/9723/7/98Ghana4/12/97Greece3/12/97Grenada 3/12/9719/8/98Guatemala3/12/9726/3/99Guinea 4/12/978/10/98Guinea-Bissau3/12/97Guyana4/12/97Haiti3/12/97Holy See 4/12/9717/2/98 Honduras 3/12/9724/9/98Hungary 3/12/976/4/98Iceland4/12/975/5/99Indonesia4/12/97Ireland3/12/973/12/97Italy3/12/9723/4/99Jamaica 3/12/9717/7/98Japan 3/12/9730/9/98Jordan11/8/9813/11/98Kenya5/12/97Lesotho4/12/972/12/98Liberiaacceded23/12/99aLiechtenstein3/12/975/10/99Lithuania26/2/99Luxembourg4/12/9714/6/99Macedonia, FYR acceded9/9/98 aMadagascar4/12/9716/9/99Maldives1/10/98Malaysia3/12/9722/4/99Malawi 4/12/9713/8/98Mali 3/12/972/6/98Malta4/12/97Marshall Isles4/12/97Mauritania3/12/97Mauritius 3/12/973/12/97Mexico 3/12/979/6/98Moldova Rep3/12/97Monaco4/12/9717/11/98Mozambique 3/12/9725/8/98Namibia 3/12/9721/9/98Netherlands3/12/9712/4/99 New Zealand3/12/9727/1/99Nicaragua4/12/9730/11/98Niger4/12/9723/3/99Niue 3/12/9715/4/98Norway 3/12/979/7/98Panama 4/12/977/10/98Paraguay3/12/9713/11/98Peru 3/12/9717/6/98Philippines3/12/9715/2/00Poland4/12/97Portugal3/12/9717/2/99Qatar4/12/9713/10/98Romania3/12/97Rwanda3/12/97St Kitts/Nevis3/12/972/12/98St Lucia3/12/9713/4/99St Vincent3/12/97Samoa 3/12/9723/7/98San Marino 3/12/9718/3/98Sao Tome30/4/98Senegal 3/12/9724/9/98Seychelles4/12/97Sierra Leone29/7/98Slovakia3/12/9725/2/99Slovenia3/12/9727/10/98Solomon Isles4/12/9726/1/99South Africa 3/12/9726/6/98Spain3/12/9719/1/99Sudan4/12/97Suriname4/12/97119Swaziland4/12/9723/12/98Sweden4/12/9730/11/98Switzerland 3/12/9724/3/98Tajikistanacceded12/10/99 (a)Tanzania3/12/97Thailand3/12/9727/11/98Togo4/12/979/3/00Trinidad/Tobago4/12/9727/4/98Tunisia4/12/979/7/99Turkmnistan 3/12/9719/1/98Uganda3/12/9725/2/99UK 3/12/9731/7/98Ukraine24/2/99Uruguay3/12/97Vanuatu4/12/97Venezuela3/12/9714/4/99Yemen 4/12/971/9/98Zambia12/12/97Zimbabwe 3/12/9718/6/98SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURE & COMMITMENTS - JANUARY 1996 TO DECEMBER 2005 COUNTRYMINE ACTION PROGRAMS IN MILLION A$Total in Million A$Mine ClearanceMine AwarenessMine VictimsIntegrated Programs including SurveysCore GrantEquipment/Technical Assistance/Seminars & ConferencesCAMBODIA1.520.872.158.0525.502.8040.89LAOS2.301.730.292.744.800.5112.37THAILAND0.000.000.000.000.490.000.49MOZAMBIQUE8.010.000.070.000.501.189.76ANGOLA0.961.160.580.500.300.003.50AFGHANISTAN1.000.050.000.500.900.002.45SRI LANKA0.000.060.003.350.000.003.41GLOBAL0.000.002.000.281.250.333.86TOTAL13.793.875.0915.4233.744.8276.73AusAID Assistance for Mine Action ProgramsYear/CountryAgencyPurposeA$Source2004-05MozambiqueUNDPAccelerated Demining Program (subject to continued ADP)500,000AMECambodiaCMACOperations3,000,000CLTBCambodiaNGOMine Awareness, Victim Assistance and Technical Assistance200,000CLTBThailandTMAC/NGOIntegrated Mine Action/Core Grant100,000CLTBLaosUXO Lao/NGOIntegrated Mine Action/Core Grant750,000CLTBTotal 2004-054,550,0002003-04MozambiqueUNDPAccelerated Demining Program (subject to continued ADP)500,000AMECambodiaCMACOperations3,000,000CLTBCambodiaNGOMine Awareness, Victim Assistance and Technical Assistance200,000CLTBThailandTMAC/NGOIntegrated Mine Action/Core Grant100,000CLTBLaosUXO Lao/NGOIntegrated Mine Action/Core Grant750,000CLTBTotal 2003-044,550,0002002-2003MozambiqueUNDPAccelerated Demining Program (subject to continued ADP)500,000AMECambodiaCMACOperations3,000,000CLTBCambodiaNGOMine Awareness, Victim Assistance and Technical Assistance200,000CLTBThailandTMAC/NGOIntegrated Mine Action/Core Grant100,000CLTBLaosUXO Lao/NGOIntegrated Mine Action/Core Grant750,000CLTBTotal 2002-034,550,0002001-02MozambiqueUNDPAccelerated Demining Program1,000,000AMECambodiaCMACOperations3,000,000CLTBThailandTMAC/NGOIntegrated Mine Action/Core Grant100,000CLTBLaosUXO Lao/NGOIntegrated Mine Action/Core Grant750,000CLTBSri LankaUNDPIntegrated Mine Action500,000SASTotal 2001-025,350,0002000-01MozambiqueUNDPAccelerated Demining Program1,000,000AMECambodiaCMACOperations2,500,000CLTBThailandTMAC/NGOIntegrated Mine Action/Core Grant50,000CLTBLaosUXO Lao/NGOIntegrated Mine Action/Core Grant750,000CLTBSri LankaUNDPIntegrated Mine Action500,000SASLaos*AUSTCAREUXO Lao National Roving Team800,000HESLaos*UNICEF AustraliaUXO Protection Project355,870HESLaos*World Vision AustraliaIntegrated UXO Clearance Program658,760HESCambodia*NCCAIntegrated Humanitarian Mine Action Project154,800HESCambodia*World Vision AustraliaBanan Humanitarian Mine Action Project419,281HESGlobalUNMASMine Clearance Coordination250,000HESCambodiaAUSTCAREDestroy-A-Minefield700,000HESCambodia*World Vision AustraliaMines Awareness Action Team206,682CLTBCambodia*CMACCivilian Advisers318,755CLTBTotal 2000-018,664,1481999-2000MozambiqueUNDPAccelerated Demining Program1,000,000AMECambodiaCMACOperations460,000CLTBCambodiaCMACOperations1,540,000CLTBThailandTMAC/NGOIntegrated Mine Action/Core Grant44,000CLTBLaosUXO Lao/NGOIntegrated Mine Action/Core Grant750,000CLTBCambodiaNGOIntegrated Mine Action1,500,000HESCambodia*AUSTCAREDestroy-A-Minefield100,000HESGlobalUNMASMine Clearance Coordination250,000HESSri LankaNGOIntegrated Mine Action1,000,000HESSri LankaUNDPIntegrated Mine Action1,100,000SASAfghanistanNGOMine Awareness, Victim Assistance and Technical Assistance500,000HESAngolaNGOIntegrated Mine Action500,000HESLaos*AUSTCAREUXO Lao National Roving Team1,000,000HESLaos*World Vision AustraliaIntegrated UXO Clearance Program716,295HESLaosUNICEF AustraliaUXO Awareness for Children270,000HESLaos*UNICEF AustraliaUXO Protection Project353,870HESCambodia*NCCAIntegrated Humanitarian Mine Action Project154,800HESCambodia*CARE AustraliaIntegrated Development & Demining Pilot Project352,687HESCambodia*World Vision AustraliaBanan Humanitarian Mines Action Project397,120HESCambodia*World Vision AustraliaMines Awareness Action Team201,504CLTBCambodia*CMACCivilian Advisers318,772CLTBTotal 1999-200012,509,0481998-99**SomaliaUNDPPurchase of mine detectors109,000HESLaosWorld Vision AustraliaProsthetics & Orthotics Project for UXO Victims261,718HESLaos*AUSTCAREUXO Lao National Roving Team500,000HESGlobalUN plus Govts of PNG,Cambodia and Mozmbiquecontribution to Maputo landmine conference91,000HESCambodiaUNICEF AustraliaCommunity Mine Action218,150HESCambodia*National Council of Churches of AustraliaIntegrated Humanitarian Mine Action Project154,700HESCambodia*CARE AustraliaIntegrated Development & Demining Pilot project377,150HESCambodia*World Vision AustraliaBanan Humanitarian Mines Action Project618,784HESGlobalUNMASMine Clearance Coordination250,000HESCambodiaAUSTCAREDestroy-a-Minefield ($400,000 contribution plus $300,000 admin costs)700,000HESMozambique*UNDP ADPMine detection Equipment/dogs1,100,000AMECambodia*World Vision AustraliaMines Awareness Action Team207,209CLTBMozambique*UNDP ADPMine Detection Equipment80,000AMECambodia*CMAC1 Military and 4 Civilian Advisers922,000CLTBCambodia*World Vision AustraliaIntegrated mine clearance/education550,000HESCambodia*CMACMine awareness and clearance883,000CLTBCambodia*Australia Red CrossRehabilitation Program981,900HESLaos*World Vision AustraliaIntegrated UXO Clearance Program85,924HESLaos*UNICEF AustraliaUXO Awareness for Children270,000HESLaos*UNICEF AustraliaUXO Protection Project352,870HESMozambique*UNDPConsolidation of the Accelerated Demining Program 400,000AMEMozambiqueUNDPAdditional Support for Consolidation of the Accelerated Demining Program 2,500,000AMETotal 1998-9911,613,4051997-98**Cambodia*National Council of Churches of Australia Integrated Mine Clearance/ Education33,750NGOGlobalAUSTCAREMine Action Program280,174NGOSri LankaUNICEFMine Awareness for Children62,000SASSri Lanka UNDPLevel 1 and Level 2 Surveys250,000SASGlobalICRCAssistance to Landmine Victims2,000,000HESAfghanistanUNOCHAMine Clearance - Kandahar500,000HESAfghanistanUNMAPMine Clearance - East Provinces500,000HESAngola*World Vision AustraliaMine Awareness Program574,541HESAngolaAUSTCAREMine Dog Detection Capacity495,400HESCambodia*CMACDefence Adviser240,000CLTBCambodia*CMACMine Awareness and clearance 2,367,000CLTBCambodia*World VisionIntegrated mine clear/ education504,000HESCambodiaAustralia. Red CrossRehabilitation Program997,000HESLaos*UNDP Trust FundUXO clearance/awareness300,000HESLaos*World Vision Integrated UXO Clearance Program329,290HESLaos*UNICEF AustraliaUXO Awareness for Children270,000HESMozambique*UNDPConsolidation of the Accelerated Demining Program 200,000AMETotal 1997-989,903,1551996-97**LaosUNICEF AustraliaUXO Awareness Raising75,000NGOCambodiaWorld Vision AustraliaMine Awareness Training 50,000NGOCambodiaNational Council of Churches of AustraliaMine Clearance/Education15,000NGOAfghanistanAUSTCAREMine Awareness45,000NGOAfghanistanUNOCHAMine Awareness500,000HESCambodia*Australia Red Cross (ARC)Rehabilitation Program500,000HESCambodia*World Vision AustraliaIntegrated mine clearance/ Education Project500,000HESCambodia*Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC) Mine awareness and clearance operations 2,250,000CLTBCambodiaCMAC Mine Detector Support1,000,000HESCambodiaLocal NGOIncome generating for Mine Victims3,354CLTBCambodiaLocal NGOArtificial limbs9,888CLTBCambodiaLocal NGOWheelchair Marathon6,859CLTBLaos*UNDP Trust FundUXO clearance and awareness300,000HESLaosUNDP Trust FundAustralian technical advisers500,000HESMozambiqueAUSTCARELandmine detection program217,950HESMozambiqueHandicap Int'lSupport for the disabled72,000AMEAngola*World Vision AustraliaMine Awareness Program584,224HESAngolaAUSTCAREMine Dog Detection Capacity424,820HESAngolaAUSTCAREProduction of Prosthetic feet325,550HESAustraliaCampaign to ban landminesNational/Regional Colloquium on landmines100,000ISSSManilaICRCRegional Seminar on Landmines20,000HESTotal 1996-977,499,6451995-96**LaosUNICEF AustraliaUXO Awareness Raising100,697NGOAngolaAUSTCAREMine Detection and Clearance37,500NGOAfghanistanUN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance to Afghanistan (UNOCHA)Training and mine clearance operations400,000HESAngolaInternational Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)Assistance to land mine victims and Huambo Orthopedic Centre250,000HESAngolaUN Department of Humanitarian Affairs (UN DHA)Mine awareness and clearance operations through the UN DHA Central Mine Action Office300,000HESCambodia*Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC) Mine awareness and clearance operations3,500,000CLTBCambodiaARCProsthetics for mine victims150,000HESCambodiaARCICRC's prosthetics program500,000HESCambodiaWorld Vision AustraliaFemale mine awareness and clearance teams operated by the Mines Advisory Group500,000HESCambodiaCMAC Mine clearance for bridges project21,545CLTBCambodiaUNICEF AustraliaSchool children's mine awareness program200,000HESLaosNational Rehabilitation CentreLao Prosthetic and Orthotic Program24,362CLTBLaosMines Advisory GroupCommunity Awareness Schools Program37,635CLTBLaosMinistry of Labour and Social WelfareAttendance of Ian Mansfield at International Conference on Mine Clearance Technology, Copenhagen 2 - 4 July 19965,257CLTBLaos*UNDP Trust FundUXO clearance and awareness300,000HESMozambiqueAUSTCAREDog training for mine detection194,632HESMozambiqueUN DHAMine awareness and clearance operations through the UNDP/DHA Accelerated Demining Program 500,000HESGlobalDepartment of Foreign Affairs and TradeAttendance of Sister Pak Poy to the Inhumane Weapons Convention meetings10,610HESGlobalUN DHAUN Voluntary Trust Fund for Mine Awareness and Clearance500,000HESTotal 1995-967,532,238Total 1 January 1995 to date1996 to dateAUD76,721,639* Multi-year commitments.** Commitments only.Notional Cash Flows are in Italics.Indirect costs: In addition to the directional costs above, Austrlaia has provided over $27 million in food aid to Cambodia over the past four years partly as a result of diminished access to agricultural land (due to landmines).Significant food aid has also been provided to Moazambique.Many bilateral projects now require the attachment of demining teams, adding to the cost of development programs.HES Humanitarian & Emergencies SectionAME Africa and Middle East SectionCLTB Cambodia, Laos, Thailand & Burma SectionSAS South Asia SectionNGO NGO SectionISSS International Seminar Support Scheme15657(Question No. 1261)126115657Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 14 March 2000:(1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the Government's intention to use socio-economic data drawn from Census collector districts to determine the distribution of non-government school funding.(2) Is the current method for the distribution of the various components of childcare funding equitable on the basis of socio-economic status.(3) Will the Minister apply the methodology referred to in part (1) to childcare funding.15657Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes, I am aware of the Government's intention to use socio-economic data drawn from the Census collector districts to determine the distribution of non-government school funding. (2) One of the key principals on which childcare funding is based is that it is targeted to low and middle income families. Child care is an essential element in the range of Government assistance available to Australian families with young children. Child care funding allows low and middle income families with young children access to a greater range of options and to help them to balance their work and family responsibilities.Childcare Assistance is a means-tested payment made directly to child care serviceson behalf of low and middle income families and subsidises the child care fee. Services charge families the difference between their fee and the Childcare Assistance a family is eligible for, based on family income and number of children in care. Childcare Rebate is for families using formal or informal (relatives, friends) care for work-related purposes including studying, training and looking for work and provides a rebate of 30% of the family's out of pocket child care expenses. Families with income greater than the Family Tax Initiative cutoffs ($70,000 for one child) receive a rebate of 20%. Further evidence of the Government's commitment to equitably distribute childcare funding can be demonstrated through analysis of data based on the SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage. This data shows that long day care centre openings are evenly spread across advantaged and disadvantaged areas.(3) No, the Government will not be applying the proposed methodology for funding non-government schools to child care funding.15657(Question No. 1263)126315657Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 March 1999:What sum and other assistance has the Australian Government given in relief to the famine afflicted people of North Korea.15658Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Since 1995, Australia has provided $19.5 million in emergency humanitarian assistance including $6 million in 1999/2000.The 1999/2000 contribution reflects a shift from emergency feeding to a broader focus on food security, disaster mitigation and environmental protection issues and includes:- $5 million for food-for-work activities through the World Food Programme (WFP);- $500,000 for health activities through the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC);- $250,000 for vitamins and mineral supplementation through the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), and-$250,000 for a tuberculosis control program through the World Health Organisation (WHO).15658(Question No. 1271)127115658Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 March 2000:(1) Are 80 new staff about to be employed in the fuel excise area of the Australian Taxation Office and based at Cannington, WA.(2) Did the decision to close the Cannington office and move the operation to Northbridge include consideration of the housing of these additional staff.(3) Is space limited at the Northbridge site; if so, what provisions for accommodation have been made.15658Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) An additional 80 staff are to be employed in the fuel excise area of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in Perth. The location of these new staff in the Perth area is yet to be determined.(2) The decision to close the Cannington office when the lease expires in May 2002 and consolidate into the Northbridge building took into account staffing projections for the Perth region, including growth related to Tax Reform.(3) When the existing layouts within the Northbridge building are reconfigured the overall capacity of the building will be significantly increased. In addition, the ATO may acquire additional short term space to provide staging accommodation for the reconfiguration of Northbridge and to meet the short term needs of Tax Reform.